Paper vs. Plastic Packaging: Two Sides Responds to The Washington Times

The Washington Times recently featured an opinion piece by an advocate for the plastics industry that included multiple unsubstantiated environmental claims about paper-based packaging. Two Sides North America submitted the following letter to the editors in response.
To the editors:

Why is it that whenever someone wants to extoll the sustainability benefits of plastic packaging products, they feel compelled to claim that plastics have “a lower environmental impact” than paper-based packaging (America succumbs to plastic paranoia, September 26) instead of simply making a fact-based environmental case? Could it be because paper products are the gold standard for circularity and true sustainability?

In this case, the author makes gratuitous claims that plastic packaging “helps the planet” and “saves tens of millions of trees every year,” citing “real scientists” from Sweden and Denmark to back up his claims of plastic’s green superiority. In doing so, he invites comparisons that, of necessity, must also catalog the environmental consequences of plastic packaging, from the extraction of finite resources and energy use to the fate of final products.

To start with, the many different resins used to make plastics are derived from non-renewable fossil fuels, namely natural gas, feedstocks derived from natural gas processing, and feedstocks derived from crude oil refining (U.S. Energy Information Administration). And single-use plastics also are incredibly energy-intensive to produce. In fact, plastic production accounts for more than 3% of total U.S. energy consumption, using roughly the same amount of oil as the global aviation industry, which in turn generates significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (U.S. Department of Energy).

And while Americans toss millions of tons of plastic packaging into their recycling bins, not much of it actually gets recycled. A recycling PR campaign recently launched by the plastics industry says that 6 billion pounds (3 million tons) of plastic get recycled each year, but that’s only about 9% of the total plastic produced annually in the U.S. according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). There are just too many different types of plastic, each with different recycling requirements, so they can’t be combined and recycled together. Building out the infrastructure to effectively collect, sort and recycle them poses extremely difficult logistical and economic challenges – challenges that are not likely to be met any time soon, if ever.

Given the finite resources and large amounts of fossil fuel energy used to produce them along with their low recycling rate, it’s a bit of a stretch to imply that plastics meet the generally accepted definition of circularity: industrial processes and economic activities that are 1) restorative or regenerative by design, 2) enable resources used to maintain their highest value for as long as possible, and 3) aim to eliminate waste through the superior design of materials, products and systems.
more at: https://twosidesna.org/US/paper-vs-plastic-packaging-two-sides-responds-to-the-washington-times/

Related Posts

The Navigator Company and National Geographic Launch Environmentally Friendly Envelope

The Navigator Company and National Geographic have taken an important step towards protecting the environment by replacing the plastic bags used to encase their magazines with sustainable paper envelopes. Around 150,000 plastic bags were used per year but as of this month, this is set to change. For the first time in Portugal, the magazine will reach its subscribers in a more ecological and environmentally-friendly form, made from The Navigator Company paper.

AF&PA Statement on EPA Proposed Rule to Withdraw Federal Water Quality Standards for Washington

“EPA’s proposed rule recognizes Washington’s stringent, but attainable standards to protect human health for all communities, and we will work to see that this dynamic is ultimately maintained,” said Harman. “Washington has a long record of scientifically-based environmental stewardship. The 2016 rule proposed for withdrawal imposed federally-mandated, unachievable standards that provide no measurable human health improvement.” BACKGROUND: AF&PA has long advocated that the Obama Administration’s federal rule wrongfully over-rode Washington’s comprehensive approach to high water quality standards. In February of 2017, AF&PA joined with eight other organization in filing a joint petition with EPA, arguing that the Washington state standards provided a more attainable, yet protective approach to water quality. Click Read More below for additional information.

65 North American Companies Remove “Go Paperless – Go Green” Claims

Two Sides North America, Inc. confirmed that over 65 leading North American companies have removed inaccurate anti-paper claims as a result of the group’s efforts. The list includes several Fortune 100 companies in the financial, telecom and utilities sectors who have engaged in a dialogue with Two Sides and modified their marketing messages to consider the social and environmental benefits of print and paper, as well as the life cycle of sustainable forests and paper products. “The ‘go green and save trees’ claims are misleading and false for many reasons, and they are a form of greenwashing that needs to be corrected,” said Phil Riebel, President of Two Sides North America, Inc. “The claims don’t consider the renewability of paper, or the numerous social, environmental, and economic benefits of well-managed North American forests, which in the U.S. have grown by 58% in wood volume over the past 60 years.” click Read More below for the rest of the story
Back To Top
×Close search
Search