Even with deposit schemes for recycling of plastic as well, the industry prefers plastic as it's cheaper to recycle than reuse of glass bottles. So you still need to dictate or tax plastic use extra. There are also environmental tradeoffs until renewable use for transport and industrial use are at sufficient levels.
Glass bottles weigh as much as its content. Aluminums and plastics are more like few percent.
Tripling energy expended for transport of liquids don't make sense. That's one of reasons why glass bottles are on a long phaseout.
It doesn't make sense when your energy is dirty enough. When your energy sources get clean enough you eventually reach an inflection point where glass bottles are less environmentally harmful.
Tire dusts are also a factor, for example. Plastics aren't always non-renewable either, some like PLA can be made from sugar cane wastes.
No way it's ever going to be environmentally good thing to source extra 2 gallon-water worth of energy per 1 gallons of water just to move the bottles around. Burning shredded corn meal bottles using some sort of smart home electric kiln is going to make a lot more sense.
The question will be what leaves more undestroyed plastic waste, not whether or not it is non-renewable, but if we can get to a point where using biodegradable plastics works for bottles, then that would change things significantly. Burning is insufficient, because people will keep dropping bottles outside the home; it needs to biodegrade fully without that kind of heat.
EDIT: There are potential hazards of bioplastics even when they are degradable. Not saying it might not become a solution, but it's not yet clear.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230601160216.h...
If the plastic recycled properly, why is it a problem?
Is it energy/waste effective? Washing a glass bottle might be more expensive (due to unpriced negative externalities) but still be better for the environment or human health. (I genuinely have no idea, to be clear.)
Because not all of it will be.