Paper vs Plastic – a dichotomy?

Paper or plastic? Once upon a time, it was an innocuous question asked by staff at the supermarket checkout regarding your preference of a grocery bag. Today, the once simple question has taken on a different edge, as our understanding of climate change has widened.

Whilst common wisdom systematically holds up paper as the better of the two environmentally, is it really as cut and dry as “paper good, plastic bad”? And is such a binary perspective even relevant for such a complex topic? Plastic has an image problem Plastic was first invented in 1907, but it wasn’t mass produced until after the Second World War. At the time it was lauded as a wonder material. Its main pro being that it is cheap and easy to produce, which is a major reason why it has become such a universally popular packaging material worldwide.

Other benefits of plastic packaging include its versatility, durability and lightweight qualities, making it ideal for transporting goods safely.

In recent years however, a steady flow of media reports has brought to light the negative impact plastic is having on the environment, and public opinion has shifted as a result.

With such a high volume of plastic ending up in the oceans, this is hardly a surprise. One high profile example of this is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch - an “island” between California and Hawaii comprised of pieces of floating plastic brought together by ocean currents. The Patch is now estimated to cover 1.6 million square km, making it slightly larger than Mongolia. To put that in perspective, if it were a sovereign country, it would be the 19th largest in the world, just behind Iran.

And this is just the tip of an iceberg that won’t melt away. More pernicious even than floating plastic landmasses is the problem of microplastics – tiny pieces of plastic which have been found in the deepest oceans and on the highest mountains. This fact alone has led to some scientists claiming that plastic’s ubiquitous presence can be considered as the start of the Anthropocene – a new epoch where every aspect of life on Earth is shaped by human activity. And let’s not forget, all this has happened in less than a century.

Virgin plastic also requires fossil fuels – particularly oil – for its manufacture. In a world attempting to move away from oil extraction and dependency, this puts the material in a difficult position. And while images of dead sea animals with bellies full of plastic are an emotive way of highlighting a very real problem, and a sure sign that something needs to change, they can serve to over-simplify a complex issue and obfuscate a more pertinent and difficult-to-answer question: What needs to change exactly? While we can certainly reduce the amount of plastic we use, we can’t stop using it completely. So where is the line?

The pros of plastic packaging

From the perspective of the packaging sector, the paper vs. plastic debate is especially poignant, and no more so than in food packaging. While plastic has certainly been overused as a material, the negative reports tend to mean we forget the multitude of benefits that plastic provides. Indeed, its use in the food sector has revolutionised the industry.

Plastic protects food products from contamination by moisture, humidity, bacteria and insects, among other things. It also helps reduce food waste by preserving its contents for longer, meaning out of season fruit and vegetables are more readily available all year round. Its light weight makes it easy to transport and allows food to travel greater distances, and in terms of production, it is cheap to make, meaning lower prices for consumers.

What’s more, being wood-based, paper is ultimately a sustainable material, so long as the forests from which it comes are themselves managed sustainably. Indeed, properly managed forests can aid in carbon sequestration, removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it inside the wood.

However, proponents of plastic packaging have begun fighting back against the negative publicity of late with claims that manufacturing paper packaging produces more carbon emissions and requires more energy than manufacturing plastics. While statistics on this vary, it is generally thought to be the case that paper requires three times as much energy to make as plastic. Plus, paper’s heavier weight also means higher vehicle emissions and fuel costs for transportation.

It’s not just the food industry that plastic has revolutionised. It can easily be said that plastic has saved lives. So much medical equipment is made from plastic because it allows for a more sterile, hygienic environment by offering one-time-use products and eliminating the need for sterilisation. Plastic also offers a higher comfort level than the alternative metal options and is hypo allergenic.

What about paper?

The advantages of paper are well-known. Paper is biodegradable and therefore poses much less risk to the environment in that regard. It is also one of the easiest materials to recycle, and consumers are very aware of this. As a result, paper boasts a far better reputation amongst the public, which is why so many companies are cutting plastic and switching to paper.

The way forward

So, if paper isn’t as good as its reputation, and plastic is more sustainable so long as we keep it out of nature, where does this leave us? In a world where plastics are a necessity, paper and cardboard can take over to some degree. Certainly, it would be wise to eliminate unnecessary and excessive packaging of all kinds – whatever it is made of. Nonetheless, the Paper v. Plastic debate itself is something of a moot point because it doesn’t allow much room for nuance. It also fails to consider nascent technologies that could change the game entirely.

A better approach

Perhaps a better approach, on top of cutting down on excessive packaging, would be to invest more heavily in chemical recycling. Unlike mechanical recycling – where used plastics are separated and then physically ground down - its chemical counterpart can break all kinds of plastic down into the oils and chemicals from which they were made. The technology acts like molecular scissors, snipping the long-chain hydrocarbon bonds down into shorter-chain hydrocarbons.

This essentially creates a “good-as-new” product, the same quality as fossil-based hydrocarbons, which are then ready to be used to create born-again virgin-grade plastics, with no limit on the number of times the material can be recycled.

As promising as the technology is, the bad news is that it’s likely to take another decade before it can be scaled up sufficiently to meet demand for a truly circular plastic economy. In recent years, we have seen several large companies, like BASF, ExxonMobil and Total investing in the technology, which is promising.

Nonetheless, developing an infrastructure for a closed-loop circular plastics economy will take time to implement on a global scale. The OECD estimates that, at present, only 9% of plastic waste is recycled globally, with 22% being mismanaged. While it is the case that recyclable plastic is – despite public perception - the most sustainable form of packaging, without concerted action towards innovations in waste reduction, designing better alternatives, improving waste management, and investing in chemical recycling, that perception is unlikely to change any time soon.