Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas

            

Authors: Fanran Meng, Miguel Brandão and Jonathan M Cullen

The latest research published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal displays that of the 16 applications studied 15 were showed to incur fewer GHG emissions than alternatives. In these applications, plastic products release 10% to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle. 

In sewer pipe applications, PVC has the lowest climate change impact (approximately 45% lower than reinforced concrete and 35% lower than ductile iron) primarily because of its ability to achieve the same function with lighter weight. In automotive the lighter weight of HDPE fuel tanks in automotive applications compared to steel results in approximately 14 times fewer GHG emissions overall and PP/fiberglass battery enclosures emit around 10% fewer emissions than steel enclosures over their lifetime mileage of 200,000 miles.

Plastics are controversial due to their production from fossil fuels, emissions during production and disposal, potential toxicity, and leakage to the environment. In light of these concerns, calls to use less plastic products and move toward nonplastic alternatives are common. However, these calls often overlook the environmental impacts of alternative materials. This article examines the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impact of plastic products versus their alternatives. We assess 16 applications where plastics are used across five key sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. These sectors account for about 90% of the global plastic volume. Our results show that in 15 of the 16 applications a plastic product incurs fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. In these applications, plastic products release 10% to 90% fewer emissions across the product life cycle. Furthermore, in some applications, such as food packaging, no suitable alternatives to plastics exist. These results demonstrate that care must be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic use so that we do not inadvertently drive a shift to nonplastic alternatives with higher GHG emissions. For most plastic products, increasing the efficiency of plastic use, extending the lifetime, boosting recycling rates, and improving waste collection would be more effective for reducing emissions.

Dr Fanran Meng, Lecturer in Sustainable Chemical Engineering at the University of Sheffield stated that 'Not all alternative or recycled products are better for the environment than the products they replace. Environmental policymaking needs life cycle assessment guided decision making to make sure that GHG emissions are not unintentionally increased through a shift to more emission-intensive alternative materials. Demand reduction, efficiency optimisation, lifetime extension and reuse/recycling is a win–win strategy to reduce emissions effectively. Switching to alternative materials is not.'

For more information click here. 

Download Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas.

For other third party publications and independent studies click here.