Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stylin_geek
Plastic two-liter soft drink bottles weigh 30 percent less than the old glass bottles. Plastic bags weight 70 percent less than paper.

But glass was sterilized and reused umpteen times. Then somebody got the bright idea to dump the costs on the public and use "disposeable" plastic bottles, which takes years, if ever, to deteriorate. Note that the shift to plastic didn't equal a drop in price.

Same with paper bags - they rotted after a while. They gave jobs to people who logged the scrub pine and the forest was renewable. Now we suck up oil to make these bags, which like the above, never decay. (I still make a point to ask for paper in the stores, especially now that they have handles, which was the only "improvement" I found in plastic.)

The article sounds like a promo for the "use once and throw it away" crowd. That being said, I never could see the sort-your-garbage routine as it was pretty obvious that it was neither environmentally friendly or cost effective and was merely another duck-the-consequences gambit by the corporations.

26 posted on 12/29/2003 10:28:36 AM PST by Oatka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Oatka
I doubt that this article is well-documented even though I agree with him to an extent. There is no way that a liter plasitc bottle is only 30% lighter than a liter glass bottle. I also doubt the stats concerning land fill areas. When even little ole Columbus, Georgia has a vast ex-fill area covered by a new public golf course one must consider that more and more space is indeed required. New dumps are always controversial due to neighbors not wanting trucks passing with garbage blowing out.
60 posted on 12/29/2003 11:48:03 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 (A liter of litter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Oatka
But glass was sterilized and reused umpteen times. Then somebody got the bright idea to dump the costs on the public and use "disposeable" plastic bottles, which takes years, if ever, to deteriorate. Note that the shift to plastic didn't equal a drop in price.

I don't ever recall 2-liter Cokes being sold in glass bottles, either.

65 posted on 12/29/2003 12:00:03 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Oatka

But glass was sterilized and reused umpteen times. Then somebody got the bright idea to dump the costs on the public and use "disposeable" plastic bottles, which takes years, if ever, to deteriorate.

The only reason glass was recycled was because we didn't have the technology to make enough plastic bottles. Now we do, and it's cheaper than hauling all those heavy bottles everywhere. The plastic bottles actually decompose faster than the crude oil they were extracted from.

Even if we run out of fossil petroleum we will still be able to synthesize whatever plastics we need from trees, crops or coal. All it takes is energy -- and we have at least a 4,000 year supply of uranium and thorium.

The most rational way to recycle is to burn trash to reclaim the energy and release the CO2 so that plants can use it.

67 posted on 12/29/2003 12:24:07 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Oatka
Plastic bottles are used because the shipping weight on them is about 1/10 that of the glass bottles.

BTW next time you feel bad about throwing away plastic, remember that it is a refined byproduct of petroleum refinement. I don't know what they did with the chemicals for polyethylene before bottles and bags, but I'm pretty sure that they weren't locked up as safely as they are in the polymer.
86 posted on 12/29/2003 2:16:43 PM PST by American_Centurion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson