The environmental cost of plastic packaging is nearly four times better than with other alternative materials.

The environmental cost of plastic packaging is nearly four times better than with other alternative materials.

We are a big printing company in Shenzhen China . We offer all book publications, hardcover book printing, papercover book printing, hardcover notebook, sprial book printing, saddle stiching book printing, booklet printing,packaging box, calendars, all kinds of PVC, product brochures, notes, Children's book, stickers, all kinds of special paper color printing products, game cardand so on.

For more information please visit 

http://www.joyful-printing.com.   ENG only    

http://www.joyful-printing.net 

http://www.joyful-printing.org

email: info@joyful-printing.net

The plastics industry has recently faced regular bombardment of environmental costs related to the production and use of plastic materials. But a new study found that the environmental cost of using plastic packaging was nearly four times better than with other alternative materials.

The latest research by Trucost in the United States, "Plastics and Sustainability: A Measure to Continuously Improve Environmental Benefits, Costs and Opportunities" further expands the company's survey of the United Nations Environment Programme in 2014, using the same research methodology. And the "natural capital accounting" indicator.

Trucost estimates that plastic alternatives such as glass, tin or aluminum will add $139 billion to $53 billion in environmental costs, including marine waste, end-of-life management, transportation, production, materials and recycling costs and impact.

In most cases, the researchers say that the cost per kilogram of alternative materials is lower than the cost per kilogram of plastic. However, these materials require an average of more than four times the weight to achieve the properties of the plastic. For example, a 30 gram plastic beverage bottle would require 141 grams of glass or aluminum.

This new report was commissioned by the American Chemistry Council. Steve Russell, vice president of plastics affairs at the organization, said, "The data about four times is a surprise. This kind of research is quite complicated, but we never doubt that plastic is an efficient material."

Russell said the study is indeed a controversial risk, but it provides a new perspective on the ongoing sustainability discussions in the industry.

In addition, the report suggests a series of steps to cut the overall environmental costs of the entire industry by up to $4.1 billion, including:

Increasing wind energy, solar and hydropower used in plastics production is expected to reduce resource costs by $7.6 billion.

Reducing the use of materials in the food, beverage and ice packaging industries by 30% can reduce the environmental costs of $7.3 billion.

If the fuel efficiency of vehicles transporting plastic and plastic products is increased by 20%, the environmental cost of $10.6 billion can be reduced.

Unlike the average consumer, manufacturers and policy makers must look at the environmental costs of plastic products from a broader perspective and speak with more data.

"Plastic manufacturers have become accustomed to hearing the shortcomings of plastic products. This research has subverted the notion that plastics are harmful to the environment or that other materials should be used. If we want to make the best decisions about the planet and the environment, all factors need to be considered. This is the significance of this research."