an environmental comparison of paper and plastic labels
Post on 29-Jun-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
An environmental comparison
of paper and plastic labels
Chris Edwards & Gary Parker
Intertek Expert Services
Introduction
To provide retailers with an understanding of the carbon footprint of paper and plastic labels, Papico and Brigl & Bergmeister commissioned Intertek Expert Services to conduct a streamlined comparison.
The study compared results based on(1) draft WRAP data(2) existing Ecoinvent data(3) data from a ‘best in class’ paper mill
In each case the study included the production, transportation, disposal and recycling of both labels.
Ecoinvent data is the standard data used by most life cycle assessment studies around the world.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
WRAP data is being developed from Ecoinvent and other data sources to reflect UK conditions and the specific requirements of WRAP. In particular, the WRAP data will form the basis of the Courtauld II commitment, which is how UK retailers will be measuring their carbon footprint. For example Asda is developing its own sustainable packaging scorecard, and the carbon footprint data in that will be based on WRAP’s data.
The ‘best in class’ data is based on Brigl & Bergmeister’s Austrian ‘eco-mill’ using renewable energy (hydro power and thermal recovery) to produce paper.
The following slides outline specific issues regarding the methodology used and the results of the assessment conducted.
Carbon footprint
A carbon footprint is an output of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) which analyses
the impact of a product or service from the extraction of raw materials to the
disposal of generated waste through landfill and incineration.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
This study provides a streamlined ‘cradle to cradle’ assessment of paper and
plastic and includes the production and delivery of materials, polymerisation,
extrusion and thermoforming, transportation and waste processing.
Carbon footprint
Over the last decade a number of standards have been created,
such as PAS2050, to ensure that carbon footprints can be
comparable.
The Courtauld II commitment, which aims to reduce the carbon
emissions of packaging by 10%, is based partially around this
methodology and has two important rules regarding:
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
methodology and has two important rules regarding:
• Biogenic CO2
• Recycling and recycled content
The following slides outline the importance of these issues and
the rules surrounding them.
Biogenic CO2
Biogenic CO2 is the absorption and release of greenhouse gases by
paper (and other biomass) during the short term carbon cycle. However,
whether biogenic CO2 is included in data generally depends on the
product.
CO2 absorbed from air CO2 released during degradation
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
CO2 absorbed from air
Biogenic CO2
CO2 absorbed from air CO2 released during degradation
For long term products, such as wooden building materials or furniture,
it is likely that the material will last a long time without biodegrading.
In these cases the benefit of the absorption of CO2 by growing trees is
included in the data but the release of CO2 during biodegradation is not.
This gives these products a net carbon benefit.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
CO2 absorbed from air
Biogenic CO2
In some other cases, where material is sourced unsustainably for short
term products, the absorption of CO2 is not included in the lifecycle and
the degradation is, providing a net burden.
CO2 absorbed from air CO2 released during degradation
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
CO2 absorbed from air
Biogenic CO2
However, the methodology used by WRAP assumes that the source is
sustainable and the lifecycle is short. Therefore, biogenic factors are
excluded as they are assumed to be balanced (the amount absorbed as
trees grow equals the amount released at the end of the paper
product’s life).
CO2 absorbed from air CO2 released during degradation
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
CO2 absorbed from air
Recycling and recycled content
The way recycling is counted in the data also affects results.
The inclusion of recycled material in a product reduces the requirement
for virgin material. Therefore, the closed loop recycling process used to
generate this material is used to represent the recycled content of the
material.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
Recycling and recycled content
However, in some cases
materials are not recycled for
use in their original
application. When this occurs,
the recycled material avoids
the use of the virgin material
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
the use of the virgin material
used in some new application.
Therefore, the impact of that
avoided virgin material is
subtracted from the system of
the original product to show a
benefit.
In the case of paper recycling, the methodology assumes that all recycled material is recycled back into the original product.
For example, if your recycled
content is 40% and the national
recycling rate is 80%, the system
will assume that the 40% that
isn’t recycled into your product is
Recycling and recycled content
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
In other words, credit for paper recycling is already built into the data. Therefore, you gain no benefit for the use of recycled material unless your recycled content is higher than the national recycling rate of 80%.
isn’t recycled into your product is
recycled into very similar
products, avoiding the same
material.
Recycling and recycled content
However, plastics are handled differently. In the case of plastics the methodology
assumes that the open loop recycling of plastics results in the avoidance of lower
grade materials such as wood. This is because recycled plastic is generally recycled into
lower-grade materials such as plastic wood substitutes.
This means that the inclusion of any recycled content in plastic provides a reduction in
carbon footprint.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
Original product
Virgin Plastic95%
Recycled Plastic95%
Production Use Disposal
Landfill
Incineration
Closed loop recycling 5%
Recycling23%
Open loop recycling 18%
Plastic lumber
The assessment compared wrapping paper labels with extruded
polypropylene labels on a gram for gram basis. This part of the
study compared results gained using two datasets:
Results
• Data derived from draft data developed by WRAP to generate
initial carbon footprints for the Courtauld II commitment.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
The following sheets present the results and analysis of this
assessment.
initial carbon footprints for the Courtauld II commitment.
• Production and end-of-life material data from Ecoinvent 2.1.
If no action is taken to reduce global emissions, average temperatures are likely to
rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius.
The Global Context
This change will increase severe weather such as tropical
storms, droughts and extreme heat waves and heavy
Carbon Footprint
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
storms, droughts and extreme heat waves and heavy
precipitation.
Stabilisation would require emissions to be at least 25%
below current levels by 2050.
Carbon Footprint
2
2.5
3
3.5
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
Recycling
Disposal
Plasticcarbon footprint:
2.8 – 3.2grams CO2eq
per gram of PP
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
0
0.5
1
1.5
Plastic Paper Plastic Paper
Ecoinvent Courtauld
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
Transport
Production
per gram of PP
Papercarbon footprint:
1.1 – 1.2grams CO2eq
per gram of paper
In carbon footprint terms
paper is a far better performer
per gram of material
Carbon Footprint
The carbon footprint of the
plastic label was found to be
2.8-3.2 grams CO2eq per gram
of material, while the paper
label was found to be between
1.1 and 1.2 grams CO2eq per
gram of material. 2
2.5
3
3.5
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
Recycling
Disposal
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
The range is due to the fact that
Ecoinvent data was found to
give slightly higher figures than
the draft data produced by
WRAP (for both materials) due
to somewhat different
assumptions and underlying
datasets used.
0
0.5
1
1.5
Plastic Paper Plastic Paper
Ecoinvent Courtauld
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
Transport
Production
In carbon footprint terms
paper is a far better performer than plastic
per gram of material
Carbon footprint
The study found that the
difference between
Ecoinvent and WRAP data
was minimal. 150
200
250
300
350
Car
bo
n f
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
)
Ecoinvent plasticEcoinvent paper
WRAP plastic
WRAP paper
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
was minimal.
Both datasets showed that,
gram for gram, paper had a
62% lower carbon footprint
when compared to
polypropylene.
0
50
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Weight (grams)
Car
bo
n f
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
)
Gram for gram,
paper has a carbon footprint
62% lower than plastic
150
200
250
300
Car
bo
n f
oo
tpri
nt
(g C
O2
eq)
WRAP plastic
WRAP paper
Carbon footprint
If a paper label
weighed 65 grams, a
PP label would have
to weigh less than
24.9 grams
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
0
50
100
150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Weight (grams)
Car
bo
n f
oo
tpri
nt
(g C
O2
eq)
WRAP paper
65 gram paper label
70.1 grams CO2 eq.
24.9 gram PP label
70.1 grams CO2 eq.
24.9 grams
to have a superior
carbon footprint.
Recycling
The results show that even if it was possible to make a plastic label from
100% recycled PP, gram for gram it would still have a larger carbon footprint
than paper.
2
2.5
3
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage of recycled content
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
PlasticPaper
Renewable energy
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
RecyclingDisposal
Additional information from the
label paper manufacturer
Brigl & Bergmeister (B&B),
indicates that their ‘eco-mill’ in
Niklasdorf, Austria, uses renewable
hydro power and thermal recovery
on site.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Ecoinvent paper WRAP paper B&B paper
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(gra
ms
CO
2 eq
. per
gra
m)
DisposalTransportProduction
on site.
Using the Nikasdorf production data
instead of WRAP’s production data
(which is based on typical mills
rather than ‘best in class’ mills), the
carbon footprint of paper is reduced
by 19% to 0.873 grams CO2 eq. per
gram of paper. That is nearly 70%
lower than a plastic label of the
same weight.
Carbon footprint
150
200
250
300
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(g C
O2
eq.)
WRAP plasticWRAP paper
Therefore, if a B&B
paper label
manufactured in
Niklasdorf weighed 65
grams, a PP label
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
0
50
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Weight (grams)
Car
bo
n F
oo
tpri
nt
(g C
O2
eq.)
B&B paper
65 gram B&B paper label
56.7 grams CO2 eq.
20.1 gram PP label
56.7 grams CO2 eq.
grams, a PP label
would have to weigh
less than 20.1 grams
to have a superior
carbon footprint.
Recycling
Apart from the carbon footprint issue, it should also be remembered that paper is
inherently a more recyclable material, as well as being recycled far more in reality. The
WRAP figures show the UK recycling percentage for paper is 80%, while the figure for
plastic is 24%. This means that paper scores best under any corporate metric that
focuses on recycled content or recyclability. For instance, a leading retailer’s recycling
metric scores paper high (best) and plastic low (worst), on a three grade scale where
materials can score high, medium or low.
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
The majority of paper is recycled The majority of plastic is not recycled
Conservation of resources
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
Ab
ioti
c re
sou
rce
dep
leti
on
(gra
ms
SB
eq.
per
gra
m)
A streamlined study was also
conducted to analyse the
resource depletion (use of
non-renewable resources such
as oil, coal, gas, minerals)
when paper and PP
production, disposal to landfill
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
Paper Plastic
Ab
ioti
c re
sou
rce
dep
leti
on
(gra
ms
SB
eq.
per
gra
m)
production, disposal to landfill
and incineration are
considered.
This showed that the paper
used 84% less resources when
compared gram for gram with
PP.Paper causes 84% less depletion
of resources than plastic
Conclusion
To conclude:
• The carbon footprint of the paper label is 62% lower when
compared gram for gram with a plastic label using WRAP data
• The environmental performance of paper gets even better if
Brigl & Bergmeister’s ‘best in class’ paper production is considered,
in which case paper’s carbon footprint is 70% lower than plastic
September 2010Carbon Footprint of Paper and Plastic Labels
in which case paper’s carbon footprint is 70% lower than plastic
• The results shows that even if a 100% recycled plastic label was
possible, the paper label would still be superior gram for gram
• If the paper label weighs 65 grams the plastic label would have to
be 40 grams lighter to have a lower carbon footprint (and 45 grams
lighter if ‘best in class’ paper is considered).
top related