OPINION:
A United Nations-sponsored coalition met last week in Paris to address the problem of plastic pollution.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for Plastics and the more than 2,000 people who were in attendance enjoyed a few days in France focused on a binding treaty for reducing plastic production. The United States and other major manufacturing countries are not part of the group.
We have no lack of environmentalists, however, who view plastic as a four-letter word and who want to ban or replace all plastic packaging and products with alternative materials. Many of the domestic proposals focus on banning almost every plastic, from bags and straws to condoms. Alternatives are not suggested. And then there are the proposals for replacing plastic with aluminum. Does that sound good to you?
On the replacement idea, the sleek metallic nature of aluminum hides a dirty secret: Aluminum produces more greenhouse gas emissions than plastic, and given the down cycle applications of recycled plastic, the aluminum can doesn’t produce any significant gains in recyclability.
Aluminum is made from mining bauxite ore. It is a polluting and emission-intensive process. Every ton of aluminum mined produces a whopping 16 tons of carbon dioxide, which makes mining for a ton of aluminum worse for the environment than burning 5 tons of oil.
Bauxite mines themselves are destructive to the local environment, polluting natural habitats and often leaking industrial waste. Bauxite mines produce bauxite dust, which poses health risks for people and animals that breathe it in. Bauxite runoff infects nearby waterways, which destroys soil fertility and is harmful to aquatic life.
Transporting aluminum also has a comparatively higher environmental impact. Aluminum is heavier than plastic. Aluminum cans weigh about 50% more than plastic equivalents. This means more fuel is burned every time a can is shipped, driven, or flown from a producer to a distributor. That adds up to increased fossil fuel emissions.
Does aluminum being recyclable really help? Only if it’s disposed of properly. And only about one-third of aluminum packaging in this country ends up being recycled. The rest is simply replaced with new aluminum, leading to another cycle of mining.
In fact, much aluminum is littered. According to a survey by Keep America Beautiful (which sponsored the “Crying Indian” Keep America Beautiful environmental campaign), there are more discarded aluminum cans littering the environment than plastic bottles. Perhaps some future U.N. committee will try to establish a treaty to ban aluminum and other metals from the periodic table of the elements.
The whole debate over bans and which material is better than the other misses the bigger point: If we recycled plastic and aluminum at higher rates, then the litter and pollution problem would go away.
The kind of plastic used in soda, juice and water bottles (plastic No. 1, or PET), as well as aluminum, are highly recyclable materials accepted in nearly every community in the country. We just have to focus on getting these products in the recycling bin.
There are already numerous and exciting new developments on the recycling front. Just last month, researchers in Sydney discovered a new process that could biodegrade even the toughest forms of plastic.
For long-term progress in becoming more sustainable and reducing waste, the delegates to the international conference need to accept that a binding worldwide treaty on pollution is not happening. They will meet again in Kenya later this year for more inevitable foot-dragging.
Why not put more attention on embracing solutions that we know will work if there is better execution? This better approach would consist of (1) improving the rapidly developing recycling science, (2) funding a public-private messaging campaign to drive a supportive and educated recycling culture and (3) improving our recycling infrastructure.
• Richard Berman is president of the public affairs firm RBB Strategies.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.