DYK? Bans on PET plastic (look for the #1 on the container) bottles are bad for our environment. Why? Because the total #lifecycle impacts of a PET beverage container are *better* for the environment than glass or aluminum. Check the science: multiple #lifecycleassessments (LCAs)—which looked at the environmental benefits/tradeoffs of PET, glass, & aluminum across all stages from raw material extraction to final disposition—found PET plastic delivers significant environmental savings across several key #environmentalsustainability categories.
Specifically, the peer-reviewed, fact-based, science-driven LCA we commissioned found that, in comparison to a 12 oz. aluminum can, a 16.9 oz. PET plastic water bottle produces 74% FEWER greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, requires 80% LESS energy and 53% LESS water to produce, creates 80% LESS solid waste, and generates 68%-83% FEWER emissions detrimental to air and water quality during production. (Hard to imagine? Just think about the GHG emitted while transporting super lightweight PET plastic vs heavier aluminum or glass.)
And yet, in 2019 the San Francisco Airport banned the sale of plastic water bottles. No doubt they had good intentions, but in reality, that decision has led to damaging environmental consequences. Consider: replacing the daily sale of 9,000 water bottles with aluminum cans = ~1,100 metric tons of additional CO2 equivalent emissions, the same as driving 2.8 million miles in a gas-powered vehicle! And SFO isn't alone. The University of Michigan Health and Natural Products Expo West have all touted plastic bans as if they are somehow always sustainable—an idea that's not just misguided, but incredibly dangerous to our planet. The science just doesn't agree.
Bottom-line: don't ban it, #recycle it. Learn more:
https://lnkd.in/dzKD9cDm #PickPET #RecycleThe1 #plassticban #recycling #sciencefacts #recycledontban
