---
title: The Case for Plastic | Plastic Reimagined
description: Explore the lifecycle impact of plastic packaging, showcasing its advantages over alternatives in terms of emissions, weight, and sustainability in the packaging conversation.
image: https://www.plasticreimagined.org/hubfs/plastic-water-bottles%202.png
---
[Skip to content](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic#main-content)
[](https://www.plasticreimagined.org?hsLang=en) [](https://www.plasticreimagined.org?hsLang=en)
- [Home](https://www.plasticreimagined.org)
- [The Case for Plastic](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic)
- [Insights](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/insights)
- [Projects](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/projects)
- [About](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/about)
- [Contact Us](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/contact)
This is a search field with an auto-suggest feature attached.
- There are no suggestions because the search field is empty.
The Case for Plastic · Lifecycle Research
# Why Plastic Belongs in the Sustainability Conversation
The environmental impact of plastic packaging is often discussed in terms of what happens after a package is used. But its full story begins earlier and extends further—from raw materials and production through transportation, use, recovery, and recycling.
[Explore the Insights ↗](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/insights?hsLang=en) [Subscribe for Research ↗](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/contact?hsLang=en)
## Lifecycle research looks at how much material a package requires, the emissions associated with producing and moving it, and what can happen when that material is recovered and used again.
Those comparisons show why sustainability is difficult to judge by material alone.
● Where a package’s impact starts ● Where the conversation usually focuses
1. 
01 Raw Materials
2. 
02 Energy & production
3. 
03 Transportation
4. 
04 Use
5. 
05 Recovery
6. .png?width=36&height=36&name=triangular-arrows-sign-for-recycle%20(1).png)
06 Recycling Back to 01
## These five numbers show why plastic deserves a place alongside other packaging options in the sustainability conversation.
[10/12 single-use comparisons favored plastic over glass](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic#finding-10-of-12) [50% lower greenhouse gas emissions than aluminum](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic#finding-50-percent) [92% less packaging weight than glass](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic#finding-92-percent) [16/19 packaging comparisons favored plastic](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic#finding-16-of-19) [60% lower greenhouse gas emissions for recycled PET](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic#finding-60-percent)
01 / 05 · PLASTIC VS. GLASS
10 of 12
Lower impact for plastic (10) Comparable (2)
## 10 of 12 Single-Use Comparisons Favored Plastic Over Glass
A systematic review of 53 recent lifecycle studies found 12 that directly compared single-use plastic with single-use glass packaging. **Ten reported lower environmental impacts for plastic, while the other two found the materials comparable.**
When the studies looked at reusable glass, results depended heavily on how many times the container was reused and how far it traveled. The larger finding is that replacing plastic with another material does not guarantee a lower environmental impact.
[Read the systematic review of packaging lifecycle studies ↗](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874595/)
## 50% Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Aluminum
A 2023 U.S. lifecycle assessment compared the packaging required to deliver the same 1,000 gallons of carbonated soft drink. **The PET system produced 623 kg of CO2 equivalent, compared with 1,241 kg for aluminum and 2,608 kg for glass.** In this application, PET’s emissions were about 50% lower than aluminum and 76% lower than glass.
**About the study ·** Conducted by Franklin Associates, a division of ERG, and independently peer reviewed. Funded by the National Association for PET Container Resources.
[Read the 2023 beverage-container lifecycle assessment ↗](https://napcor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NAPCOR-Beverage-Container-LCA-Report-2023.pdf)
02 / 05 · EMISSIONS
50%
kg CO2e to deliver 1,000 gallons of soft drink
PET623
Aluminum1,241
Glass2,608
03 / 05 · PACKAGING WEIGHT
92%
kg of packaging to deliver 1,000 gallons of soft drink
PET194 kg
Glass2,402 kg
## 92% Less Packaging Weight Than Glass
The amount of packaging material required can vary dramatically depending on what’s being used. In the same beverage study, **delivering 1,000 gallons of carbonated soft drink required about 194 kg of PET packaging, compared with 2,402 kg of glass packaging.**
That is roughly 92% less packaging weight moving through the system. Lower weight can reduce the amount of material required to package a product while also affecting transportation and other lifecycle impacts.
[See the full Franklin Associates report ↗](https://napcor.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/NAPCOR-Beverage-Container-LCA-Report-2023.pdf)
## 16 of 19 Packaging Comparisons Favored Plastic
A 2025 lifecycle study compared polyethylene packaging with paper, glass, aluminum, and steel alternatives across 19 U.S. packaging comparisons, including bottles, flexible pouches, shrink film, pallet wrap, and heavy-duty sacks.
**Polyethylene had lower global warming potential, water scarcity, and mineral resource use in 16 of the 19 comparisons. It also required fewer fossil resources in 14 of the 19.**
**About the study ·** Conducted by authors from Trayak, ExxonMobil, and Michigan State University’s School of Packaging. ExxonMobil provided financial support, and several authors were ExxonMobil employees.
[Read the 2025 peer-reviewed study on PubMed ↗](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39799087/)
04 / 05 · POLYETHYLENE VS. ALTERNATIVES
16 of 19
Lower GWP, water scarcity & mineral use: 16/19 Fewer fossil resources: 14/19
05 / 05 · RECYCLED PET
60%
Recycled PET production compared with virgin PET
Greenhouse gas emissions −60%
Fossil resource scarcity −85%
## 60% Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Recycled PET
Recycling can positively change plastic’s environmental impact. A 2023 peer-reviewed lifecycle study found that producing useful PET material from used bottles could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% compared with virgin PET. It also reported an 85% reduction in fossil resource scarcity.
Bottle-to-bottle recycling keeps recovered PET in a high-value packaging application and reduces the need for virgin resin.
**About the study ·** The researchers reported no known competing financial interests.
[Read the 2023 PET recycling study on PubMed ↗](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37517501/)
## Keep Up With What the Research Shows
Plastic sustainability continues to evolve. Subscribe for new articles on the research, technologies, policy, and initiatives shaping the conversation.
Email\*
Notification Frequency
Making the case for plastic done right. Recyclable, lightweight, and built for a circular economy. Stay updated on the facts about packaging with news and updates.
#### Quick Links
- [The Case For Plastic](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/the-case-for-plastic)
- [Insights](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/insights)
- [Projects](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/projects)
- [About](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/about)
- [Contact Us](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/contact)
#### Stay updated on plastic sustainability
#### Social Links
© 2026 ALPLA All rights reserved.
- [Privacy Policy](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/privacy-policy)
- [Cookie Policy](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/cookie-policy)
- [Do not sell my personal information](https://www.plasticreimagined.org/do-not-sell-my-personal-information)