Exploring The Cost Of Plastic Alternatives

The environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. A study by Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually. However, the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production but are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purposes as plastics.

The environmental costs of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging are nearly four times less than alternative materials

A study by Trucost found that the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than alternative materials. The study, titled "Plastics and Sustainability: A Valuation of Environmental Benefits, Costs, and Opportunities for Continuous Improvement", compared the environmental costs of using plastics to alternative materials and identified opportunities to help lower the environmental costs of using plastics.

Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually. This is because strong, lightweight plastics help do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the life cycle of plastic products and packaging. For example, a 330ml plastic soft drink bottle contains around 18 grams of material, while a glass bottle can weigh between 190g and 250g. Transporting drinks in the heavier containers requires 40% more energy, producing more polluting carbon dioxide and increasing transport costs by up to five times per bottle.

The study also concluded that the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production but are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purposes as plastics. In addition, the report’s authors recommend steps to help further reduce plastics’ overall environmental costs, such as increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, and developing more efficient plastic packaging.

Previous reports, such as "Valuing Plastics" (2014) by Trucost and "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics" (2016) by the World Economic Forum, have also examined the environmental costs of using plastics.

The environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production

Although it may seem counterintuitive, the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production. This is because plastics are strong and lightweight, so they can do more with less material. This provides environmental benefits throughout the life cycle of plastic products and packaging.

However, this does not mean that plastics are better for the environment overall. A study by Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually. That's nearly four times as much. This is because much larger quantities of alternative materials are needed to fulfil the same purposes as plastics. For example, a 330ml plastic soft drink bottle contains around 18 grams of material, while a glass bottle can weigh between 190g and 250g. Transporting drinks in heavier containers requires 40% more energy, producing more polluting carbon dioxide and increasing transport costs by up to five times per bottle.

The Trucost study also identified opportunities to help lower the environmental costs of using plastics. For example, increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, and developing more efficient plastic packaging.

The environmental costs of alternative materials are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfil the same purposes as plastics

A study by Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with a mix of alternative materials that provide the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually. The study also concluded that the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production but are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed.

The environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. This is because strong, lightweight plastics help do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the life cycle of plastic products and packaging.

The report's authors recommend steps to help further reduce plastics' overall environmental costs, such as by increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, developing even more efficient plastic packaging, and increasing recycling and energy conversion of post-use plastics to help curb pollution.

Transporting drinks in heavier containers requires 40% more energy, producing more polluting carbon dioxide and increasing transport costs by up to five times per bottle

Transporting drinks in glass bottles, which weigh between 190g and 250g, requires 40% more energy than transporting drinks in plastic bottles, which weigh around 18g. This increase in energy use leads to more carbon dioxide emissions, which are a major cause of climate change. The heavier weight of glass bottles also increases transport costs by up to five times per bottle.

While glass bottles may be more environmentally friendly than plastic bottles in some ways, they also have some significant drawbacks. Glass bottles are much heavier than plastic bottles, which means that transporting them requires more energy and produces more carbon dioxide emissions. This increase in emissions contributes to climate change and has negative impacts on the environment.

In addition to the environmental costs, the financial costs of using glass bottles are also higher. The increased weight of glass bottles means that more fuel is needed to transport them, which increases transport costs. These higher transport costs can make glass bottles less affordable for consumers and may also contribute to higher prices for drinks packaged in glass bottles.

Overall, while glass bottles may be a more sustainable alternative to plastic bottles in some ways, they also come with some significant trade-offs. The increased weight of glass bottles leads to higher energy use, more carbon dioxide emissions, and higher transport costs. These costs can have both environmental and financial impacts, and it is important to consider these trade-offs when evaluating the benefits of using glass bottles over plastic bottles.

The environmental costs of using alternative packaging like glass, tin or aluminium instead of plastic would be five times higher

A study by Trucost found that replacing plastics in consumer products and packaging with alternative materials would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually. This is because plastics are strong and lightweight, so they can do more with less material, which provides environmental benefits throughout the life cycle of plastic products and packaging.

The study also concluded that while the environmental costs of alternative materials can be lower per ton of production, they are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfil the same purposes as plastics. For example, a 330ml plastic soft drink bottle contains around 18 grams of material, while a glass bottle can weigh between 190g and 250g. Transporting drinks in the heavier containers requires 40% more energy, producing more polluting carbon dioxide and increasing transport costs by up to five times per bottle.

The report's authors recommend steps to help further reduce plastics' overall environmental costs, such as increasing the use of lower-carbon electricity in plastics production, adopting lower-emission transport modes, and developing more efficient plastic packaging. Previous reports, such as "Valuing Plastics" (2014) by Trucost and "The New Plastics Economy: Rethinking the Future of Plastics" (2016) by the World Economic Forum, have also examined the environmental costs of using plastics.

Frequently asked questions