According to a U.S. study, the use of alternative materials to plastics leads to greater use of energy, water, climate-altering emissions and waste generation.
The study just published, constitutes an in-depth study to an analysis previously published in 2014. The analysis conducted in 2014 used life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology to compare six different types of plastic packaging and their impact on the environment.
How to properly assess the environmental impact?
Life Cycle Assessment (Italian for “life cycle assessment”) is a commonly recognized method by which we evaluate the set of interactions that a product or service has with the environment and the environmental impact (positive or negative) that results from those interactions.
In 1993, The Society of Enviromental Toxicology and Chemistry gives the following definition:
“It is an objective process of assessing the energy and environmental impacts related to a product/process/activity by identifying the energy and materials used and the waste released into the environment. The assessment includes the entire life cycle of the product/process/activity, including extraction and treatment of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, distribution, use, reuse, recycling and final disposal.”
We can consider the LCA methodology effective because it considers environmental impacts in its entirety, vis-à-vis:
- human health
- ecosystem quality
- assessment of resource depletion
- economic and social impacts
The data analyzed
The Study was carried out in North America by Franklin Associates on behalf of the American Chemistry Council Association (“Life Cycle Impacts of Plastic Packaging Compared to Substitutes In the United States and Canada“).
The packages analyzed are those among the most common:
- caps and closures
- bottles
- stretch and shrink films
- bags
- rigid packaging
- other flexible packaging
The data show how replacing plastics in packaging, with other materials, for the same function, may not prove to be an environmentally worthwhile bargain. In fact, substitution could increase impacts in terms of energy and water consumption, municipal solid waste generation, increased emissions of climate-altering gases, acidification, eutrophication and hole in the ozone layer.
Plastic is still the best solution, even for the environment
The study looked only at U.S. packaging production, but we can make some observations.
The use of plastics in the six packages examined saves enough energy in one year to power 19 million cars and enough water to fill 461,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. It also avoids the production of waste equivalent to the weight of 290,000 Boeing 747 airplanes and removes the acidification potential of 292,000 coal cars from the environment.
“The results challenge mistaken beliefs about plastics and highlight how this versatile and efficient material helps solve some of our most important environmental challenges,” comments Steve Russell, plastics manager in the American Chemistry Council. However, we cannot value all the benefits unless we work to improve the end-of-life of packaging.”
