FWIW, that was never true, anyway. It's just that, once upon a time, cheap beer came in cans and expensive beer came in bottles, so it was hard for consumers to make a decent comparison.
When I was in beer judging class, we did an interesting blind taste test among various beers that are available in both bottles and cans. The cans consistently won. It didn't take too long to notice the pattern, either: At least for beers with a more delicate flavor, the bottled version tends to have a certain subtle hint of soggy cardboard that's absent in the canned version.
This looks like a situation with dissimilar metals and an electrolyte. You might just have a battery.
Canning is generally considered to be a better packaging method for beverages when it comes to flavor preservation, as opposed to bottling. Bottles allow light in, which leads to unwanted flavors developing in the beverage.
A lot of that could be mitigated by finding products that are bottled locally in reusable bottles. I don't know about other countries, but that's become all but illegal in many US jurisdictions.
re: frosting, it really depends on how how you like your beer. If it's an American pale lager like Miller or Budweiser, where the defining feature of the style is that it's meant to have as little flavor as possible, yeah, a frosted glass will help with that. As will a bottle, since bottles are perfect for minimizing your nose's exposure to what you're drinking. If it's an ale that's meant to have a lot of complex flavor and aroma, and you like those things, cellar temperature will bring them out more.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
Consider bricks, both traditional and in the style of the typical concrete block. These could be glass. There are many options for making them: full melt, sintered, or as aggregate cemented with something else.
Floor tiles ought to work. The result need not be transparent; other ingredients would stop that.
Fiber glass insulation seems like a reasonable use.
A dishwasher is more efficient than hand washing under normal circumstances (not an ancient dishwasher, not pre-washing dishes, more than one plate to wash, etc).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
Edit: added citations and removed "IIRC"
[1] https://www.pcrichard.com/library/blogArticle/why-dishwasher...
[2] https://www.reviewed.com/dishwashers/features/please-stop-ha...
[3] https://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/built-in-dishwashe...
[4]https://www.realsimple.com/home-organizing/cleaning/more-tec...
[5] https://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-much-water-do-dishwashers-us...
[6] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/11/24/564055953/to...
[7] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wash-dishes_n_7232216?guccoun...
[8] https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/dishwashers/d...
In addition, a dishwasher has high pressure pumps, a centrifugal grinder, and its own water heater (to heat hotter and more localized than a central water heater, above sanitizing levels)
* You don't need rinse water, so the total water needed is at least halved. Since the water is just sitting in a bucket, you can do many, many washings with the same water which increases that efficiency even more.
* You don't need heated water as sanitation and complete cleanliness is unimportant. Heating the water alone uses more energy than everything else put together.
* You don't need particularly clean water, just clean enough to prevent large dirt from adhering. As such you could use floor-cleaning chemicals that clump the dirt and precipitate it to the bottom increasing use time. Reusing water and the chemicals in that water for longer has a very large impact on the environment.
* a couple strokes with a bottle brush take way less energy than a high-pressure pump and once again, get the item clean enough.
* Fewer things going through your dishwasher increases its lifespan and decreases the total cost of operation. This is also better for the environment
please don't be so quick to judge when the individual's circumstances may be more complex than first assumed.
The only case where they might have any weight would be widespread collection of water to the extent that it had a measurable impact on the community, but this would involve large quantities of water and would almost certainly involve business interests rather than personal ones.
[1]: https://attorneys.lawinfo.com/water-rights/nevada/las-vegas/
Reducing consumption is the only answer, and further down is reusing. But recycling is so inefficient, I assume it has mostly been for political points, and conveniently, we had tons of containers going back empty to China.
I think they meant that they do it then they do dishes and have space for cleaning trash. In that case there is nothing wasteful in it.
- Recycling companies in Mexico will not accept any material that they can't make a profit on. Only a few numbers of plastic are recyclable/profitable.
- Recycling companies in Mexico enforce sorting and cleanliness before receiving any material. I clean everything, even run it in the dishwasher if there's space. Pizza cardboard is straight out.
- Glass is the hardest the recycle. There's a global glut of used glass. This goes against the normal idea that it's the easiest to recycle because it can be simply melted down. On the other hand, some beverage companies wash and reuse returned bottles. Those are the only bottled beverages I buy now. Buy a case, pay a small deposit, then continuously swap it for full bottles.
- Aluminum is the easiest to recycle and the most profitable. I've switched to buying as much as possible in cans. Especially switching from drinking beer out of bottles because it "tastes better" to buying it in cans and pouring it in a glass.
- Clean cardboard (and paper to a lesser extent) is fairly easy to recycle.
- Companies pay you a small amount for material. It's not a lot but it covers the cost of dropping it off.
These basic economic rules apply in the United States too but it's masked by the con described in this op-ed, temporary recycling subsidies and "wish-cycling" [0]
[0] https://recyclecoach.com/residents/blog/help-put-a-stop-to-w...