• SSJMarx@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    We should really advance to “glass only” for single use containers (unless you have a really good reason to prefer plastic, like if it’s a medical product) and invest in the infrastructure to recycle them - a country can get up to a 99% recycle rate for glass if it puts the work in.

    Yes glass is potentially less safe but my gut tells me that the risk of more broken glass is offset by the reduced air pollution and associated health risks.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 days ago

      It’s more that it’s heavier, so you have to transport a lot more weight for the same amount of product.

      Secondary to that, glass can’t be shaped as compactly as an aluminum can or plastic bottle, so it takes up more room for the same amount of product.

      There’s no perfect solution, which is why we have a lot of options.

      • SSJMarx@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        20 days ago

        There’s no perfect solution, which is why we have a lot of options.

        But in the category of “single use drinking containers”, all of the options besides glass carry with them more and worse externalities than what glass production and recycling carries. Which is why “having a lot of options” isn’t a positive in this case, it just means that a large part of the market is operating in a way that is more destructive to society than it needs to be.