Packages and closures for packaging


Primum non nocere – first, do no harm!
Multithreading of eco-behaviours is incredibly elaborate. Attempts to create a perfect system that would reduce the amount of produced waste and simultaneously save water and minimise the carbon footprint, must be based on knowledge and, paradoxically, intuition, but first of all on common sense. Sometimes focusing solely on one aspect can cause a disastrous fallout, as seemingly some eco-solutions may negatively impact the natural environment.

One of the best recent examples in the cosmetics' industry is a Polish company that in order to go eco introduced a system of returning their glass packaging. Soon the authors of this solution understood that while the waste was indeed reduced, the process of cleaning and sterilising the packaging involved a lot of water, whereas the transport and heating water left a considerable amount of the carbon footprint. The profits didn't cover the losses. Preparing one old jar for reuse involves over one litre of water and proportionate amount of energy to heat it.
Pollution caused by the transport may only be presumed, but a short moment of reflection reveals that a person who wants to send back a jar must go to a post office or order a delivery man, which is totally non-ecological. The delivery to the manufacturer also produces unnecessary air pollutants. The mentioned company opted out of their idea and recommended diligent sorting of empty packaging, as organised waste collection and recycling translate into measurable profits for our environment.
Such examples also question the real motivations of entrepreneurs. Virtual cost of a new packaging vs. costs of restoring used packaging for re-entering the market may be balanced. However, if we simultaneously save money and preserve the natural environment we gain a perfect result of the loss and profit account.

Transfrontier waste exchange
Germany is a European leader regarding effective eco-solutions. They figured that in the case of water bottles the best solution for minimal water and carbon footprint is own glass bottle and tap water, or a plain PET. Due to its weight, reusable glass and plastic bottles (which in Poland are virtually non-existent) increase not only the costs of transport, but also CO2 emissions. It is also worth noting that German regulations regarding tap water quality are so restrictive that in every household tap water is fit to drink. There are even some restaurants that offer tap water and indeed, waiters serve it at tables.
Now going back to the subject of the so-called PETs - polyethylene terephthalate bottles. One should add that as far as the recycling of many different fractions in Germany is very advanced, recycling of PETs is regarded as cost-ineffective. In Poland, however, while the recycling of Polish PETs is noneconomic, German PETs are totally fine!
Here's where that waste trade paradox begins. Polish PET is usually impure as our sorting plants leave much to be desired and even the plastics' fraction may be mixed with BIO-waste. Thanks to the German container-deposit system their PETs are only soiled with some remnants of the drinks that were inside of them, which is easy and cheap to clean. Material uniformity is also very important. PET bottles without polypropylene caps and other additional waste wouldn't extend the recycling process with extra stages and increase the recycling costs.
Polish recycling companies buy compacted PETs from our neighbour, whereas our waste end up in landfills or furnaces.
If we hear news about introducing the container-deposit system in Poland it is worth to remember that it is not developed to spite the consumers, but for the sake of their widely understood good.

(Non)ecological electric car
Revealing the truth about electric cars was shocking. The research indicated that batteries used in e-cars, already before they are installed, leave the carbon footprint that could be compared to 15 years of a diesel engine exploitation. These revelations caused many repercussions. Firstly, the scientists started research into decreasing the carbon footprint emitted during the production of the electric cars (some companies already offer cars with lower battery capacity). Next, there were some counter-arguments presented that slightly soothed the outrage. Electric cars don't contribute to the smog present in the cities nor the noise-pollution. It is reasonable to think that e-cars have to be somehow produced, and costs and losses had to be taken into account... The question is: how much do we really gain from it? Do the profits outbalance the losses? Or is it a devil in disguise and a bogus eco-solution?
From our personal experience we know that introducing packaging elements to the market involves not only high awareness, but also courage to speak up: for this moment we can't replace plastic in our products. Let's use it, but let's also remember to throw it to the proper bin and give it a chance for the second life!

Our products are fully recyclable!
Materials used in our packaging closures and cosmetic packaging (here we wrote about the types of plastics used in our products) are the most popular polymers (PP, PE, HDPE, LDPE, PMMA) that can be easily, efficiently and economically recycled. The sourced regranulate is suitable for the production of new packaging, foils or yarn.

As far as sometimes we need to choose between more- and less-eco solutions, in the recycling department there's no room for compromise! It is the only known method to minimise the amount of waste and increase recovery of materials.

Do you like our texts?
Perhaps even so much that you want to use them in your own media?
Then please get in touch with us beforehand!