(no title)
yayamo | 1 year ago
https://www.ball.com/getattachment/85d9e3af-e3aa-4b93-a687-5...
and if you go to page 121, you can see figure 5-6 "Global Warming Potential [kg CO2 eq.] per gallon of fill volume, cradle-to-grave incl. transports, US, TRACI 2.1" which shows that for non-carbonated beverages the 16.9 oz clear PET bottle has the lowest total lice cycle impact, by a fairly large margin. The paragraph following the figure:
"The 16.9oz PET bottle for non-carbonated water has the lowest impact overall due to its extremely thin-wall design. The second place among non-carbonated drinks packaging is a close match between aluminum cans and beverage cartons, with very similar overall burdens. Glass bottles, by a large margin, come in last. Among options for carbonated drinks, aluminum performs strongest, followed by PET bottles and finally glass. The low mass and high recycled content of aluminum cans enable consistently low impacts of this packaging format. The lightweight nature of the PET bottles make them a highly efficient packaging format, where the majority of climate change impacts are coming from the fossil-based raw materials"
Learned this recently and found it surprising!
kube-system|1 year ago
This is (unsurprisingly!) also in that source:
> Aluminum cans have relatively high MCI scores of ~0.7, which reflects the highest average recycled content (55% of can stock, 3% of end and tab stock) and end of life recycling rate (69%) of all beverage packaging materials.
yayamo|1 year ago