A wise man once said:
“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, Basic Books, New York, NY, USA, 2007
The same holds true for materials — there is no perfect material. Would you make a teapot out of chocolate? I hope not.
The best that a wise person can do is to select the option proven to cause the least impact, as long as it is fit for purpose. But how can we know which one is best? Scientists have an answer for that, and it is called “life cycle analysis,” or LCA for short.
Life Cycle Analysis of Plastic Compared to Alternatives
Every action we take has an associated impact, and all materials create an impact, too. Smart people who care know that the best path is to minimise that impact by selecting the alternative that does the least harm. Life cycle analysis is the only proven method for comparing impact. It is accepted worldwide by companies, governments, and NGOs. Not only that, but it has been honed over decades. It is standardised, and the information is drawn from established, credible, and shared databases. Once the LCA is ready, it has to be independently checked to ensure there is no funny business going on.
As shown in the diagram, the LCA methodology is to consider every step in the manufacture, use, and disposal of a product, which could be anything, such as a car, a washing machine, or a coffee cup. By adding up the environmental impact of every stage, we can work out which option has the least impact and pick that one.
So, what do the largest reviews comparing life cycle studies on plastics with those on alternative materials say?
“This review analysed 53 peer-reviewed studies published in the time range 2019–2023, aiming at understanding the state of the art in LCA about the environmental impacts of packaging by focusing on the comparison between plastics and alternative materials. The literature showed that consumer perceptions often differ from LCA findings and revealed that, frequently, conventional plastics are not the least environmentally friendly choice.”
“With regard to the materials comparison, the review led to the conclusion that, despite the common sense, plastic is not the most impacting option. Accordingly, the compared materials do not generally appear to be friendlier than plastics from the environmental perspective.”
D. Dolci et al., How does plastic compare with alternative materials in the packaging sector? A systematic review of LCA studies, Waste Management & Research, pp. 1–19, 2024
The scientists are politely saying that the public believes the opposite of what is actually true and that being against plastics means increasing impact, not the reverse. Note the tremendous weight of their comprehensive study, which reviewed 53 separate LCAs.
Here is another huge review of life cycle studies, where they looked at 16 different applications: shopping bags, wet pet food packaging, soft drink containers, fresh meat packaging, industrial drums, soap containers, milk containers, water cups, municipal sewer pipes, residential water pipes, building insulation, furniture, hybrid fuel tanks, BEV battery enclosures, carpets, and t-shirts.
“We assess 16 applications where plastics are used across five key sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables.
These sectors account for about 90% of the global plastic volume.
Our results show that in 15 of the 16 applications, a plastic product incurs fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives.
In these applications, plastic products release 10% to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle.”
F. Meng et al., Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Most Cases, Environmental Science & Technology, January, 2022
They concluded that in 15 out of 16 cases, the plastic option caused the least impact. That’s 93% of the time that choosing an alternative to plastic makes matters worse.
“These results demonstrate that care must be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic use so that we do not inadvertently drive a shift to nonplastic alternatives with higher GHG emissions. For most plastic products, increasing the efficiency of plastic use, extending the lifetime, boosting recycling rates, and improving waste collection would be more effective for reducing emissions.”
This huge review covering 73 life cycle reports was mentioned at the beginning of the book, but the finding is so important that it bears repeating.
“Several studies have shown many materials used as alternatives to plastic in packaging, such as cotton, glass, metal or bioplastics, to have significantly higher CO2 impact or water usage compared to plastic packaging. On average over current food packaging, replacing plastic packaging with alternatives, would increase the weight of the packaging by 3.6 times, the energy use by 2.2 times, and the carbon dioxide emissions by 2.7 times”
N. Voulvoulis et al., Examining Material Evidence — The Carbon Footprint, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London & Veolia UK, ACC, 2019
There certainly are alternatives to plastic, but they almost always make matters worse, not better. Now, let us look in more detail at some specific, high-profile examples.
PET bottles
To highlight the folly of moving from PET bottles to alternatives, here is a quote from that last review.
“When considering the production and manufacturing of the main alternatives to plastic for a 500ml bottle, other packaging types (fibre, glass, steel and aluminium) emit more greenhouse gases than plastic bottles, with glass bottles being the highest emitter overall. By way of example, if all plastic bottles used globally were made from glass instead, the additional carbon emissions would be equivalent to powering around 22 large coal-fired power plants. This is equivalent to the electricity consumed by a third of the UK.”
But that kind of ludicrous move is what many are advocating for, all because they did not check the facts or because they are so overcome with plastiphobia that they would rather destroy the environment than face facts.
There are multiple LCA studies on drink containers, and they all reach the same conclusion — namely that the PET bottle is the best option and substantially reduces impact compared to glass bottles or metal cans.
“The LCA found that PET plastic bottles, when compared to aluminum cans and glass bottles, are significantly more advantageous for the environment as a beverage delivery system. PET bottles are more sustainable and have a lower impact on several key environmental metrics, including greenhouse gas emissions, expended energy, water consumption, smog, acid rain and eutrophication potential.”
Life Cycle Assessment of Predominant U.S. Beverage Container Systems for Carbonated Soft Drinks and Domestic Still Water, Franklin Associates, 2023
“The life cycle environmental impacts of a carbonated drink have been estimated considering four packaging options: 0.75 l glass bottles, 0.33 l aluminium cans, 0.5 and 2 l PET bottles. It has been found that, under the assumptions made in this study, the drink packaged in 2 l PET bottle has the lowest impacts for most impact categories, including global warming potential. Glass bottle is the least preferred option for most impacts.”
D. Amienyo et al., Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, pp. 77–92, 2013
Still, on the topic of PET bottles, the study highlighted that improved efficiency in using plastic has dramatically reduced the mass of material needed and therefore its impact.
“Technological advances and changes can also alter LCA results, as materials improve over time. Over the past years the gram weight of the 16.9 ounce ‘single serve’ bottled water container has dropped by 32.6%. The average PET bottled water container weighed 18.9 grams in 2000 and by 2008, the average amount of PET resin in each bottle has declined to 12.7 grams.”
During my visit to São Paulo in 2024, Plastipak revealed their latest 500 ml water bottle, which weighed only 8 g, a significant reduction from the previous 9 g bottle. That means a total weight reduction of around 60% since 2000. This is impressive and important, but not something that the public is aware of at present.
The LCA review mentioned earlier noted that only 2% of the public believed plastic to be the lowest GHG option. People opt for materials that not only increase impact but are often not plastic-free anyway. We all know that paper is not waterproof, so the “paper” cups and cartons are lined with plastic. Metal cans are attacked by liquids, so cans are lined with plastic. We are being sold alternatives that simply make no sense on any level, unless, of course, you are the one profiting from the sale.
“According to a recent YouGov poll, only 2% of British people consider plastic, compared to other materials used in packaging, to contribute the least greenhouse gases to the environment from its production, use, and post use. The survey findings prompted a better understanding of the issues amongst the wider public to help them make “informed” decisions. Indeed, as reviewed in this work, in terms of carbon emissions, plastic is often the packaging material that is least damaging to the environment from a whole life cycle perspective, particularly when used in closed loop recycling, and most alternative packaging are actually not plastic free.”
“If all plastic bottles used globally were made from glass instead, the additional carbon emissions would be equivalent to 22 large coal-fired power plants producing enough electricity for a third of the UK.”
N. Voulvoulis et al., Examining Material Evidence – The Carbon Footprint, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London & Veolia UK, ACC, 2019
Here is another life cycle study on drink containers that was just released recently. It agrees with the prior studies finding that the PET bottle is the best choice.
Comparative LCA on 500 mL Beverage Packaging Products, Sphera™ 2023
When confronted by irrefutable evidence that plastic is usually the option that causes least waste, GHG, fossil fuel use, and total impact, some people then claim that LCA is not valid because it is not perfect or does not include every possible impact factor. This line of thought is not born of a genuine desire to do what is right but, instead, represents a desperate attempt to ignore all evidence so that the person can maintain their anti-plastics stance. Some anti-plastics people are cult-like in their obsession, and no amount of evidence or logic can reach them.
Throwing out LCA, the only proven and effective tool, would be irresponsible. What would we do then? Toss a coin to decide what’s greenest? No, LCA works, and it contains all significant factors. In fact, plastic often comes out best in the majority or all factors, so adding a new one would make no difference to the outcome.
Powerful forces are at work to scare us away from the greenest, safe solution, according to virtually every life cycle study and the peer-reviewed science. We are told that PET leaches BPA when there is no BPA in PET and never has been. We are told to be worried about microplastics when, as shown already, they are not actually a problem. Every time you see an attack on PET, it is an attempt to line someone’s pockets, not to protect you.
Shopping bags
One very popular topic is shopping bags. I found 24 LCA studies and shared them with an LCA expert to get his professional opinion.
“From all 24 reports and reviews assessed, the actual LCA analyses on grocery bags overwhelmingly point to plastic (HDPE) as the material with least environmental impact, both at single use level and multi-purpose.”
Neil Shackelton — Founder Medoola
Here are some quotes from a few of those studies.
Clemson University LCA Study
“Our results also show that Paper bags, even with 100% recycle content, have significantly higher average impacts on the environment than either of the reusable bags or single-use plastic retail bags”
R. M. Kimmel, Life Cycle Assessment of Grocery Bags in Common Use in the United States, Clemson University, Environmental Studies 6, 2014
UK LCA Study
“The conventional HDPE bag had the lowest environmental impacts of the lightweight bags in eight of the nine impact categories”
C. Edwards & J. Meyhoff Fry, Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006, Environmental Agency, UK, 2011
Franklin Associates LCA
“This study supports the conclusion that the standard polyethylene grocery hag has significantly lower environmental impacts than a 30% recycled content paper bag and a compostable plastic bag”
Resource & Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Bags, Franklin Associates, 1990
Reason Foundation LCA Study
“Unfortunately, policymakers have been cajoled into passing ordinances that ban plastic bags. That is bad news for consumers. It is also bad news for the environment, since the public has been misled into believing that by restricting the use of plastic bags, the problems for which those bags are allegedly responsible will be dramatically reduced.”
J. Morris & B. Seasholes, How Green is that Grocery Bag Ban? An Assessment of the Environmental and Economic Effects of Grocery Bag Bans and Taxes, Reason Foundation, USA, 2014
“In general, LDPE carrier bags, which are the bags that are always available for purchase in Danish supermarkets, are the carriers providing the overall lowest environmental impacts when not considering reuse. In particular, between the types of available carrier bags, LDPE carrier bags with rigid handle are the most preferable. Effects of littering for this type of bag were considered negligible for Denmark.”
Life Cycle Assessment of grocery carrier bags, Ministry of Environment and Food Denmark, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2018
There are now 30 LCA studies on bags right up to the present, and the results are conclusive. Plastic causes the least impact, and it is not even close. Why then are we taxing and banning the greenest choice? Because people are not checking the facts before they act. That is especially negligent because you can type “LCA bag” into Google and find studies in under one second. Anyone who did not manage that amount of effort is not really trying, are they?
There have been a lot of taxes and bans on bags, even though the evidence shows that is a terrible idea. Interestingly, when scientists checked the effect of plastic bag bans, they found not only a vast increase in greenhouse gas (GHG), as predicted, but ironically, an enormous increase in the sales of plastic. How can that be? The reason is that people often reuse their shopping bag as a bin (trash can) liner. However, when the bags are banned, they are forced to buy bin liner bags, but those are made of much thicker plastic. A study found that in the UK, over 75% of shopping bags were reused at least once, usually as a bin liner.
C. Edwards & J. Meyhoff Fry, Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrier bags: a review of the bags available in 2006, Environment Agency, UK, 2011
Freedonia conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the impact of the New Jersey bag ban, and their findings are quite startling.
New Jersey Retail Bag Market Assessment, Freedonia, December 2023
“As a result, alternative bag sales grew exponentially, and the shift in bag materials has proven profitable for retailers. An in-depth cost analysis evaluating New Jersey grocery retailers reveals a typical store can profit $200,000 per store location from alternative bag sales — for one major retailer this amounts to an estimated $42 million in profit across all its bag sales in NJ.”
Greenwashing may be profitable, but it makes matters worse, meaning a large increase in greenhouse gas emissions and, ironically, in plastic sold. According to the data, the plastics industry should be out lobbying for plastic bag bans because they result in increased plastic sales.
Here is another comment about the measured effects of disposable carryout bag (DCB) policies in California. They found that policies against plastic bags increased materials use and greenhouse gas, as one would have predicted from the many life cycle studies.
“This article is the first to evaluate how regulating the use of plastic and paper carryout bags affects the sale of unregulated disposable bags. Using quasi-random variation in local government policy adoption in California in an event study design, I find that the banning of plastic carryout bags leads to significant increases in the sale of trash bags, and in particular small trash bags. When converted into pounds of plastic, 36% of the plastic reduction from DCB policies is lost due to consumption shifting towards unregulated plastic bags. Moreover, the increase in pounds of paper used from paper carryout bags more than offsets the decrease in pounds of plastic, which has negative implications with respect to the carbon footprint of DCB policies”
R. L. C. Taylor, Bag leakage – The effect of disposable carryout bag regulations on unregulated bag, University of Sydney, School of Economics, 2018
Incredibly, even though all evidence shows PE bags decrease impact and banning them increases it, take a look at this new headline…
“California governor signs law banning all plastic shopping bags at grocery stores”
Associated Press, Published 5:42 PM EDT, Sunday 22nd September, 2024
One wonders if our politicians can read. Such bans eventually get reversed years later when they see the effect, but why do politicians set themselves up to look like fools?
In the UK, you are charged for single-use plastic bags, the ones that cause least impact, but the paper bags that weigh ten times more, create more greenhouse gas, and use more fossil fuel are free. That’s insanity. The sales from plastic bags are supposed to go to “good causes.” As any wise economist will tell you, keeping the money in your own pocket is the wise and just way to make sure that each of us may decide what a good cause is.
Envelopes
All life cycle studies on envelopes found that PE plastic packaging had a far lower impact than paper-based alternatives.
“In summary, the poly flexible mailer, as well as the bubble mailer made from HDPE, came in with the lowest environmental impacts across a range of metrics, including fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, material used, and the amount of material discarded.”
T. Bukowski, M. Dingee, Sustainability Life Cycle and Economic Impacts of Flexible Packaging in E-commerce, PTIS, LLC, 2021
A major factor is weight. Heavier, paper-based opinions require more gasoline and diesel to transport, which leads to more carbon dioxide compared to the lighter plastic options (because burning fossil fuel creates carbon dioxide).
“The main conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis regarding packaging options for shipping mail-order soft goods to residential customers is that the weight of the packaging is the most critical factor influencing the environmental burdens.”
Lifecycle Inventory of Packaging Options for Shipment of Retail Mail-Order Soft Goods, Franklin Associates for Oregon Department of Environmental Quality & US EPA, 2004
With inflatable cushions for packaging, it is the weight of the cardboard box, not those plastic pillows that dominate the impact, so choosing the smallest, lightest viable box is key.
Ironic then that Amazon and Google had press releases to announce that they would move to paper packaging. This is the danger of misleading customer — companies follow their customers’ demands even when the choice is detrimental.
Takeaway containers
A life cycle study compared the impact of three material alternatives for takeaway containers. They found that the polystyrene foam clamshell has the lowest impact. The reusable PP container would have to be reused 3–39 times to break even with the exceptionally low impact of the PS foam.
“The best option among the three is the EPS container with the lowest impacts across the 12 categories. Against the aluminium container, its impacts are 7% – 28 times lower and against the PP, 25% to six times better. The EPS is also the best option when compared to reusable takeaway PP containers, unless these are reused 3-39 times, depending on the impact.”
A. Gallego-Schmid et al., Environmental impacts of takeaway food containers, Journal of Cleaner Production, 211, pp. 417–427, 2019
Another more recent study also concluded that polystyrene foam has a much lower impact than polypropylene or biodegradable (PLA) food containers. The foam has such a remarkably low impact because it uses so little material, being composed mainly of gas. That means less material used, less waste, less energy, and a lower transportation impact.
“In conclusion, single-use plastic containers manufactured from polypropylene have significant environmental impacts. However, biodegradable containers are not the best alternative, as they have more negative impacts compared to other single-use containers such as styrofoam. Styrofoam is also included in the single-use plastic ban. As such, these results conclude that single-use alternatives do not necessarily have the lowest environmental impacts.”
R. Goodrum et al., Life Cycle Assessment of Banned Single-Use Plastic Products and Their Alternatives, Microplastics, 3, pp. 614–633, 2024
The single-use option turned out to have the lowest impact and the material that caused the least impact had been banned without checking the science first. This kind of knee-jerk reaction policy is counterproductive and irresponsible.
Plastic pipes
In 2023, Beyond Plastics released a report claiming that plastic pipes are dangerous and specifically recommending that we use copper pipes instead.
“Lead’s impact on our health has been and continues to be horrific. The issue is so significant that in November 2021, Congress made $15 billion available to municipalities to replace lead service lines — a very positive decision that we applaud. But replace these problematic lead lines with what, exactly? While dealing with the lead problem, will we be unintentionally creating new and different problems? After Congress voted to provide this $15 billion, I inquired if they had considered what piping material should be used to replace the lead pipes. The answer was no. I then asked the EPA if it would offer guidance on what material should be used to replace the lead pipes. Again, the answer was no.”
“Those two answers inspired the publication of this report.”
M. Wilcox, The Perils of PVC Plastic Pipes, Beyond Plastics 2023
Note that they admit to seeing an opportunity to influence where the $15 bn from Congress would go. That, and the fact that they are funded by Michael Bloomberg to attack plastics, should surely raise some suspicions, but their allegations were taken at face value, with no questions from reporters and Congress.
Are they correct in their claims about pipes? What does the science show?
You may recall that earlier we saw plastic pipes are the choice with the least impact, according to a review of life cycle studies. Why then would a so-called environmental group suggest we move to an alternative that increases impact? Let us first look at the LCA data and then at the allegations in their report.
J. Xiong et al., The application of life cycle assessment for the optimization of pipe materials of building water supply and drainage system, Sustainable Cities and Society, 60, 2020
Reviewing the many life cycle studies on pipes, it is very clear that copper and ductile iron pipes have a much greater environmental impact than plastic pipes made of PVC, PE, PEX, or PP.
Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) pipe systems vs copper environmental impact comparison, VITO for TEPPFA, 2012
Do you know what Beyond Plastics said when confronted with the many life cycle studies I provided to the reporter? They told USA Today that I was “cherry-picking.” That is quite incredible because I shared over 10 life cycle studies while they shared zero then accused me of being selective with data. They were so selective that they showed none at all, perhaps because the facts did not agree with their message? Why let facts and genuine concern for the environment get in the way of a profitable anti-plastics campaign, after all?
Getting back to the report, it made these major claims:
- PVC pipes leach vinyl chloride monomer into the water, presenting a danger.
- PVC pipes leach phthalate plasticisers into drinking water, creating toxicity concerns.
- PVC pipes can create benzene when heated in a forest fire.
They cite a Cornell study, but that study specifically states that vinyl chloride in the water of homes never exceeded the EPA limit even after the water sat stagnant in the pipes for years.
“PVC/CPVC pipe reactors in the laboratory and tap samples collected from consumers homes (n = 15) revealed vinyl chloride accumulation in the tens of ng/L range after a few days and hundreds of ng/L after two years. While these levels did not exceed the EPA’s maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 2 mg/L, many readings that simulated stagnation times in homes (overnight) exceeded the MCL-Goal of 0 mg/L.”
R. K. Walter et al., Investigation of factors affecting the accumulation of vinyl chloride in polyvinyl chloride piping used in drinking water distribution systems, Water Research, 45 (8), 2011
That same study cited by Beyond Plastics said that vinyl chloride is formed in copper pipes even with no PVC pipe present by a chemical reaction with the chlorine-based disinfectants used. Why did they “forget” to mention that the copper pipes they endorsed can also lead to the production of vinyl chloride (VC)? Is that honest?
“Results from the controlled laboratory experiments with chlorinated and dechlorinated tap water with CPVC and, especially, copper pipes provided the preliminary evidence that VC may be a DBP.”
Their selective presentation of information strongly suggests that their goal is not to show risks from vinyl chloride but to attack plastics and unjustly glorify copper.
They also cite a study called “Health Effects from Vinyl Chloride Leaching from Pre-1977 PVC Pipe,” which is about pipes produced half a century ago and is not relevant today. The recognition of problems in the past is precisely why they implemented strict regulations that ensure there are no problems now.
R. L. Flournoy, David Monroe, N.-H. Chestnut & V. Kumar, Health Effects from Vinyl Chloride Leaching from Pre-1977 PVC Pipe, American Water Works Association, 1999
So far, Beyond Plastic’s “evidence” has been worthless. Here is another study they cited.
M. Beardsley & C. D. Adams, Modeling and Control of Vinyl Chloride in Drinking Water Distribution Systems, Journal of Environmental Engineering, 129 (9), 2003
That study said that if you have a 50-year-old pipe and a dead end where water stagnates, then you might find higher levels there. Does that present an actual threat to human health, though? No, because those dead ends are where water doesn’t flow, so no one can drink it.
Beyond Plastics’ “evidence” is just one load of nonsense after the next.
What about their claim that phthalates leach from PVC pipes? PVC pipes are made from rigid uPVC, where the “u” stands for unplasticised, which means no phthalates are in the PVC. How can you possibly get something out of a pipe that was never there in the first place?
They do cite a study mentioning phthalates, but the study has no mention of toxic levels. Just detecting traces of a substance does not mean there is a problem. In fact, detectors are so sensitive now that it is possible to “detect” almost anything almost anywhere.
T. Tomboulian et al., Materials used in drinking water distribution systems – contribution to taste-and-odor, Water Science & Technology, 49 (9), pp. 219–226, 2004
Lastly, they make the incredible claim that if there is a wildfire, they will find benzene in the water; then, they speculate that perhaps it came from the PVC pipe. Only they present no evidence to show that it did, and the science provided contained major flaws so basic that it is hard to believe that professional scientists were involved.
Other scientists had no problem working out what had happened regarding benzene detection in wildfires. The fire creates a vacuum in the water lines that pulls in gas from the fire, which is how chemicals get into the water.
“Benzene contamination was present in 29% of service connections to destroyed structures and 2% of service connections to standing homes.”
“The fact that concentrations of benzene were highest in service lines to destroyed homes is consistent with the hypothesis that chemical pyrolysis products were pulled into the service lines due to loss of system pressure.”
How did those chemicals form? What forms when trees burn in a wildfire? An enormous amount of benzene is created! In fact, each kilogram of wood burnt creates 1 gram of benzene.
“Residential wood combustion is a notable source of benzene, toluene, and the xylenes. Hardwood combusted in the wood stove emits over 1 g of benzene/kg of wood burned.”
J. D. MacDonald et al., Fine Particle & Gaseous Emission Rates from Residential Wood Combustion, Environmental Science & Technology, 34 (11), pp. 2080–2091, 2000
Can you believe that it never occurred to the scientists Beyond Plastics cited that the thousands of tons of burning trees in a wildfire might be the source of the benzene they found? Apparently, they were too determined to blame it on plastic. As a scientist, I am profoundly unimpressed.
In 2023, USA Today published the nonsense from Beyond Plastics, and I wrote to the journalist explaining that she had been tricked into publishing misinformation. I showed her the evidence; mortified, she instantly offered to publish a correction, which she did a couple of days later. I thought that the matter was closed.
Then, in 2024, when all of that had died down, I started getting a fresh wave of telephone calls from journalists investigating Beyond Plastics’ already debunked accusations about plastic pipes. A journalist called from The Washington Post, and to her credit, did her due diligence by checking the claims. She asked whether dangerous levels of vinyl chloride could leach from pipes, and I replied that was indeed a problem pre-1977, but now all plastic pipes are regularly tested, according to NSF/ANSI/CAN 61, which measures for vinyl chloride (down to 0.2 parts per billion concentrations), phthalates, and more. Not only that, but the testing people perform surprise inspections at pipe factories and take samples to test. They have never found a problem.
I sent study after study to prove every point I made, and the journalist concluded it comes down to a “case of he said, she said.” I said yes — a group paid to criticise plastics made claims without evidence and a group of respected scientists working unpaid disproved the claims using comprehensive peer-reviewed evidence.
How many times can such groups be allowed to spread nonsense that increases harm to the environment? Journalists really should share a database of discredited sources to save their own reputations and save us from exposure to nonsense.
Perhaps the most worrying part was when I checked the claims that copper is the safer option. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Copper is so toxic that amounts are regulated and tested along with lead by the EPA and other environmental agencies all over the world. The safety limit for its concentration is set at around 1 part per million because of its extreme toxicity.
As the copper pipes are used, they corrode, creating particles and soluble copper salts that are classified as “extremely toxic.” The threat is not theoretical either: toxic concentrations of copper are reported in the real world, including in school drinking fountains. I read over a hundred studies on that, unpaid, and published a report you can find at iscoppersafe.com. Remember, copper is the safe choice endorsed by Beyond Plastics. They don’t disclose all the groups funding them, but something seems very fishy. Perhaps a journalist should ask whether the copper companies or plumbers’ union pays them for their endorsement.
Circularity
The concept of circularity looks so beautiful — I admit it. Just look at the simplicity of this diagram.
But circularity is not the same as being green, i.e. causing minimum impact. Often, chasing the idealistic dream of circularity means more waste, GHG, fossil fuel burnt, cost, and overall harm. The reasons become clearer when we replace the ideal image that we are always shown with the real diagram that demonstrates all the energy needed to drive the circle and the additional waste streams created.
Redrawn after an original image from Paul Martin of Spitfire Research
It has been pointed out that the circularity concept is largely about morphing a materials problem into an energy problem. Perhaps, one day, we will have unlimited free, green energy; at which point, circularity will become viable, but until then, we need to do the calculations to see whether the circular approach really reduces the overall impact in each case.
“…the circular economy risks turning into a hypothetico-normative (but self- serving) utopia that derails actual and well-intended efforts to reorganize production, consumption, and more generally material flows in ways that are more respectful of planetary boundaries and that work in favor of sustainability.”
H. Corvellec et al., Critiques of the circular economy, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26 (2), pp. 421–432, 2021
“Every loop around the circle creates dissipation and entropy, attributed to losses in quantity (physical material losses, by-products) and quality (mixing, downgrading). New materials and energy must be injected into any circular material loop, to overcome these dissipative losses.”
“For the most part, the novel solutions the CE purports to provide in the handling of materials merely shift impacts to the energy domain.”
J. M. Cullen, Circular economy: Theoretical benchmark or perpetual motion machine? Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21 (3), pp. 483–486, 2017
Cullen calculated the circularity index of concrete to be zero, meaning that there is no energy saving from recycling it compared to making new concrete. As concrete makes up most of the materials we use, that means a large portion of material is not worth recycling, i.e. the circularity concept fails to deliver a benefit.
Steel and aluminium have a high positive circularity index, so they are well worth recycling. Paper and plastic both have a low positive index, so there is a benefit to recycling them, although far less so. Later, in the book, there is a table showing that expensive materials tend to be worse for the environment and cheaper ones are less harmful. This is why it does not make sense to move from paper and plastic to metal or glass — it increases cost and impact even though those materials are more attractive to recycle from a cost and energy perspective.
When I worked for Electrolux/Frigidaire, a sustainability manager told the Board that we should move from plastic washing machine tubs (the part inside that holds the water) to steel ones, because at the end of life, the steel one has more value. We now understand why he was wrong and had to backtrack on his policy suggestion.
Do you want to chase a dream or make the real world a better place?
Look at the man walking around in circles — he completes the circle, but it costs energy, he needs to eat, and it creates waste (toilet breaks). Circles have costs.
Circular economy practices, defined as the ten Rs (Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose, Recycle, Recover) often make sense, but in each case, we need to double-check the facts to be sure.
Single-Use
There is so much focus on single-use and how it is so bad for the environment. Therefore, we should look at that in more detail and see what the facts are.
This study found that reuse is not the panacea we have been led to believe it is. There are trade-offs because reusables need to be more durable, requiring more material and more impact to create. So, they increase impact unless they really are reused enough times.
“Substituting single-use plastic for other single-use materials does not represent a solution in most cases. LCAs of single-use packaging tend to show plastics having the lowest impacts, mainly as a result of plastics’ low weight relative to other materials. Substitutions with cardboard, glass, steel or aluminium tend to show higher impacts, or at best, a trade-off between different impacts.”
Single-use supermarket food packaging and its alternatives: Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments, UNEP, 2022
What can LCA tell us about single-use cutlery on airlines? It would be natural to assume that reusables must be a better alternative, and I see people post about just that.
“The paper reveals that the lighter single-use packaging and tableware for airline catering are less harmful under a life cycle perspective…”
“In cases where transport is the dominant stage, as in aviation, it can be observed that much lighter single-use items generate less greenhouse gases throughout their complete life cycle.”
G. Blanca-Alcubilla et al., Is the reusable tableware the best option? Analysis of the aviation catering sector with a Life Cycle Approach, Science of The Total Environment, 708 (15), 2020
Are you surprised by the result? The reason is that any increase in weight on an aircraft means more fuel burnt and so more carbon dioxide created by the combustion of the fuel. This example highlights why going with our “gut” or intuition can lead to poor choices.
When it comes to reuse, I have observed a common misconception. Namely, people are keen to ditch single-use plastic items like containers and move over to multi-use metal or glass options. As we have established, reusables are often greener, so there is nothing wrong with the idea of making a shift, but why a shift to metal or glass when both are vastly worse for the environment and more expensive as well? It never occurs to most people that the lower-impact and less expensive option is a reusable plastic container. Either there is a logical breakdown in the minds of these customers, or their true goal is not to avoid single-use products but rather to go buy metal and glass.
I can completely understand the desire to go for metal and glass from an aesthetic perspective, for the touch, for the perception of quality… I too am attracted to such products. However, people should be aware that they are deceiving themselves if they think it will help the environment, and many companies are happy to help deceive you with false green claims to get your money out of your pocket.
After seeing the objections to single-use, upon reflection, I am not so certain that single-use is truly what people are against. Let me explain.
Apples are single use and so are many other items. I can only eat an apple once, and then it is gone, but no one minds that single-use application. This gives us one clue.
What about the huge amounts of zero-use paper called spam? After all, zero use is much worse than single use.
“According to its own 2018 annual report and website, the USPS hauled 77+ billion pieces of junk mail across 1.4 billion miles.”
“…this still means that 95% of direct mail misses its mark — and is duly tossed out. At a tremendous expense to all of us.”
PaperKarma and United States Postal Service
We receive spam in our letterbox and march it right to the bin without even opening it. If single-use is so wasteful and objectionable, then people should be marching in the streets protesting against the environmental atrocity of zero-use paper spam. But they are not, are they? This is another clue that single-use products may not be the actual issue.
When we look at the clues, we conclude that litter is the real issue, not single-use. We do not mind the apple because it is gone once eaten, so no litter is created.
We do not mind the zero-use spam because it goes directly into the bin and is therefore not littered.
It turns out that we are against single-use items only because they are objects so cheap that we can afford to be careless with them and litter them.
Fortunately, we already know the solution for litter — education, deposits, and fines.
Remember, though, that these measures must be applied equally to all materials because imposing deposits and fines only on plastics drives people to paper and other alternatives that lead to more waste, more litter, more impact, and higher cost.
One last thought on straws and single-use. The least impact comes from taking no straw at all. Just say, “No, thanks.” The second-least-impact option is the plastic straw, then reuse it as many times as you can. Remember, no one forces us to throw away that straw. It is only a single-use product if we want it to be. People have reused plastic straws 50 or 100 times, and they can be cleaned in the dishwasher. Best of all, the impact is less and less with every re-use. I have “single-use” plastic cutlery that has been there for years and has been used over a hundred times.
Misled Consumers
My keynote talk is called “The Great Plastics Distraction” because people are so busy obsessing about plastics, which create around 1% of impact, that they are ignoring the 99% of materials that create vastly more impact. We have zero chance of solving a problem by ignoring 99% of it. Other scientists agree.
“The global discourse surrounding plastics has been marked by a profound perceptual schism, also for plastic packaging in the fresh food industry. The public opinion expresses mounting concerns in terms of such plastic packaging solutions. However, in many cases the unique material properties and the well-established methodology of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) actually demonstrate the environmental advantage of plastics for food packaging. This paper delves into the chasm between the two perspectives, leveraging empirical evidence to resolve the divide.”
E. Horsthuis et al., Closing the Perception-Reality Gap for Sustainable Fresh Food Plastic Packaging, Procedia CIRP, 122, pp. 647–652, 2024
Another team of scientists had this to say about the misguided focus on plastics to the exclusion of everything else.
“Antiplastic sentiments have been exploited by politicians and industry, where reducing consumers’ plastic footprints are often confused by the seldom-challenged veil of environmental consumerism, or ‘greenwashing.’ Plastic is integral to much of modern day life, and regularly represents the greener facilitator of society’s consumption.”
T. Stanton et al., It’s the product not the polymer: Rethinking plastic pollution, WIREs Water, 8 (1), 2021
They went on to say:
“Influenced by media and political exploitation of an emotive environmental issue, public concern for the environment is dominated by plastic pollution However, as a scientific community, it is important that the amount of time and funds devoted to addressing this popular concern are not disproportionate to less tangible anthropogenic pressures on our environment such as that of heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Environmental research that does not fairly represent the problem under investigation risks undermining public and political trust in environmental science.”
It is correct for them to say that professional, ethical scientists have a duty to report fairly the threats and solutions rather than take the easy route of demonising plastics to the detriment of the community. Currently, our funds and policies misallocate resources if effective environmental preservation is the goal.
Summary
Life cycle analysis is the only proven method that reliably provides an answer to the question of what causes more impact and what causes less impact. While carbon dioxide (GHG) may be the most important factor for many people, plastics usually reduce not only GHG but also material use, waste creation, fossil fuel consumption, toxic effects, and more. Replacing plastic with alternatives increased GHG in 93% of applications studied. Therefore, choosing the plastic option is usually the wisest choice if the goal is to minimise environmental impact.
The good news is that usually, the alternative with the least impact is also the least expensive because impact and cost both depend on the energy used, transportation, weight, water consumption, and so on. So, rather than worrying about how you can afford to go green, which is what people wonder about now, you can pick the lowest-impact option and save money at the same time. That is what you get for having the wisdom to check the facts before you act. Rather than being guilted into spending more on some new “alternative” product like goose eggs or some other in vogue nonsense, you can make a sound choice based on facts and evidence.
Materials generate a significant fraction of greenhouse gas (~25%), but most of that comes from iron, steel, and concrete use — not plastics.
Zooming out from materials alone to the bigger picture, the best way to reduce total impact is to buy less, use less, and act responsibly through the ten Rs:
Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture,
Repurpose, Recycle, Recover