A new analysis suggests that, in some cases, conventional plastics may have a lower environmental footprint than their so-called “green” substitutes — though important trade-offs remain.
Why plastics can sometimes be the lower-impact option
According to a recent report in The Economist, the full lifecycle of many conventional plastics — from manufacture through use to disposal — produces greenhouse-gas emissions amounting to about 3.4% of global annual emissions.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
While that figure is significant, the report argues that replacing plastics with alternative materials (such as glass, metal or bio-based polymers) can sometimes lead to higher emissions overall once all stages are considered.
This unexpected conclusion rests on the energy intensity, weight efficiency and durability of many plastic products, which can outweigh the perceived “greenness” of alternative materials.
Key trade-offs in the plastics vs alternatives debate
One major factor is carbon emissions during production. Conventional plastics benefit from relatively efficient manufacturing processes, and their lightweight nature reduces emissions linked to transport.
In contrast, some bio-based or “green” materials may require more energy to produce or transport.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataAnother consideration is end-of-life impacts. Plastics are often inert in landfill, whereas other materials, such as paper, may decompose anaerobically and emit methane — a potent greenhouse gas.
However, this does not mean plastics are without environmental risks.
The report acknowledges that plastics still pose serious challenges around waste management, microplastic pollution and potential toxicity, especially if recycling systems or waste-collection infrastructure are weak.
Implications for policy and the circular economy
The findings call for more nuance in sustainability policy. Rather than pushing blanket bans on plastics, regulators may need to prioritise improving recycling infrastructure, boosting mechanical recycling rates or extending the useful lifetime of plastic products.
Some circular economy advocates argue that optimising how plastics are used — rather than simply substituting them — could deliver greater emissions savings.
Still, the broader climate risk associated with plastics production cannot be ignored. The global plastics industry is growing fast, and production-related emissions are expected to rise unless there is significant intervention.
While the idea that plastics can sometimes be “greener than they seem” may be surprising, the report underlines a critical point for the packaging sector: environmental decisions must account for lifecycle impacts, not just material origin.
For policymakers, business leaders, and sustainability teams, the challenge lies in balancing climate goals with practical, scalable waste-management solutions.
