Footprints?

Bottled water is under attack in part because people make the silly claims that it has an impact on global climate and uses “too much” energy.  Such attacks are arbitrary and do not mesh with reality.

First, even if we could eliminate bottled water altogether, global climate would remain unaffected. After all, if claims about human impacts on climate are correct, even drastic changes in the global economy would make little difference. The most rational strategies would be to manage adverse impacts if any arise and capitalize on any potential good ones (such as increased agricultural productivity). Banning a commodity like bottled water won’t do that; it would simply deny choice.

Consider the fact that if human-induced global warming predictions were correct (big assumption), and all the nations of the world met the ambitious goal of returning the world below 1990 carbon emission levels as outlined in the Kyoto Protocol—we still would have accomplished very little. Danish university professor Bjorn Lomborg pointed out in the British newspaper The Guardian:

“The effect of Kyoto (and even more so Bonn) on the climate will be minuscule. All models agree that the Kyoto Protocol will have surprisingly little impact. One model by a lead author of the 1996 IPCC report shows us how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 will be diminished by the protocol to an increase of 1.9°C. Or to put it more clearly, the temperature that we would have experienced in 2094 we have now postponed to 2100. In essence, the Kyoto Protocol does not negate global warming but merely buys the world six years.”

But even the prospect of saving six years may be overly optimistic.  A letter to the United Nations signed by 100 climate scientists suggests that humans can have little impact on global climate. They note:

“It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.”

Given such realities, the idea that taxing or prohibiting plastic bottles matters in terms of global warming is easily dismissed as completely implausible.

In any case, the fact that a product requires energy to transport is not a good reason to regulate, but it is a clever excuse for those who seek to control economic activity. After all, nearly all products in commerce require energy to transport! The real question is: Do these products meet a consumer desire that is worth the cost? The answer to that question is clearly “yes” because people freely chose to buy bottled water.

But often overlooked in this debate is the fact that plastic bottles are an incredibly energy efficient product. The lightweight quality of plastic bottles means that transport is cheaper than the alternatives of glass and aluminum. Moreover, while plastic bottles might not be recycled at the same rate as aluminum or glass, they require vastly less energy to produce than glass or aluminum bottles, which is why they are less expensive.

These basic points were underscored in studies conducted by the research firm Franklin and Associates in the 1990s. The firm conducted a series of studies on packaging for both industry and government (EPA) sources. These studies involved “life cycle assessment,” a process of assessing a product’s full impact from “cradle to grave.”

A 1993 study focused on beverage containers, measuring their impact from production to disposal. It considered energy and other resources used in manufacturing (raw materials and energy), distributing for sale, collecting for disposal, and final disposal. Products that were recycled were given credits for their portions that are actually fully recycled and used in new products. It assessed each based on the amount of liquid that reached consumers—i.e., it assessed the impact of each product in the delivery of 1,000 gallons of liquid delivered to the market. That way, each product was compared based on its equal contribution to consumers. (See: The Environmental Impact of Soft Drink Delivery Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Washington, D.C.:  National Association for Plastic Container Recovery, 1995 Update.)

The results of this assessment are surprising to anyone who thinks that plastic products are bad for the environment because plastic bottles (polyethylene terephthalate or PET bottles in this case) provided considerable energy savings and high points for their environmental value. Plastic bottles used less energy and other resources than the alternatives. The study found that the plastic bottles were 47 percent more energy efficient than aluminum cans and 63 percent more energy efficient than glass bottles. The plastic containers also had the least environmental impact (air emissions and total waterborne wastes) of all soft drink containers.

These findings are not so surprising given the fact that plastics are so lightweight. According to the American Chemistry Council, plastic containers use approximately 90 percent less material by weight than do similarly sized glass containers. Similarly, plastic containers use about 38 percent less material than steel. Moreover, like many products, plastics producers have continued to find ways to reduce the material used for their containers without sacrificing utility. As a result, a two-liter plastic bottle and a one-gallon milk container each weigh about 33 percent less than the same products did during the 1970s.