We Appreciate the Plastics Reality Check — But PET Deserves Its Own Spotlight
At NAPCOR, we believe in facts over fear. That’s why we welcomed The Economist’s recent series (links below), which challenges the dominant narrative around plastics. For once, the focus wasn’t on demonization – it was on trade-offs, data, and context.
Their core point was clear and overdue: plastic, when designed and managed well, isn’t inherently harmful. It’s a versatile material with real environmental and social benefits. But the series didn’t go far enough.
Because here’s the real issue: saying “plastic” is like saying “metal.” It’s not a meaningful category when you’re trying to build better systems. Just as we treat copper, aluminum, and steel differently, we need to treat PET plastic separately from other polymers.
There are seven recyclable categories of plastic, yet most people don’t know, or care, which one they’re using. That misunderstanding has consequences. Lumping plastics together undermines trust, delays policy solutions, and slows progress on sustainability. No material shows that more clearly than PET, identified by the “1” resin code.
Explore the series:
What The Economist Gets Right
The series offered three important correctives:
- Plastic is often the greener option. From its origins replacing ivory to today’s role in packaging, plastic often beats heavier, more energy-intensive or environmentally harmful alternatives. A PET bottle weighs just 5% of its glass counterpart. Paper bags take three times the amount of energy to produce and weigh six times more than plastic ones.
- Plastic enables access and equity. Lightweight, durable packaging ensures safe delivery of food, medicine, and clean water. Especially in regions without refrigeration or reliable infrastructure, plastic is a lifeline.
- The problem isn’t the material – it’s the mismanagement. The Economist rightly points out that pollution is not inevitable. Waste happens when systems fail. With the right policies and infrastructure, plastic’s benefits don’t have to come at an environmental cost.
Why PET Deserves Its Own Spotlight
PET (polyethylene terephthalate) stands apart among plastics. It’s not only environmentally superior to many alternatives; it’s fully recyclable with an established end market. Here’s why that matters:
- It’s the most recycled plastic in the world. US PET bottle recycling hit 33% in 2023, the highest in nearly 30 years. Recycling rates in states like Oregon exceed 70%.
- PET supports closed-loop recycling. Unlike many plastics, PET can be recycled again and again without losing quality. Bottle-to-bottle recycling is real and happening at scale. In 2023, 16.2% of recycled PET (rPET) went back into new bottles, a record high.
- PET beats the alternatives. Life-cycle analyses from McKinsey & Company, the University of Sheffield, Franklin Associates, and others show that PET plastic packaging specifically is better for the environment compared to alternatives such as aluminum and glass.
Why This Distinction Matters
When people hear “plastic is bad,” they assume recycling is broken – even when, like in PET’s case, it works well. That narrative discourages participation, stalls innovation, and slows investment in modern infrastructure.
That’s where we part ways with The Economist. While they suggest expanded use of incineration and landfilling – preferable to unmanaged waste, yes – those approaches shouldn’t be the default. PET recycling already works. With modernized infrastructure, new technology like AI-powered sorting, and well-designed extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies, it can scale even further.
Let’s Ask Better Questions
The real failure isn’t plastic – it’s the question at the center of this debate. We’re asking whether plastic is good or bad when we should be asking: Which materials, used in which systems, deliver the greatest good for people and the planet?
For PET, the answer is clear. So let’s stop debating its potential and start treating it like the high-performance material it already is.