 |
|
11. CONCLUSIONS
1. Plastic packaging
offers advantages such as flexibility and light weight, but it creates
problems including consumption of fossil resources, pollution, and high
energy use in manufacturing; accumulation of wasted plastic in the environment;
migration of polymers and additives into foods; and an abundance of
public misinformation about plastics issues.
2. Curbside collection of discarded plastics is expensive and has limited
benefits in reducing environmental impacts, diverting resources from
waste, or achieving mandated recycling goals. Residential curbside collection
in Berkeley would capture only about 132 tons a year - less than one-half
of one percent of municipal discards.
3. It is likely
that establishing plastics collection would increase consumption by
making plastic appear more ecologically friendly both to consumers and
retailers. By making plastics seem ecologically friendly, collecting
plastics at curbside would legitimize the production and marketing of
packaging made from virgin plastic. But much of this packaging is in
fact unrecyclable, so the effect could be a net increase in the amount
of plastic discarded, collected as garbage at City expense, and sent
to the landfill
4. Increasing the capture rates of aluminum, glass, paper, or yard debris
in Berkeley could divert more resources from landfills than collecting
plastics at curbside, since plastics are a small fraction of the waste
stream’s weight.
5. Existing plastic recycling practices have significant hidden problems,
including the creation of unrecyclable products.
6. The question of whether to recycle plastics or not should be replaced
by the question "How can we best reduce the environmental impact
of packaging?"
7. Strategies that reduce the environmental impact of plastics and lead
to systematic improvements in consumption and disposal practices are
to: