There is no such thing as ‘Single Use Plastics’, while replacing plastics increases Global Warming

Posted on 02 Jul 2024

The term ‘single use plastics’ is meaningless. It has no definition and is misleading, as those ignorant of the facts will simply conclude that these plastics cannot be reused. The term single use implies that those plastics which wrap our food and pharmaceutical products, along with all those plastic sprays and bottles in our kitchens, bathrooms, garden sheds etc, cannot and are not recyclable and / or reusable. But the facts are 85-90% can be recycled and 100% can be reused.

Recyclable Plastics

If we consider the major plastics which are part of our everyday lives, they are

Plastic                                Recyclability                     End Use

PE/HDPE/LDPE                   100% recyclable             bags, milk bottles, bread bags, packaging films

PET                                       100% recyclable             water, soft drinks, packaging films and rigids

Polypropylene                   100% recyclable             tubs, pots, trays, packaging films and rigids

PVC                                      100% recyclable             non-food thermoformed trays, tubs, blister packs, cling film     

NB: PET can be recycled 20-25 times – PE & Polypropylene 10-15 times.

PVC needs to be recycled separately.

In addition, mixed with virgin plastics, these recycling rates (which are higher than paper/board) can be exceeded.

So, what is the problem?

The UK has 376 local authorities, who, between then, not only have 39 different recycling regimes, but also only a handful (12%) bother to collect plastics separately. However, they all collect plastic bottles, but here again most are negligent in their recycling treatment. Other countries, such as Germany and Denmark collect and recycle over 96% of their plastic bottles using a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS). The UK recycles just 58% of plastic bottles. As the UK uses some 13 billion bottles a year, most of which are collected, that’s 5 billion plastic bottles that are lost to recycling.

The problem is local authorities and / or contractors get paid for paper/board/glass/metal waste for recycling, but plastics are low value and thus, no income. Nevertheless, multi polymer plastics (10-15%) which cannot be recycled (except by chemical recycling) make ideal fuel when incinerated to provide energy from waste (EfW). Plastic has a higher calorific content than coal and acts as a catalyst for other materials when burned to produce energy.

In summary

Clearly all the major domestic plastics can be recycled. However, what is the point in the plastics manufacturers producing and convertor companies supplying, the food and pharma industries with recyclable plastics, if our local authorities then don’t bother to collect them separately, in the same way as paper/board/ glass and metal? This omission is not the fault of the plastics industry or the plastic suppliers and retailers. These organisations between them pay some £600 million in PRNs for waste collection and treatment. That’s more in total than that paid by all the other material suppliers and retailers put together!

Replacing Plastic exacerbates climate change

Climate change is undoubtedly the biggest threat to the future of planet Earth. So why do politicians, brand owners and some supermarkets promote plastic replacement as being somehow environmentally beneficial?

Research Examples -Comparing Plastics GHG Emissions with alternative materials

• 2020 Imperial College Research, concluded:

“On average replacing plastic packaging with alternative materials increases energy use (GHG emissions) by up to 220%. Dependent on the alternative material.”

• 2020 EU Institute of Energy & Environmental Research, concluded:

“If all EU primary packaging was replaced by plastics, the EU would reduce its global warming potential from packaging by 33%.”

• 2022 McKinsey & Co Research, concluded:

“Comparing plastics with alternative materials, including packaging, in 13 out of 14 applications, plastics had the lowest carbon footprint.”

• 2024 University of Sheffield, concluded

“Comparing plastics with alternative materials, including metal and paper, in 15 out of 16 applications, plastic had the lower carbon footprint.”

These world class research establishments, all used life cycle analysis (LCAs) to determine these results, all of which reach the same conclusions. So, why would any reputable organisation replace plastics without producing a life cycle analysis to justify the replacement? The food industry in particular should tell their customers the truth as to why they are replacing plastics with alternative materials that add to climate change? The answer is because they know its good PR (what the public wants!) Instead, many promote plastic replacement as somehow beneficial to the environment.

Some Associated Facts

• The third largest contributor to climate change is food waste. This is estimated worldwide at 1.3 billion tonnes (30%) pa. The use of plastic packaging reduces food waste by 25/30% by extending shelf life (Google). Saving millions of tonnes of CO2 / methane.
• Simply replacing glass food packaging with plastics would reduce UK waste generated by 1.35 million tonnes and save millions of tonnes of CO₂ (Environmental Agency UK Waste figures 2023).
• 200 million trees are cut down every day for paper/board. Each tree releases 1 tonne of CO₂ on felling (Google). Replacing paper/board with plastic reduces this environmental carnage
• There is 3 billion tonnes of untreatable toxic waste (red mud) stored worldwide from aluminium production. It is deadly to animals, humans, flora and fauna (Google).
• Plastics are circa 3% of a barrel of oil. The remaining 97% is ‘single use’ for energy, gas, petrol, diesel, aero fuel etc. The plastic is 100% reusable!

Conclusion

The evidence that there is no such thing as ‘single use’ plastics in normal everyday use is overwhelming. Virtually all the common plastics we use are readily collectable, separable and recyclable. The small volume that cannot be recycled are ideal to produce energy for electricity and heating.

Similarly, the research that concludes that replacing plastics with alternative materials adds to climate change is indisputable. Politicians and others choose to ignore the facts deliberately to take advantage of the ignorance of their constituents and customers. Being anti-plastic may be populist, however, those who investigate the science will recognise that being anti-plastic is usually done for PR and not the environment. This is deceitful and self-serving by those individuals and organisations that deliberately use it to mislead their customers and does nothing at all to solve the problem of plastic pollution due to litter and dumping.

As ever, I welcome your views on any of the items raised and would welcome you to join me on LinkedIn for regular updates.

Barry Twigg | LinkedIn

#DontHatePlastics