Interesting assessment in the NYT today. Conclusion:
So, is stainless steel really better than plastic?
One stainless steel bottle is obviously much worse than one plastic bottle. Producing that 300-gram stainless steel bottle requires seven times as much fossil fuel, releases 14 times more greenhouse gases, demands the extraction of hundreds of times more metal resources and causes hundreds of times more toxic risk to people and ecosystems than making a 32-gram plastic bottle. If you’re planning to take only one drink in your life, buy plastic. But chances are buying that stainless steel bottle will prevent you from using and then throwing away countless plastic bottles. And think of the harm done to the environment by making more and more plastic — the electricity needed to form polyethylene terephthalate resin into bottles, the fossils fuels burned to produce this electricity, the energy used and emissions released from mining the coal and converting crude oil to fuel, and on and on. What it comes down to is this: if your stainless steel bottle takes the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact categories studied in a life cycle assessment.
The point, these guys argue, is that everything we use has a production past, and tracing that consciously makes for better, greener use of things. Worth pondering.
Anon, and peace,
Chris
Also worth consdering:
What if I'm using a reusable plastic (such as nalgene) water bottle? Is that better than my stainless steel one?
Posted by: Rachel Hallowell | April 19, 2009 at 02:38 PM