Paper or plastic? That’s not an easy answer anymore:

economictimes.indiatimes.com:

Paper is the environmentally superior alternative to plastic. Except, what if it’s not? In a series of recent studies, researchers presented hundreds of shoppers with two granola bars, and asked which is more environmentally friendly: the one in a plastic wrapper enclosed in an additional layer of paper, or an identical plastic-packaged bar, minus the paper. By a large margin, the research subjects chose the plastic-plus-paper option, despite the fact that they both contained the same amount of plastic and the over-packaged granola bar is clearly far less environmentally friendly.

It’s an understandable, if illogical, mistake. Plastic has become the world’s most vilified material, especially for single-use packaging. It’s not only environmentally damaging; it’s become socially unacceptable.

Polling consistently finds that consumers want to see plastic replaced. Consumer product companies, hoping to shield their brands from the fury, are seeking sustainable solutions. Paper has become a favored alternative.

Consumers see it as more “natural." But it’s not always the green choice that advocates seek — or claim. In some cases it can be worse than plastic. For as long as humans have had the desire to move and preserve stuff, they’ve needed more and better packaging.

The ancient Greeks manufactured ceramic wine vessels in bulk quantities; mid-century Americans bought convenient Ziploc bags by the billions. But whether in 1000 B.C. or 1970, packaging had to be cost-effective, easily transported and durable.

Over the last two decades, though, brands and consumers have begun demanding an entirely new property in their packages: sustainability. It’s an amorphous concept. For some, sustainability represents recyclability.