Assuming I recycle either the cans or the bottles, which is best for the environment? Glass is heavier and so must use more carbon during transportation. Aluminium is scarce and difficult to extract (compared to sand). Any idea?
2006-10-09 22:57:20 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
The Danes who are very environmentally conscious recycle for their local market bottles as they require only washing and sterilising and the water to do this can be recycled in addition they pay to recuperate bottles. They only send cans to export markets as the weight for transport is less. So if it is good enough for Carlsberg/Tuborg as an explanation I guess it is good enough for me and hopefully you.
2006-10-10 02:00:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both can be recycled, so it doesn't really matter that aluminium is difficult to extract or that sand is readily available, over time the environmental impact evens out. It is however the transportation of bottles and their weight that impacts on the environment most, it is also a lot more expensive to move bottles than cans, thats why coca cola use pet bottles instead of glass, even though they impact much more on the environment.
2006-10-10 17:18:48 · answer #2 · answered by joechuksy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well there both earth friendly, they both can be melted down and reused as bottles and cans again over and over. After glass has been used so many times they finally send it out to plants who crush it down to really small peices and they mix it into tar to give the road surfaces a longer wear life. Beer can after so long become some type head butting material for a college student some where trying to show how macho he is.
2006-10-10 06:05:37 · answer #3 · answered by xxmack675hpxx 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have thought that bottles could be reused more and take the cleaning process more times than alluminium. But then I'm not so sure as surely every time they are cleaned for re-use surely there would be chemicals involved in that! Sorry not a good answer but I'm interested and will keep an eye on the responses!
2006-10-10 06:01:44 · answer #4 · answered by L B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bottles, are better, as they do not get held together by the plastic rings.
Cans are, for some reason, kept together by environmentally unfriendly plastic which does not degrade, and kills sea life etc.
Bottles (in Australia at least) come in cardboard holders and cartons.
Beer also tastes better from glass than metal, anyway.
2006-10-10 06:59:57 · answer #5 · answered by Labsci 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cans. Bottles are not environmentally friendly to recycle at all, wheras cans, while not being environmentally friendly to recycle, are human friendly, because it will stave off the time when we run out of aluminium.
2006-10-10 06:33:36 · answer #6 · answered by Theonlygolux 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
how about a keg, reducing the amount of material to volume of liquid, This must be more environmentally friendly than anything? Plus it is 100% recyclable
2006-10-10 06:06:36 · answer #7 · answered by break 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
can's as you cannot recycle the bottle top - both use less resources to recycle than to create from new.
2006-10-10 06:00:30 · answer #8 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
either way they are both recyclable! but I'm guessing as cans are easier to crush and are more delicate then they are the most obvious choice!
2006-10-10 06:45:39 · answer #9 · answered by That-Boy-Craig 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bottles can be re-used. Cans cannot.
So, bottles gets my vote.
2006-10-10 15:55:55 · answer #10 · answered by Maxblax 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋