this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024
319 points (90.8% liked)

memes

9989 readers
2352 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days ago (2 children)

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 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago

We should also switch away from liquid based detergents. My partner gets liquid dishwasher detergent, and it bugs me a bit because we're paying extra money, and buying extra plastic, just to ship a dilute version of the powder that I'd rather buy.

[–] foo@feddit.uk 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Is the goal to reduce plastic, or is the goal to live as long and sustainably as possible on the only known rock that can support human life?

But I see it as two sides of the same coin. Plastic or glass, we're not getting at the core problem, which is long distance, packaging intensive transportation of goods. Plastic is bad because it becomes trash, and eventually a pollutant. Glass may have less pollution in the product, but more pollution in the distribution.

[–] foo@feddit.uk 1 points 5 days ago

Again, I agree. Rather than blindly reducing energy usage and/or reducing plastic pollution we should be looking towards any solution that works towards holistic sustainable living across the planet.

The only statement that I would debate is: "Glass may have less pollution in the product, but more pollution in the distribution."

The pollution in the distribution is currently carbon based output from fossil fuels, but it doesn't have to be. Also, the glass can be efficiently re-used in some cases. In the UK we used to have milk distributed in glass bottles, delivered by people on electric "milk floats", who collected the empties as they delivered the full ones every day. The bottles didn't get melted down, just washed and refilled. It seems possible to me that we could get that process to almost zero carbon whilst also using zero plastic.

That's one example, but a single holistic solution to both carbon output and low waste is probably not possible. To achieve the global sustainability that we all want will take different and innovative solutions in each use case.

I guess the OP's meme makes sense in some cases and not others, depending on perspective.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I know it's early but not a single comment about microplastics when discussing plastic vs glass? Y'all slacking.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

As we all know, glass bottles are definitely not environmentally ruinous

"Return to tradition" may be tempting to some, but it's not an actual solution.

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.bestiver.se 8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There is no solution that involves billions of people buying things.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

There is no solution that involves billions of people.

The way you've worded that suggested to me that there isn't an actual solution so, for the people who didn't click through, I'll point out that the article concludes: "more sustainable alternatives to plastic bottles exist for all three types of beverage".

That said, in order to compare the environmental impact, there has to be some kind of weighting between the energy cost of manufacture and the direct environmental pollution (discarded plastic choking marine animals; microplastics; etc). I'm not sure it even makes sense to try to combine them. Climate change is an imminent existential threat, whereas microplastics are poisoning us but not obviously killing us.

I also wonder what they assumed for the energy source in the glass manufacture. It is mostly fossil fuels at present, but the industry is moving towards electrification.

[–] Norodix@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago (21 children)

A study comparing the environmental impacts of various single-use beverage containers has concluded that glass bottles have a greater overall impact than plastic bottles

But... but... Glass is not single use. That is the whole point. I don't like this article.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (4 children)

If you have single use bottles, aluminum like soda cans is lowest impact. But any reusable solution (meal, plastic, or glass) is much much better.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is not entirely wrong, but the OP is about garbage and environmental pollution with it. It's a fact that glass is basically just fancy shaped sand and turns back into normal sand with almost zero side effects, if it reaches the environment instead of being recycled.

If one makes glass with renewable energy (green hydrogen, for example) and the shipping is done with renewable energy (e.g. electric trucks), even disposable glass bottles become greener than plastics made from mineral oil can ever be.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Hmm, if we're saying everything is done with green energy, could plastic bottles be carbon negative? Make the plastic from algie or bean feed stock so that it acts as a form of carbon capture.

[–] deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 days ago

Makes sense to me, but there's still the whole microplastics issue... But honestly, at this point, anything we can do to keep fossil fuels in the ground is a win in my book. I'd love to see us go down that path for plastic needs that are both necessary and supremely difficult to replace with other materials (like medical and laboratory applications), and stop using plasitic entirely for everything else.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

if it's recycled, maybe. if it decomposes, no, because the carbon will escape again.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Plastic takes thousands of years to decompose, so wouldn't it act as a carbon sink until then?

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

That is a bit outdated and only true for plastic buried in landfills. In the ocean, for example, the half life is a lot less and Comamonas testosteroni a bacteria commonly found in wastewater can break down plastic to turn it into a food source.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›