Hacker News Reader

Comment by bayindirh | Hacker News Reader

Glass is recycled infinitely more easily and more widely. Pasabahce sells upcycled and recycled products here, and mark them clearly. Also, we have glass collection bins which has different compartments for clear and colored glass. These are periodically emptied.

Even if they are not recycled, a glass jar is used for more than five years in an household, only by replacing the caps in the process. If we don't need the jars, we give them away to people who need them, adding more usable glass to sneakernet of jars.

Glass is finicky in some forms, and expensive to make it durable during production and transport, but rarely, if ever, ends up in a trash bin.

View on HN

It's well-known the total environmental impact is much less for plastic than glass. Just the weight alone should allow you to understand this [0] [1] [2].

Glass is not recyclable widely. It is a contaminant in single-stream recycling because broken glass is a hazard for sorting, and even if you are able to recycle it, the transport costs are extremely high [3].

[0] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230427-glass-or-plastic... [1] https://ecochain.com/case-studies/case-study-packaging-plast... [2] https://earth.org/glass-bottles-environmental-impact/ [3] https://www.wastedive.com/news/when-its-cheaper-to-trash-gla...

I like how you completely ignored the environmental impact of microplastics and PFAS.

I don't think anyone is completely ignoring it. I think it is an extermely complicated equation. Factoring in PFAS and microplastics gets even more difficult. I don't have research in front of me but it would be interesting to look at regions like Japan that have very tight loops on plastics. How many microplastics get out in the wild. The other problem there is the microplastics from tires, huge issue since those could get in the drinking water eventually. Its a difficult problem.

That works in some parts of the world but I still don't believe the total environmental cost is as easy to calculate even in your scenario. The total cradle-to-grave environmental cost of a product has many variables and its not always as clear. Those variables can also have different weightings depending on the user (maybe microplastics is a greater concern that total environmental cost).

In the past, even when accounting for recycling of the glass, plastic bottles for example had a lower environmental impact that glass.

edit: And I enjoy using glass myself, especially for items I am storing longer term but I also try to think about the total environmental cost of the item. I know in the US people often do things that feel good, like buying reusable shopping bags instead of plastic bags given my the store. The problem is the number of times that reusable bags needs to be used to be better for the environment is often many more times than they often get used.

What's the definition of environmental impact you're working with?

I think microplastic pollution is horrible. It's arguably worth putting extra carbon in the atmosphere to avoid plastic pollution. I'm not actually sure.

Up until most recent history the equation has been something about net energy cost or co2 cost. There is indeed a new variable which is microplastics. Something that needs to be researched more. For all we know that ketchup bottle has little to no impact on your health but it’s plastics further upstream in processing or the farm itself.

There's a practical concern there which is really relevant with little ones running around: glass breaks easily. A plastic bottle or cup or whatever vessel can fall from a shelf or counter to the floor and be unharmed and not harm any people. Glass containers, not so much. It's only viable for sensible humans with good coordination, and a lot of fully-grown ones don't even have that!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com