h4ufme (Singapore) - - Feature -

How­ever many may ar­gue on how glass takes up both weight and space and may not add up to be­ing ei­ther en­vi­ron­men­tally ef­fi­cient nor cost ef­fi­cient for man­u­fac­tur­ers.

But there are al­ways greener and health­ier al­ter­na­tives out there. For in­stance, com­busted plas­tic can be a clean and po­tent source – it has to take place in a con­trolled set­ting though, un­der the premises that the burn­ing plas­tic doesn't gen­er­ate as haz­ardous emis­sions and toxic re­leases as car­bon based fu­els such as oil or coal. There's also ex­ten­sive re­search in­vested into the de­vel­op­ment of biodegrad­able plas­tics, which de­com­poses into ma­te­rial less dan­ger­ous to the en­vi­ron­ment.

It can be hard to com­pare the en­vi­ron­men­tal im­pact and bal­ance of ei­ther plas­tic or glass or its other al­ter­na­tives. There are a lot of fac­tors that play into the equa­tion. Like where and how the ma­te­ri­als are sourced and prod­ucts, what is the re­cy­cling process, how is it shipped and how far is it shipped. Each choice has an im­pact on the en­vi­ron­ment. Although glass per­forms bet­ter in terms of man­u­fac­tur­ing and re­cy­cling, its long ship­ping dis­tances di­min­ish the per­ceived gap be­tween the life­cy­cle assess­ments of glass and plas­tic.

At the end of the day it's a very per­sonal de­ci­sion be­cause with­out know­ing the de­tails of the ma­te­rial's ori­gin and pro­duc­tion, ship­ping and re­cy­cling pro­cesses it is a near des­per­ate en­deav­our to make an eco­log­i­cally cor­rect choice.

Source: nat­u­ral­cos­met­ic­, eco­nomicde­vel­op­

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Singapore

© PressReader. All rights reserved.