For once in my life, I agree with you 100%. "carbon footprint" my ass.
Glass bottles had a lower carbon footprint because you could wash them out and they were as good as new. Plastic in a landfill is plastic in a landfill. Forever.
Glass bottles had a lower carbon footprint because you could wash them out and they were as good as new. Plastic in a landfill is plastic in a landfill. Forever.
Glass in a landfill is glass in a landfill, forever, too. The benefits of recycling requires the actual recycling part. PET, from which soda bottles are made, is recyclable, much lighter than glass, and much easier to re-shape. The used bottles are basically shredded, melted and re-cast.
Except for the experience of drinking an ice-cold Coke from a glass-bottle, PET bottles are pretty much universally a better choice.
Most soft drink bottles still say "non-refillable" on them, even though no refilling services exist, even if you wanted to.
Even more, most people agree that it is "tastier" (just because it keeps cold better I suspect, and I hope it's not because something from the plastic container seeps into it!)
It then chills the bottle. It could do this by pumping refrigerated water into the bottle and then extracting it again.
Finally, it rolls a label onto the outside of the bottle and fills it with a refreshing beverage. Optionally, it could then seal the bottle.
This machine is then installed like a vending machine, but with far greater capacity (it could mix drinks with filtered water on site) and lower cost.
Indeed, but in some (most?) countries plastic is recycled too (or incinerated, there's no reason to put it in a hole in the ground).