It's A Fact: Plastics Produce Lower Emissions. So, Get Over It, Antis!

Science is a fascinating thing, because it so often confounds us, challenges our mistaken ideas and forces us to rethink things. We have, sadly, experiencedand extended period of politicized junk science from the likes of Anthony Fauci and the hired guns of the climate cult, but real science is delivering some stunning facts about, for instance, plastics. And, those facts are hugely politically incorrect.

I'm taking about a recent study published in Environmental Science & Technology. It's titled “Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Most Cases” and here is some of the discussion that came from the research (additional paragraphing added for ease of reading, along with emphasis):

Plastics are ubiquitous across the global economy and the subject o frequent debate, from their contribution to marine pollution to recycling. This is because plastics do not break down in the environment, resulting in accumulation in waterways, agricultural soils, rivers, and the ocean over decades.

More recently, that concern has expanded to the impact of plastics on ecosystems, food and water supplies, and human health, amidst emerging evidence that plastics are accumulating not only in our environment but also in our bodies.

Calls to use less plastics have garnered popular appeal in the drive to combat climate change and ocean pollution. On the other hand, global demand for plastics is expected to triple between 2019 and 2060, from 460 to 1321 Mt. (43)

This anticipated growth of plastic production is of real concern, but we need to recognize that production is growing in response to the increasing global demand for enhancing fuel efficiencies from lightweighting and decreasing food spoilage in product packaging.

All of these will play an important role in reducing GHG emissions and helping people live more sustainably around the world, which is often overlooked. We must be mindful not to fix a problem by removing one of the solutions.

This paper examines the climate change impact of plastics versus their alternatives over the full life cycle (cradle to grave). Our analysis is based on the United States in 2020 and includes a sensitivity analysis to illustrate the impact in other regions and show how results change as we move toward a decarbonized world in 2050.

We look closely at examples from the five sectors with the highest plastic consumption─packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables─which represent around 90% of global plastic volume.

This paper shows that in almost all cases switching out plastics for another material increases emissions by between 10% and 90%.

We also select representative applications for which current large-scale, viable alternatives to plastics exist, thus avoiding unproven and infant solutions. Indirect value-chain impacts can be substantial. In both insulation and hybrid-vehicle fuel tanks, the indirect impact far outweighs the direct impact.

In the former, polyurethane insulates better than glass fiber batt and thus reduces heating fuel consumption, while in the latter, plastic tanks reduce vehicle weights and thus improve fuel efficiency. These indirect impacts offset plastics’ generation of more GHG emissions than the nonplastic alternative in the production and disposal phases.

This is not universal, however. The indirect impact in many applications is nonmaterial. For example, the indirect impact of decreased breakage in plastic bottles versus that in aluminum cans or glass bottles is insignificant.

Reducing the environmental impacts of plastics such as grocery bags is not just about choosing, banning, recommending, or prescribing specific materials or bags but also about changing consumer behavior to increase the reuse rate and avoid littering.

Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available nonplastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions.

Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material.

For example, removing the plastic wrappers from fruit and making use of the natural fruit skin for protection makes sense, but switching from plastic drinking straws to paper alternatives does not. Material choices should be grounded in scientific facts rather than influenced by popular beliefs.

We conclude that applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense. This is because plastics’ inherent properties─strong, lightweight, easy to shape, customizable, and comparatively low-GHG emissions─make it the preferred material for minimizing emissions across most products.

If material substitution is not the answer, then what should we do to reduce emissions from plastics?

Our 2050 base- and best-case scenarios suggest that policy actions should focus on promptly delivering the best-case scenario, including decarbonization of energy sources and material efficiency strategies, rather than continuing the current approach, which drives a shift from plastics to other materials.

Greater leverage for reducing emissions is provided by alternative strategies that reduce plastic use by extending the lifetime of products. Doubling the lifetime of a plastic product, by, for example, using the product a second time, can give up halving emissions.

This strategy works regardless of the material used. Ensuring plastics can be reused/recycled and are reused/recycled is another effective strategy. Every time a drinking cup is reused, the emissions are drastically reduced, even when washing the cup, which can be balanced against the reduction in waste management and transport for single-use products.

The question becomes which material allows us to reuse the cup many times (i.e., plastics, ceramic, or metal) and how can we ensure that the cup is reused (i.e., price, avoiding breakage). Policies should focus on reducing demand for single-use products, regardless of the material and avoid singling out plastics. Robust regulations and policies play a crucial role in supporting such initiatives, which are essential for society to attain a truly circular and sustainable state.

This study is offered as a first step toward what must be a larger, urgent dialogue about the role of the plastic life cycle in the GHG emission impact. Future modeling can be expanded to include reusable bioplastics and compostable and biodegradable alternatives which are currently excluded in this study due to small market values and a lack of reliable data about reuse.

Interesting isn't it? This study raises several important questions that need to be addressed if we are to have an honest debate on climate. The knee-jerk anti-plastics position of those with internalized antipathy toward oil and gas (because it’s a blue-collar industry reviled by white-collar elitist culture) deserves major pushback the facts of this study provide a foundation for so doing.

#Plastics #Emissions #Climate #LifeCycle #Science