The plastic-versus-paper debate usually becomes unhelpful as soon as it turns into a universal answer. Neither material wins in every situation. The result depends on what the packaging needs to do, how it moves through use and what happens after it is thrown away.
Paper often performs well in perception and may fit some recovery systems better, but it may also depend on coatings or structural compromises that complicate the sustainability story. Plastic can perform strongly in sealing, barrier and weight, yet still create recovery problems where collection quality is weak.
That is why the useful comparison is not material against material in isolation. It is scenario against scenario. A short-distance dry-food takeaway format creates one set of trade-offs. A long-distance, sauce-heavy delivery creates another.
The same material can therefore look reasonable in one application and much less convincing in another. That is not inconsistency. It is simply what happens when performance, logistics and end-of-life conditions are assessed together.
The better question is not “which is greener?” but “which material creates the stronger overall result in this exact use case?”