75
From a business standpoint it has also been extremely useful to us because now that we
know how much energy or how much diesel oil or how much gasoline is involved in a specific option, we can make long-term plans about what is going to happen to the cost structure of that option vis-a-vis another option. So we have improved our planning capability
substantially by developing that data base and that analytical tool. (OTA 1976)
In the follow-up question-and-answer period on that spring morning in 1976,
Teasley clarified a key point regarding the ultimate decision to use plastic instead of
glass bottles that may have stayed locked in the original unpublished and detailed
analysis and conclusion. There was a question from OTA’s National Advisory
Council representative, Mr. J.M. Leathers, who asked: “In the switch from returnables to the plastic bottle, did you make a net energy analysis to see where the
break-even on energy would be?”
Teasley answered:
We have not switched. The plastic bottle that we have introduced in the marketplace did not
substitute for returnable bottles; it substituted for already existing one-way glass containers.
A net energy analysis on that move indicated [that], in the size range that we introduced
which was a 32-ounce size, we were equal to glass in energy consumption. So it was a
washout. Probably the assumptions and error one way or the other would tell us which one
was really the lower energy consumer. We had determined that we had improved safety
factors, and that we had very high market and consumer acceptance…. (OTA 1976)
So Coca-Cola introduced single-use plastic bottles in the early 1970s not because
they were environmentally superior to their returnable glass counterparts but
because they were roughly equal to the single-use glass bottles they were also using
and they were perceived to be safer. Teasley does not go on to specify for whom or
how plastic is safer. Since he does not tie the improvement to one or more of the
study’s formal impact categories, he may be referring to bottle breakability, which
was not a category in the REPA. Perhaps most importantly, however, was that “high
market and consumer acceptance” paved the way forward for plastic.
When asked again about the break-even point between the two system alternatives, Teasley did not hedge when he reported, “On balance, break-evens occur
somewhere between 3 and 5 trips” for returnable bottles. After that, especially in
light of the results from the subsequent EPA study, we can assume that the environmental impact is further reduced with every additional refill.
4.4.4 The Results
As Harry Teasley was testifying on technology assessment, he referred to the importance of net energy analysis as a driver for the evaluation of net environmental
impact in production. He even referred to two books by the ecologist, Howard
Odum, he had read to emphasize the emerging trend in industrial activities to
embrace net energy “input-output analysis in economic terms and general system
analysis” (OTA 1976). This sophisticated scientific approach seems, however, not to
4.4 Corporate Origins of Environmental LCA
From a business standpoint it has also been extremely useful to us because now that we
know how much energy or how much diesel oil or how much gasoline is involved in a specific option, we can make long-term plans about what is going to happen to the cost structure of that option vis-a-vis another option. So we have improved our planning capability
substantially by developing that data base and that analytical tool. (OTA 1976)
In the follow-up question-and-answer period on that spring morning in 1976,
Teasley clarified a key point regarding the ultimate decision to use plastic instead of
glass bottles that may have stayed locked in the original unpublished and detailed
analysis and conclusion. There was a question from OTA’s National Advisory
Council representative, Mr. J.M. Leathers, who asked: “In the switch from returnables to the plastic bottle, did you make a net energy analysis to see where the
break-even on energy would be?”
Teasley answered:
We have not switched. The plastic bottle that we have introduced in the marketplace did not
substitute for returnable bottles; it substituted for already existing one-way glass containers.
A net energy analysis on that move indicated [that], in the size range that we introduced
which was a 32-ounce size, we were equal to glass in energy consumption. So it was a
washout. Probably the assumptions and error one way or the other would tell us which one
was really the lower energy consumer. We had determined that we had improved safety
factors, and that we had very high market and consumer acceptance…. (OTA 1976)
So Coca-Cola introduced single-use plastic bottles in the early 1970s not because
they were environmentally superior to their returnable glass counterparts but
because they were roughly equal to the single-use glass bottles they were also using
and they were perceived to be safer. Teasley does not go on to specify for whom or
how plastic is safer. Since he does not tie the improvement to one or more of the
study’s formal impact categories, he may be referring to bottle breakability, which
was not a category in the REPA. Perhaps most importantly, however, was that “high
market and consumer acceptance” paved the way forward for plastic.
When asked again about the break-even point between the two system alternatives, Teasley did not hedge when he reported, “On balance, break-evens occur
somewhere between 3 and 5 trips” for returnable bottles. After that, especially in
light of the results from the subsequent EPA study, we can assume that the environmental impact is further reduced with every additional refill.
4.4.4 The Results
As Harry Teasley was testifying on technology assessment, he referred to the importance of net energy analysis as a driver for the evaluation of net environmental
impact in production. He even referred to two books by the ecologist, Howard
Odum, he had read to emphasize the emerging trend in industrial activities to
embrace net energy “input-output analysis in economic terms and general system
analysis” (OTA 1976). This sophisticated scientific approach seems, however, not to
4.4 Corporate Origins of Environmental LCA