If we look at the world consumption rates of 2020, single use packaging is at a record high from north to south and this will last for a while, together with the demand of plastic disposable wipes, gloves, masks, etc.
This increase is challenging a lot the collection and recycling systems, which however are demonstrating to be resilient, keeping up.
In such a context the best think we can hope for, is to take the opportunity to keep pushing the development of a circular economy of which of course plastics recycling is the best example. Now more than ever the solution seems not to be the elimination of plastics, but a systems-level approach on a global scale to improve collection and recycling.
Let us remain on the concept of “circular economy”. Reaching a “circular economy” means structuring economies on the virtuous closed loop of make – use – recycle in which every product is designed to be used and then disposed leaving no traces, it means being re-used to generate other products and so on.
All good so far but is this really the full picture? I mean if we recall the primary goal of a circular economy, that is to cut CO2 emissions as main cause of global warming, then the carbon footprint contribution of our activities should be the main driver. Instead, some solutions emerging and defined as 100% recyclable produce actually higher CO2 emissions than what they are replacing and can’t therefore be sustainable for the future.
Looking at the single use packaging sector, plastic packaging is the most attacked material and, as a consequence, we see a shift to other materials that are not automatically more Carbon footprint friendly than plastics. This is often an emotional answer to social media attacks that could be even more harmful from a system point of view. As an example, replacing a PET bottle with a glass one, is not the solution. Glass is defined as 100% recyclable and therefore eco-friendly. A consumer might not realize, however that to produce and recycle that glass bottle a huge quantity of energy will be required (melting process goes to temperatures as high as 1500 °C). On top, logistics costs related to collection, transportation to the recycling site and then all the way back to the market again will have much more negative impact compared with a bottle made of PET.
What if we try to let consumers learn what’s behind a packaging and why plastics in packaging have become so successful worldwide. The current health emergency is showing one of their unparallel advantages offered to consumers: safety. But plastic packaging does offer much more: light weight, a PET bottle is lighter than any other packaging and therefore consumers can practically carry their on-the-go snacks and drinks while commuting to job; moreover it hardly breaks and its logistic is agile and safe all over the world; lastly plastics are highly recyclable (and recycled already) to enter the packaging value chain again or to be used for a number of other applications, not of lower value (textiles as an example).
Coming now to the Carbon Footprint contribution, plastic packaging helps reduce CO2 emissions, especially when it involves recycling. A PET bottle made of 50% r-PET has a lower environmental impact than a tin can or a glass bottle (be it single use and reusable), which is the least environmental unit.
Having said that, there are ways to make a plastic packaging even more sustainable. One way can be choosing additives and colours that add performance and aesthetics while having negligible impact on its recyclability.
Comment
Debunking the myths about packaging artwork management
“Brands need to think ahead to avoid future compliance challenges”
‘One Cap, One Code’ - The value of connected packaging