L.A. airports' plastic water bottle hysteria forgoes facts for feelings

OPINION:

Two Los Angeles-area airports — Los Angeles International Airport and Van Nuys Airport — have just made a big mistake for the sake of “environmental justice.” The airports have banned the sale of plastic water bottles as part of a new sustainability action plan.

The bottle ban comes after a two-year phase-out period and scores of frustrated flyers. To substitute plastic water bottles, travelers are now forced to use containers made from aluminum or glass, or paper-lined cartons — or drink soda from plastic bottles.

And plastic soda bottles, which are thicker than their water-bearing counterparts, are allowed to be sold at the airport, pointing to the first illogical outcome of this litter hand-wringing.

Are aluminum or glass better for the environment? For environmental justice warriors, the figures aren’t promising. According to a study from McKinsey & Co., plastic products are better for the environment than alternatives in 13 out of 14 products tested due to their lesser carbon footprint. And a University of California, Berkeley, article notes that a typical plastic bottle “emits minimal carbon dioxide in production relative to aluminum and glass.”

Glass is no silver bullet. Based on a study from Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy, the production of glass is extremely energy-intensive, making it a subpar substitute for plastic. The study found that if all of the plastic bottles used today were made of glass, the added carbon emissions produced would equal the amount of carbon released by 22 coal-fired power plants.

This would produce enough electricity to power one-third of the United Kingdom. Potential breakage and the greater weight drive higher costs of shipping, providing no clear advantage.

Aluminum is no better. Aluminum is sourced from bauxite strip mines, which rely on a uniquely toxic mining process. With the strip mining of topsoil comes damage to the natural habitat, vegetation, biodiversity and wildlife, not to mention the health risks from inhaling bauxite dust to nearby residents.

And depending on the mine location, there may be river runoff with highly polluted water carrying bauxite sediment, which in turn brings arsenic, mercury, and heavy metals to the sea.

According to the Danish Ministry of Environment, the production of plastic bottles accounts for a lower environmental impact than production of aluminum cans, glass containers, boxes or cartons. Danish researchers report that aluminum cans use exponentially more energy in production. Plastic bottles, meanwhile, emit the fewest greenhouse gases — even fewer than cartons and boxes.

Of course, the litter issues associated with aluminum, glass and plastic are partially mitigated by recycling. But activists typically fail to acknowledge that, based on a study from the Keep America Beautiful Foundation, cans are littered more often than plastic water bottles. Curiously, there is no outrage over beer or soda can trash.

Cartons, which could theoretically replace all other containers, are harder to recycle because they consist of paper with thin plastic or aluminum glued together. Most of them will end up in landfills. So much for that packaging gimmick.

The more you analyze the alternatives, the less attractive they become. Activists are encouraging people to rely on reusable bottles without recognizing that most public waters are not aggressively filtered as bottled water is.

According to recent research by the U.S. Geological Survey, municipal waters in urban areas of Southern and Central California appear more likely to be contaminated by dangerous PFAS (“forever chemicals”) than in many other regions of the country. Add that to the list of inconvenient truths for the LAX airport authority.

The new urban myth is the “single-use” pejorative when discussing plastic water bottles. Yet these bottles, cans, and glass containers are in fact “multi-use.” Hypodermic needles, condoms and plastic food wraps are “single-use” — they don’t get recycled. But the typical liquid containers are equally situated for multi-use after recycling them into new products.

Rather than switching one container for another, all Americans need to understand that we have more work to do when it comes to recycling. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the overall recycling rate is only 32%. Whether the container is plastic, glass or aluminum, that isn’t good enough.

Recycling done well is the best approach to environmental protection. Virtue signaling with selective product bans does nothing except replace one product for another while making the problem worse.

• Rick Berman is president of RBB Strategies.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide