LAX’s Bogus Bottle Ban

Junk science is based on making people either feel good or feel bad.  Either way, liars, misrepresentations and claims of science are used.  Not to help the community, but to control it.

“To start, the policy is confusing. Supposedly, it is intended to fight plastic pollution. But the airport leadership isn’t really banning plastic at all. If they wanted to get rid of plastic, they would forbid the sale of soda bottles, food wrappers, hand sanitizer bottles, and other plastic items — all of which they are not doing. In fact, they are targeting a class of items (thin plastic water bottles) that are widely accepted for recycling. 

Another reason this policy is bogus is that plastic, despite its reputation, actually isn’t the most environmentally unfriendly material. The alternatives of glass, cartons, or aluminum carry as much environmental harm as plastic — or more.

We need to laugh at government when they lie and try to harm us.  No need to follow regulations based on politics, not science.  Based on control of the population not what is good for us?  The good news is that the Left and Right in America has caught on—government is a paper tiger.

LAX’s Bogus Bottle Ban

By Will Coggin, Essential Products Coalition, Exclusive to the California Political News and Views. 7/29/21 .

From rising crime to drugs and excrement in the street, many people are realizing San Francisco’s style of policymaking that puts “virtue signaling” ahead of the quality of life isn’t worth following. Los Angeles hasn’t gotten the memo.  

LAX and Van Nuys Airport have decided to follow in San Francisco International Airport’s misguided footsteps to ban plastic water bottles from their facilities by 2023. Businesses and vending machines in the airport will be forbidden from selling plastic water bottles, though they will still be allowed to sell plastic, sugar-filled soda bottles. 

For an airport to think bottles are the real environmental problem is laughable. It would be like a coal power plant installing a bike rack for its employees.

It’s another victory for style over substance. This policy will inconvenience travelers, and it won’t do anything to help the planet. 

To start, the policy is confusing. Supposedly, it is intended to fight plastic pollution. But the airport leadership isn’t really banning plastic at all. If they wanted to get rid of plastic, they would forbid the sale of soda bottles, food wrappers, hand sanitizer bottles, and other plastic items — all of which they are not doing. In fact, they are targeting a class of items (thin plastic water bottles) that are widely accepted for recycling. 

Another reason this policy is bogus is that plastic, despite its reputation, actually isn’t the most environmentally unfriendly material. The alternatives of glass, cartons, or aluminum carry as much environmental harm as plastic — or more.

Glass production emits significant amounts of greenhouse gases. Because glass is so heavy, it also uses more fossil fuels in transportation. Researchers from the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London found that replacing every plastic bottle with glass would release as much additional carbon dioxide as 22 large coal-fired power plants. Unbroken glass is recyclable, at least in some cities. But PET plastic can also be recycled and it doesn’t carry the risk of shattering in the jet bridge.  

Aluminum isn’t any better. Aluminum production emits twice as much carbon dioxide as plastic. The carbon is bad, but the sourcing of aluminum is even worse. Aluminum is made of bauxite ore harvested from foreign open-face strip mines. As miners dig for the bauxite, they kick up a thick red dust. The dust is so toxic it can poison the nearby water supply and kill the vegetation in the area, including the crops of small farmers. The people who live near the mine are at an increased risk of lethal diseases including cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. 

Aluminum can be recycled, but just like plastic, it isn’t always placed in the proper bin. The recycling rate for aluminum containers and packaging is 34.9 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The recycling rate for PET plastic, the resin used in clear bottles, is similar at 29.1 percent. Even when aluminum is recycled, it is one of the materials most likely to be improperly sorted at recycling sorting facilities. One in four cans is sent to a landfill, according to the Can Manufacturers Institute

Cartons, which have been popular for boxed water, have recycling difficulties of their own. Nearly 40 percent of Americans live in areas where cartons cannot be recycled. Cartons are difficult to recycle because they are made of glued layers of plastic, paper, and aluminum. A study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found it is better for the environment for cartons to be incinerated rather than recycled. 

No matter how much environmentalists may hate it, travelers still need to eat and drink between flights. Zero waste is not an option. 

The question becomes how can airports do as little damage to the environment as possible while recognizing that absurd goals of zero-waste and carbon neutrality are unrealistic. Banning water bottles is not the answer to that question. In fact, it will make the problem worse. A better solution would be ensuring that every single-use product is recycled to exist in multiple ways. 

Will Coggin is the managing director of the Essential Plastics Coalition.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. I emit CO2. So do airplanes.
    Junk science regulations to prevent nonexistent catastrophes.

    Chicken Little, puh-lease. The sky is NOT falling.

  2. Really??? says

    Do you think it just might be to stimulate food court sales????

    Just a thought.

Speak Your Mind

*