3 ms·

We should absolutely push for even higher rates of recycling. High 90s would be fantastic. But even 74% is already much higher than we get with aluminum cans.

We should absolutely push for even higher rates of recycling. High 90s would be fantastic. But even 74% is already much higher than we get with aluminum cans. You say aluminum cans are "100% recyclable", as if they are 100% recycled, but that's a sleight of hand. PET, PP, PE is also "100% recyclable" but the issue here is what actually gets recycled. For aluminum, the actual recycle rates are less than 50% in the US. Aluminum is an interesting example because it is intensely GHG emitting. Because of how energy intensive smelting is, an aluminum can produces five times the GHG of plastic, and more than double paper. If you wanted to choose the worst technology possible (with respect to the climate) to make containers from, aluminum is king.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
It appears to be 82% in UK and over 90% in brazil. But also Aluminium is not toxic and does not disintegrate into microscopic particles that accumulate in your organs. Unlike plastic, it can be recycled perfectly and produce a product as good as the original, so long as people are bothered to drop it into the bin. Most types of plastic are only 'downcycled' -> bottles become carpets, and carpets become garbage. I think CO2 is a red herring when it comes to packaging, most of world GHG emissions are not from packaging production - it's energy, transport, heating, etc. If tomorrow all packaging had zero CO2 emission, we would have made no real difference.
8note 5y ago
You're talking about Canada though, where aluminum is produced through existing hydro power