• Bytemeister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I think it’s worth pointing out here that there are some major downsides to glass.

    Weight. Glass is heavy, more weight means more energy (and emissions) required to transport it, and a lower product mass to packaging mass ratio.

    Durability. Glass bottles have to be much thicker than plastic bottles to achieve the same strength, which means thicker glass and/or additional packaging is required to get the product to the consumer.

    It would be interesting to see the total life cycle emissions for packaging types, and to figure out how many re-uses (if any) are required for a glass bottle to offset its pollution footprint compared to a disposable vs recycled plastic bottle.

    I can’t really advocate for plastic/aluminum/glass packaging, since I’m not aware of a study the considers the total footprint for each.

    Ideally, we’d purchase our own containers, and then fill our own containers from a local bulk supply. Minimizing the weight and distance traveled while maximizing re-use is key.

    • Funkytom467@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      32 minutes ago

      The ideal solution you propose was often used when we used glass.

      The only reason we could have started throwing our containers is because plastic is so much cheaper.

      To be fair, when we used glass, fewer product were transported long distance.

      Nowadays we can do like Germany who incentives to bring back bottles for recycling.

      Or an even better alternative would be to use glass for individuals and another method for transportation.

      Although i’ve seen some bio stores starting to refill plastic containers, wich isn’t perfect but a nice middle ground to start changing habits.

    • foo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 minutes ago

      I agree with all of your points, but the original picture was showing plastic pollution and you went on to compare it with carbon emissions. So when you use a phrase like “total footprint” it’s difficult to interpret that any other way than we must make one problem worse to solve the other.

      I don’t see why we can’t have solutions that are low/zero carbon AND don’t result in plastic being dumped in the ocean.