Long known, denied and ignored by children and concerned “scientists”
/
A study in Environmental Science and Technology published in January has the goods, entitled “Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Most Cases.” From the abstract:
This article examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impact of plastic products versus their alternatives. We assess 16 applications where plastics are used across five key sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. These sectors account for about 90% of the global plastic volume. Our results show that in 15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. In these applications, plastic products release 10% to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle. . . Furthermore, in some applications, such as food packaging, no suitable alternatives to plastics exist. These results demonstrate that care must be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic use so that we do not inadvertently drive a shift to nonplastic alternatives with higher GHG emissions.
It’s all been pointed out before, for years, and I’ve linked to articles debunking this movement for just as long. Here, by the way, is another issue being ignored by the idiots who want to ban plastic while simultaneously bewailing food waste (looking at you, Greenwich Greens): in third world countries like Mexico, India, and all of Africa, one-half to two-thirds of food grown for consumption rots before reaching market. Lack of refrigeration, and undeveloped transportation infrastructures account for part of that loss, but so, too, is the lack of food packaging, for which, the study notes, no suitable alternatives to plastic exist.
