Are the aluminum and plastic container systems more or less damaging than the old glass recyling system?
December 31st, 2009 | 
Author: I remember the old glass milk bottles, and once visited a Pepsi plant where returned bottles were washed. There seem to be many factors: convenience, health, transportation costs, recycling and remanufacturing costs as well as aesthetics. Has this question been studied in all its aspects?
Thanks for the Tufts website Mystique: good charts and diagrams which I like better than text. ‘Seems like recycling is just starting its growth curve even though it’s been around quite a while.
Kelly, it’s hard to believe one mouse could halt a whole delivery system. But you’ve identified some of the important factors at least.
‘Letting this one go to a vote.
Posted in Green Q&A | 
Tags: aesthetics, convenience, delivery system, glass milk bottles, growth curve, health, important factors, mystique, old glass, pepsi, Recycling, remanufacturing, transportation costs, tufts, vote
Again science teacher can only give a part answer. In a way your question has validity, however the glass bottle reuse system killed itself when Coke was sued for a mouse in one of their reused bottles, so the US has gone to melting down glass; ironically melting glass is still 95% more efficient then making glass from virgin material. The same 95% is also true for aluminum. Plastic recycling is a lot more complicated then its inability to be reused for food stuff. Also there is more money trading hands in aluminum and plastic recycling then glass and paper, which are still very cheap (not worth collecting).
Aluminum containers made from recycled aluminum is cheaper than mining the new aluminum. That is a good reason for recycling. Plastic can be recycled but not made into containers that touch food.
http://www.tufts.edu/tuftsrecycles/USstats.htm
http://www.obviously.com/recycle/guides/shortest.html