Waaaaaahhhhhh! But then, reading on a bit, I was slightly more heartened when Roseland reinforced the idea that consumer decisions really DO make a difference. Most of the waste produced by the big industries comes from the manufacturing and distribution phases of the product cycle. Therefore, we as consumers can make active choices that will reduce the amount of waste produced just by selecting packaging types of our favorite products. This got me thinking of all the soda drinking students on campus (myself included-Diet Coke fiends anonymous), and what type of an impact there may be in choosing a can of soda versus a 16oz. plastic bottle. Neither are preferable, right? Just like the ‘paper or plastic’ question at the grocery store… you have to pick one, even though they’re both terrible options (but not us- we all use our cloth reusable bags, right??). Regardless, I ended up finding an interesting article online, which talks about the environmental impact of soft drink packaging and delivery:
To summarize, NAPCOR (the National Association for Plastic Container Recovery) commissioned a study that compared the environmental impact of three different packaging materials for soft drinks- either aluminum, glass, or polyethylene terephthalate plastic (PET). The study then conducted a “cradle-to-grave” analysis of the energy consumed and wastes produced through the entire life cycle of each type of material. Interestingly (at least to me), they found that the PET containers were the most environmentally efficient of the three container types. Definitely not what I would have guessed! Specifically, the study produced four conclusions:
1) When comparing the energy efficiency of like-sized PET (16-
ounce), glass (16-ounce) and aluminum (12-ounce) soft drinkcontainers, PET and aluminum containers are 32 percent more
efficient than glass in delivering 1,000 gallons of soft drink to the
consumer. 16-ounce PET bottles are equivalent to aluminum
cans in terms of energy efficiency. Because of their superior
packaging-to-product ratio, however, two-liter and three-liter
PET bottles are 47 percent more energy efficient that 12-ounce
aluminum cans and 63 percent more energy efficient than 16-
ounce glass bottles (NAPCOR, 1995).
2) PET containers have the least environmental impact of all soft
drink container systems in terms of the total weight of both total
air emissions and total waterborne wastes (NAPCOR, 1995).
3) 16-ounce PET bottles contribute 68 percent less solid waste
than 16-ounce glass by weight and are statistically equivalent to
glass by volume. 16-ounce PET bottles contain 18 percent less
solid waste by weight, when compared to the 12-ounce
aluminum can (NAPCOR, 1995).
4) Custom PET containers for liquor, fruit juices, and salad
dressing consistently consume less energy and generate fewer
solid, atmospheric and waterborne wastes than like-size glass
containers (NAPCOR, 1995).
These were all very interesting to me, as I had always kind of perceived plastic as the be-all, end-all evil of packaging options. Yet, realizing that just my simple decision to purchase an 8oz can or a 16oz bottle of Diet Coke can add up over time, I am more apt to change my purchasing behavior in the future. Knowledge is definitely power when it comes to sustainability, and I thought this article provided pretty interesting drink for thought. (…so sorry for that!)
The study you reference is really just a numbers game though: "47 percent more", "18 percent less". These are just numbers comparing one not-so-great solution to the next. The fact is that neither of them is ideal. Then you have the fact that most soda contains high fructose corn syrup the production of which ultimately contributes to skewed priorities in corn production and farming.
ReplyDeletePicking the option of delivery (for something that is not a necessity) that has the least impact is not being sustainable. It's just being less unsustainable.
The flaw I see in this study is that it assumes that people will only change their consumption patterns as long as it doesn't really interfere with their overall consumption. This type of thinking is, in itself, unsustainable.
Very good points. I guess I was looking at it from more of a "baby-steps" kind of perspective for the majority of people who, let's face it, will always drink soda. So is it not at least somewhat worthwhile to make a very unnecessary (but unchanging) consumption habit a bit more palatable for the environment? Although, I definitely understand your last point... maybe it's not, since this isn't really making a true impact on consumption.
ReplyDeleteHere's the issue I see with this study: the people funding it. From NAPCOR's website: "The National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR) is the trade association for the PET plastic packaging industry. We promote the introduction and use of PET packaging; facilitate its recycling; and communicate the attributes of the PET container as an environmentally sustainable package." It's a trade organization for the plastic industry. How this impacted the design and/or results of the study, I don't know for sure, but just the fact that a study funded by a plastics group shockingly found plastic to be the best material makes these results extremely suspect in my mind. Case in point: the conclusion that bigger plastic bottles are the most environmentally-friendly material due to (essentially) economies of scale...a conclusion which could cause readers to run out and buy HUGE cartons of soda, thus enhancing the plastic industries bottom line. I don't mean to sound mean or go on a soapbox about this, but I just don't trust studies sponsored by trade groups.
ReplyDeleteBeyond that, both you and Scott make good points about soda (and I will admit to a mild Dr. Pepper/Mr. Pibb addiction here). I don't know anything about organic colas, but I wonder if they are any more healthy for you than regular soda, even if they may (or may not) be packaged any better.
Great post to make us all think! I appreciated all the previous comments regarding the article. I also assume the study did not account for the health impacts of drinking out of glass, plastic, or PET. It is not necessarily a good thing for your body to drink/eat out of a lot of plastic even if it is BPA free, which soda bottles typically are not.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought, start making your soda at home and avoid the packaging all together:
http://www.sodastreamusa.com/Home-Soda-Makers-C1.aspx
Good discussion here! Beware the studies commissioned by people who have a horse in the race. Studies from glass and aluminum associations have different results. Yes, best way to have major impact is through choices we make about what we will "consume." Since plastic can't actually be consumed by any living creature, best to avoid it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSee: http://www.midwayjourney.com/