Let’s have a picture of a polluted beach. What is the first material you point your finger at? Plastic. Yet this is not the answer Kim Ragaert would give, Professor at the Centre of Polymer and Material Technologies of Ghent University (Belgium), who during the TEDx conference held at the Vlerick Business School delivered a speech advocating plastic.
Ragaert maintains the employ of such polymer so that it is not banned, but rather taken advantage of, moreover resorting to a comparison with other materials which are hazardous to the environment.
Inferring from an example, the Professor keys on how a plastic film is first of all suitable to extend food preservation and, at the same time, to reduce the quantity of resources that would be needed to manufacture it again if it is were not reused. Hence Packaging offers great opportunities: lower carbon dioxide emission and food waste. Despite that there are those who say “Down with plastic!”.
The expert keeps on supporting her standpoint through a direct comparison with other products which are often deemed to be sustainable, such as paper and glass.
Is plastic better than paper?
According to the figures, as for disposable bags, it comes to light that paper is not a valid alternative to plastic since it requires much more energy, as well as water, soil and trees to be manufactured. In order to justify the production of a single paper bag it should be used no less than four times, from the fifth an energy gain would be achieved. However, we know that using a paper bag, often in contact with moist or wet food, is not always possible. Instead, opting for a plastic bag, the latter can be used for twenty consecutive times regardless of its content!
Is glass better than paper?
Apparently, on the basis of the previous comparison, glass should be more advantageous than plastic package as the number of times it can be used is much higher than a plastic one, but how much does it cost in terms of energy and consumption to wash it for a further exploitation? Even in this case, supporting data show that glass requires much more energy (in addition to water and chemicals). What above makes it disadvantageous compared to the production of a new plastic container.
Is it therefore worthwhile to aim for the ban on plastic materials? As a result of such elimination, argues the Professor, there would be the risk of a consumption increase, because, in order to manufacture items with its same functionality, the energy exploitation and the carbon dioxide emitted would double or triple. Replacing plastic with less sustainable alternatives is not the most effective solution to solve the problem of pollution.
At Temakrom we share what stated by Professor Kim Ragaert: plastic is not the "culprit" behind what is happening in the world. Certainly, it makes the waste more visible, though the main responsibility lies with those who, instead of collecting and recycling it properly, remain still to observe or litter it.
Here is the video of the speech by Kim Ragaert:
We also provide the video in the original language: