Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90% of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace.
Article content
It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products — and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass — can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.
Advertisement 2
Article content
Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home — plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90% of global plastic volume.
Article content
Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90% of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80% higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood — 50% higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool — 80% higher GHG emissions.
Calgary Sun Headline News
Article content
Advertisement 3
Article content
A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10% and 90% lower than the next-best alternatives.
Meng concludes that “across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5% of global emissions.
Advertisement 4
Article content
The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic — a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan — will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.
Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.
Kenneth Green is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.
Article content
