Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Regressionbyhand t1_ivtuf48 wrote

If they used only glass bottles their carbon footprint (the issue for climate change) would be much higher due to the heavy material and transportation costs, and recycling costs. Take your pick

25

Otto_the_Autopilot t1_ivu4k2m wrote

Aluminum is a thing...light, infinitely recyclable, and an existing tech already well used by all these beverage companies.

7

Regressionbyhand t1_ivujp1c wrote

Agree. But plastic pollution has very very little to do with greenhouse gas emissions and actually may contribute to lowering them vs the alternative. All great aims but the two issues are not linked such that pointing it out here makes any sense.

10

R3lay0 t1_ivvdvun wrote

Aluminium recycling is highly energy intensive

5

guyonabeanbag t1_ivu5392 wrote

I pick not plastic

−2

Regressionbyhand t1_ivuatyt wrote

Which is worse for climate change

5

chetanaik t1_ivuwemy wrote

We can switch transportation methods to something more sustainable. We don't have a method yet to deal with endless plastic waste. Microplastics and bioaccumulation along with most of the climate change impacts from plastic production anyways is worse.

Ideally just legislate that any bottled water producers actually recycle as many bottles as they use. Add recycling costs to the products if required, that'll show the true cost. People who need water can always rely on refillable jugs if this cost is justly high.

2

DiggSucksNow t1_ivvpuf3 wrote

Third option: business models that destroy the planet don't deserve to exist.

−4

Sanchopanza1377 t1_ivvzb7p wrote

They forced plastic on us 40 years ago, because paper bags kill trees, and now we are evil for using plastic.

Landfills full of solar panels and toxic waste dumps full of lithium batteries....

The Eco-fascist business model is destroying the planet

0

xylopyrography t1_ivugsgj wrote

Ban bottled water by corporations. If a community wants/needs bottled water, they should bottle it themselves with their own treatment facility.

Consider banning basic flavoured beverages. Just have consumers and businesses buy the powder and add to tap water.

For 1 L and less switch to aluminum (but ban packing plastic)

For 1.25 L and above switch to either vending style with powder or wax carton, or just have consumers buy multiples of 1 L.

Carbon footprint of transportation is already a problem being solved and can be accelerated through carbon pricing.

−8

richraid21 t1_ivum7jk wrote

> If a community wants/needs bottled water, they should bottle it themselves with their own treatment facility.

This is so god damn stupid I can only think you're a troll.

8

xylopyrography t1_ivuu5tw wrote

Well, 99% of communities don't need bottled water. It serves no function.

I've been to communities that bottle their own water. You can do it and sell it profitably for $0.50.

−3

Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv2z8f wrote

You miss the point. People that "need" bottled water are the same people that just want easy access to good drinking water.

So just make the tap water fit those conditions and it would save infinitely more money than every city in the US having a water bottling plant.

3

xylopyrography t1_ivv69vx wrote

No they aren't. That's less than 1% of bottled water usage. Probably less than 0.1%.

I live in Alberta. We have among the strictest water quality standards in the world, far more stringent than bottled water. Yet every grocery store sells palettes of bottled water a week and there are entire service industries created around businesses purchasing bulk water for water coolers that are shipped around on trucks from far away distribution plants.

All of that can be replaced with a metal water bottle and our tap water.

And for the communities without access to clean drinking water, there are dozens of other solutions, of which 0.5 L plastic bottle water containers are among the worst.

3

Regressionbyhand t1_ivuju95 wrote

All great ideas. However I was pointing out that plastic isn’t an issue necessarily when considering greenhouse gas emissions.

0

xylopyrography t1_ivuuhna wrote

I get they're separate issues. I think plastic is much worse considering the trend lines. That is, it's the bigger problem 50-70 years form now on our current path.

We are on the track to solve the carbon problem within 100 years, and can probably start reversing the damage.

But the damage we've done with plastic is continuing and it's going to take hundreds of years to undo it, even if we find a way to do it quickly.

6