The California Redwood Association claims that “Across the board, wood outperforms plastics, steel and concrete. Using concrete instead of wood, for example, can generate 80 percent more greenhouse gases and require about 40 percent more energy. With LCA, science clearly shows that using wood can save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
Details of the study can be found HERE
Do you agree? Send us a note by selecting the read more button and entering your comments in the comment field.
The Aluminum Association has issued a public challenge to the recent PET Resin Assocation LCA study. A key aspect is the use of 1995 aluminum production data from the US LCI database versus more up-to-date information production information and recycling data that is publicly available.
The main position by the Aluminum Association regarding appropriate use of LCA is as follows:
“Also at issue with the PET study is the use of an LCA study to make comparative analyses of other materials, which is not the standard use of an LCA. LCA studies are traditionally used for self-education and to look for opportunities to increase efficiency within a product stream and not to look comparatively across products.”
“Traditionally, LCA studies have not been used to attack other products, since that’s not the intent of an LCA. We’d like to see the LCA study continue to be used as a tool for self-improvement, not for PR stunts. After our initial review, we do not believe that this study will withstand scrutiny from LCA practitioners.” Steve Larkin, Aluminum Association President concluded.
Details of the Aluminum Association challenge can be found on their website HERE.
The Aluminum Association will be hosting a teleconference and webinar to discuss the Life Cycle Analysis of the aluminum can on May 25th at 10 AM EDT.
Details to attend the teleconference can be found HERE.
The independent study of aluminum cans was peer-reviewed and undertaken in part to respond to Wal-Mart’s packaging scorecard.
SONOMA, CA (May 17, 2010) – The National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR)announced today the release of a new study that provides life cycle inventory (LCI) data for recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and high density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic resins. The study’s LCI report indicates that incorporating recycled PET resin in the manufacture of a package significantly reduces the environmental footprint of that package in terms of production energy required and greenhouse gas emissions.
“This is long-sought-after information for companies that want to include environmental sustainability as one of the ways in which they evaluate their product package options,” said Tom Busard, NAPCOR Chairman and VP Global Procurement and Material Systems for Plastipak Packaging. “There’s no true sustainability without recycling, and this new study confirms and quantifies the environmental benefits of recycling PET. We’re seeing more customers requesting LCIs in order to do Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) so that they can more accurately understand the sustainability profiles of their packaging.” LCAs consider the complete life of a product or package, including the raw materials, manufacturing, and end of life.
Dennis Sabourin, NAPCOR Executive Director, added, “This is a scientific approach and provides an excellent tool for making informed decisions.” Sabourin went on to emphasize that the sustainability profile and analysis for the PET package must not only take into account its recyclability, and the increasing use of recycled PET resin content in new packaging, but also PET’s inherent performance characteristics: lightweight; shatter-resistant; safe; able to preserve taste and other product characteristics on-shelf; and its suitability to be made significantly lighter without sacrificing performance for a variety of product applications. Fundamentally, packaging exists in order to effectively deliver a product while preserving that product’s quality in a safe, cost effective, and sustainable manner.
The new LCI study was conducted by Franklin Associates, Ltd. and sponsored jointly by NAPCOR, the PET Resin Association (PETRA). Using life cycle inventory (LCI) methodology, the study determines and quantifies the energy requirements, solid wastes, and atmospheric and waterborne emissions for the processes required to collect postconsumer PET and HDPE packaging, sort and separate the material, and reprocess it into clean recycled resin. Based on study results, as well as U.S. EPA and Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, the total amount of PET post consumer containers recycled in 2008, if reclaimed in the U.S., would require approximately 30 trillion Btu less energy than the amount of energy that would be required to produce the equivalent tonnage of virgin PET resin; this is equivalent to the annual energy use of 317,000 U.S. homes. The corresponding savings in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is 1.1 million tons of CO2 equivalents, an amount comparable to taking 189,000 cars off the road. For a single pound of recycled PET flake, the energy use required is reduced by 84%; the GHG emissions, by 71%.
The new study’s findings are captured in “Final Report – Life Cycle Inventory of 100% Postconsumer HDPE and PET Recycled Resin from Postconsumer Containers and Packaging,” which is available on the sponsor organization web sites, including NAPCOR’s PET Sustainability page, http://www.napcor.com/PET/sustainability.html
Information from the new study will soon be added to the U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. A project of the U.S. Department of Energy and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), this is a publicly available database that allows users to review and compare analysis results, http://www.nrel.gov/lci/about.html
Nestle Waters North America commissioned the project to better understand the environmental aspects of bottled water and available alternatives, and to explore ways to further reduce its own footprint. The intentions of the project were to
The methodology applied was life cycle assessment (LCA), is an internationally accepted method for measuring the environmental impact of products, services and other systems. It included a comprehensive scope, which ensured that environmental impacts were not simply being shifted to other parts of a system’s life cycle or to other environmental impact categories. This study was peer-reviewed by an independent panel of LCA experts.
WRAP (the Waste & Resources Action Programme) post results of their LCA on milk packaging systems. Backround from the WRAP website is summarized below and can be found HERE along with the associated reports:
In 2007, WRAP commissioned Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) to carry out a study to review the environmental performance of various milk containers and the environmental benefits that can be achieved through recycling initiatives and lightweighting. Milk containers have been specifically selected due to a need to understand the effects and potential effects of recent innovations in milk packaging, as well as existing packaging options for milk.
Two studies were produced, considering milk containers used through a retail system and a doorstep delivery system. The studies have been critically reviewed by an external panel of experts to ensure that they are in line with ISO standards on life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006).
The packaging systems reviewed were: glass bottles; HDPE bottles; PET bottles; pillow pouches, including serving jug; stand-up pouches; cartons with screwcap; and gable-top cartons.
Each format was, where feasible, assessed for: 100% virgin content; for up to two variations on the technically feasible recycled content; and for a lightweighting scenario.
A number of conclusions that can be drawn from the study apply across the milk packaging systems. The extraction or growing of raw material and the processing of these into packaging formats, whether this be the primary or secondary or transit packaging, is found to contribute the most to the environmental profile of the milk container systems. This means that the largest relative environmental savings are to be achieved through the improvement of these elements of the packaging life cycle.
Ways in which all formats could be improved have been identified, and the benefits of such measures quantified.
Reuse of glass bottles is shown to be a practical way in which their environmental impact can be minimised. Lightweighting containers and increasing recycled content had benefits for all systems where this was feasible, including glass containers, rigid plastic containers and pouches.
Every tonne of HDPE recycled back into milk containers avoids an estimated 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent compared to sending the material to landfill, and over 2 tonnes compared to energy recovery. For PET, the figure rises to 1.7 tonnes CO2 equivalent per tonne recycled back into milk containers. For glass, the saving is around 0.3 tonnes CO2 equivalent, in line with earlier studies.
Overall, the findings are found to support the waste hierarchy; reducing use of materials provides the greatest potential savings, followed by recycling, energy recovery and finally landfill.
The data collected is insufficient to allow comparisons between materials, and cannot support switching packaging formats. Data gaps exist for all materials. In addition, there are a number of limitations to the studies; for example they do not consider any variation in milk shelf life resulting from use of different packaging materials, and do not consider economic issues or issues associated with public perceptions of the different formats. However, the studies provide an important insight into a range of environmental impacts associated with milk packaging systems, and as the first assessments published in the UK since 1972, represents an update to previous publically available information.
The Oregon DEQ has just released an extensive LCA on the various options of drinking water delivery systems.
DEQ has completed a study that compares a wide range of environmental impacts (including greenhouse gas emissions) of drinking water from the tap, 5-gallon reusables, and single-use bottles. It compares the environmental impacts of tap water (“reduce”) against the impacts of bottled water (“recycle” and “dispose”). The study confirms that while recycling bottles is environmentally preferable to disposing of them, buying bottled water and recycling the bottles is not the best environmental choice. Drinking water from the tap (waste prevention) typically has substantially lower impacts in most categories of environmental impact.
Other highlights of the study include the following:
The study can be accessed on their website here: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/wasteprevention/drinkingwater.htm