A choice in plastics: The message sent by a bottle.
A Slate article accurately reports how the move to plant-based plastics in beverage bottles will not solve the disposal problems of traditional oil-based plastics, but can have positive effects if coupled with increased recycling.
A June 14th article posted on Slate debates the environmental advantage of a move by major beverage producers – Coca-Cola and PepsiCo – to use plant materials instead of fossil fuels to produce plastic drink bottles.
The complexities of plastic production and recycling of three main types – conventional oil-based, plant-based (ethanol) formulations and compostable bioplastics – are well contrasted by the author. In trying to judge their merits, author Amy Westervelt comes to a straightforward, short-term conclusion that could have the greatest environmental impact: work to increase current recycling.
The bottlers tout the advantages of using plant-based, renewable-sourced plastics. However, the plastics made from the ethanol generated from corn stalks and other plant materials are chemically the same as conventional fossil fuel plastics, such as polyethylene terepthalate (PET) and high-density polyethylene (HDPT). These plant plastics do not biodegrade, just as plastics derived from fossil fuels do not biodegrade.
Some critics argue for the use of newer, bio-based, compostable bioplastics, such as polylactic acid (PLA). But, the policy at Coca-Cola and PepsiCo is to make bottles recyclable, not biodegradable. The bottlers argue that it is environmentally and economically better to capture the raw plastic bottle materials and use it again. Further, the plant-based conventional-type plastic bottles – which incorporate a percentage of recycled plastics – have a smaller carbon footprint than petroleum-based bottles. Currently, Coca-Cola bottles are 30 percent plant-based, while PepsiCo bottles are 100 percent derived from switch grass, pine bark and corn husks.
Just because a product is recyclable does not mean it is recycled; plastic bottle recycling rates have been estimated around 24 percent. The author suggests that producers should place more effort in directing the fate of used containers away from landfills by facilitating the collection of used bottles to be re-fed into the production faculties and consumers should take extra effort to get more plastics into the recycling stream.
Environmental choices are often quite difficult with competing costs and benefits intertwined; rarely are decisions uncomplicated by side effects or unintended consequences. The author's comparisons of current environmental plastic production and recycling are worth reading. Her conclusion is sound: part of a solution may be the simpler course – making more effort to recycle.
The above work by Environmental Health News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.environmentalhealthnews.org.
