It’s a bit ridiculous that we’ve built a system to motivate change by distributing money, and that system fails flat when it comes to plastic use.
In a healthy society, avoiding plastic would be both cheaper and more convenient.
Plastic is a literal miracle material, it is one of the most important ingredients to industrial society. Removing plastics is unthinkable, for most of its applications there are literally no alternatives.
There can be an argument that banning avoidable use of plastic would mean more expensive packaging, and unless the government subsidizes it (which it probably does not want to spend money on?) then those costs will be passed to the consumer, so some products may become more expensive. Naturally, some of us could just buy less (and be better off), but 1) some perhaps could not afford it, and 2) general reduction in consumption is supposedly bad for some economy metrics.
A more cynical argument is that there inevitably is a lot of interest from powers that be, invested in oil and plastic, to maintain the status quo and thicker margins.
It seems not that there is no solution, but that there perhaps is not enough motivation to enact one.
Are you kidding? No. Glass bottles aren't a suitable replacement. Plastic bottles are far superior in basically every aspect.
The only way in which plastic is better than glass is thicker margins for manufacturers. In every other way glass is better for me as a consumer.
A few milk brands still reuse their bottles in the US. Here in SF high-end organic milk brands have a $4 deposit for the bottle, which is exchanged or returned at the grocery store.
Have you checked how much energy it takes to produce plastic? You can start with sourcing and refining oil. Economies of scale help it be cheaper, but so they would for glass.
Have you checked recyclability of plastic? It can only be recycled a few times, and it degrades every time becoming unsuitable for use in, say, food packaging much earlier. Glass, on the other hand, has virtually infinite uses, which if factored into the cost brings it down even further.
For transportation, sure. I have made the same argument, if it is more expensive to transport then it will cost more. However, many products are not transported large distances and are made somewhat locally, and even if I only look at products (e.g., drinks) made in the same (pretty small) country still 99% of them are bottled in plastic.
> broken glass is a mess to clean up
You beat me here, (micro/nano) plastic definitely isn’t a mess to clean up.
Yes, and plastic wins: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230427-glass-or-plastic...
Article’s conclusion is that glass “may be equally as detrimental to the environment as plastic”, not “plastic wins”.
Their primary sources are something about regulation-violating mining of silica in India, and a UK paper that seems to claim glass may be more harmful because it takes more energy to produce and recycle (their “environmental impact” includes “potential to deplete fossil fuels”, I suppose they didn’t consider that green energy can be used). Funnily enough, even by such standards the UK paper admits on page 59 that glass bottles would be less harmful than plastic if they were reused (which single-use plastic bottles simply can’t be) in addition to being recycled.
It's a discussion worth having again as renewables rates increases, but it's not a straightforward tradeoff.
As oil becomes less in demand as fuel, we should be aware that manufacturers would do their best effort to promote any other uses of it they can find, including plastic packaging, vinyl records, etc. To not do that would be stupid on their part.