Environmental benefits of plastics

Plastics help save resources like oil, other fossil fuels, water and food. Because they are lightweight and can be specially tailored to meet the demands of a particular application, plastics use less to do more – thereby minimizing waste. It takes only 47 grams of plastic to hold two liters of pop and a mere six grams to carry a full bag of groceries (that's less than the weight of an envelope).

Plastics are also great at saving resources. They consume only a small fraction – four per cent – of the world's oil. This fraction is used so effectively that fossil fuel reserves last longer as a result. In fact, estimates show that the use of plastics, as a whole, actually saves more oil than needed for their manufacturer.

Saving resources

Today, plastics are lighter, yet stronger, and more adaptable than ever before. This is due to the industry's continuing focus on technological innovation and it opens up a huge range of uses for plastics. At the same time, it means that product for product, proportionally less of the world's oil and energy resources are being used, with an overall lower impact on the environment.

Energy efficiency

Heating and transportation are two of the largest users of oil, in respect to the use of fossil fuels. Thanks to the increasing use of plastics in many of today's products, however, the impact of this on our climate can be – and is being – reduced by minimizing the amount of oil and coal being combusted.

Preserving other valuable resources

In addition to direct energy savings, plastics also contribute to environmental protection by impacting on a number of different areas, like the preservation of other natural resources. Plastics play a vital role in preserving and distributing essential food and water economically and reliably to a growing world population.

Plastic packaging delivers environmental benefits

A recent study looking into the contribution of plastics found that if alternative materials were substituted for the plastic packaging used in Western Europe, there would be a marked increase in both the amount of energy consumed and in greenhouse (GHG) gas emissions generated. These increases would be in the neighbourhood of 582 million gigajoules (GJ) of energy per year and almost 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

This amount of energy being saved through the use of plastic packaging is equivalent to 101.3 million barrels of oil, while the amount of emissions saved are equal to the emissions of 12.3 million passenger cars each year (which was 72 per cent of all the private passenger vehicles registered in Canada in 1995).

About the study

The study was conducted in 2004 by the Corporation for Comprehensive Analysis (Gesellschaft fur umfassende Analysen). It was designed to analyze the contribution that plastics make to resource efficiency throughout a broad range of categories, including packaging, building products, electric/electronic, automotive, housewares, furniture, agriculture, medicine and “other”.

The study identified the amount of energy consumed and the amount of GHG gas emissions generated through the use of plastics currently in use and compared them with a scenario that saw plastics substituted, wherever possible, by alternative materials. The comparison included the full life cycle of the product (production, use and disposal).

Within the packaging component of the study, a total of 60 different products were analyzed. These products fell into the following categories:

• Small packaging (smaller than 50ml)
• Beverage bottles
• Other bottles
• Other rigid packaging
• Shrink and stretch film
• Carrier bags; and
• Other flexible packaging.

The types of plastics used in the packaging were low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP), vinyl (V), polystyrene (PS), expanded polystyrene (EPS) and polyethylene teraphthalate (PET). The alternative materials were tin plate, aluminum, glass, corrugated, box-board, paper, paper-board composites and wood.

Study Methodology

The study was based on a couple of basic principles. One, the calculations were always based on the mass of a certain material (i.e. glass) to render the same service as another material (plastic). So, for example, the study looked at how much glass would be needed to replace the two-litre PET bottle.

Second, the study took plastics’ market share of a particular category (i.e. beverage bottles) and substituted alternative materials by pro-rating their existing market shares over the market share vacated by plastics. Third, in the case of “other bottles”, the alternative materials substituted included a mixture of tin plate, aluminum, glass and coated paperboard. So, for example, it would take 5.27 kilograms of the alternative materials in the “other bottles” category to substitute one kilogram of plastics.

In order to calculate the energy and GHG emissions used during the production phase of a product, the study used published life cycle inventories. These inventories included the amount of energy used and the amount of emissions generated with the production of the plastics packaging and compared those figures to the energy used and the emissions associated with the production of the alternative materials. Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide were reported for the production of each type of package.

In order to evaluate the resource efficiencies of a package during product use, the study looked at the energy used in transportation and the resources saved by avoiding loss or damage of packed products. Food losses are reduced through the use of packaging. Statistics show that 70 per cent of all food packaging (plastics and other materials) prevents the loss of 20 per cent of the food packaged. In transportation, the fuel consumption correlates directly to the weight transported. The transportation of heavier packaging materials requires more fuel.

The third component to calculating the energy and emissions of a package occurs during the waste phase. The study assumed that the amount of packaging waste to be handled at this stage was equal to the amount of packaging put into the market.

The calculations considered the proportions of each waste material that are directed to recycling, energy recovery and landfill, and were based on European Union data. The calculations include the processes of collection, sorting, reprocessing recyclables, energy recovery and disposal. Credits were given for recycling and energy recovery, as recycling reduces the quantity of virgin material needed and energy recovery reduces the need for primary fuels. Methane emissions for landfilling of paper and wood were taken into account.

Detailed results

The accompanying table shows the significant savings in both energy and GHG emissions that are made through the use of plastics packaging in Western Europe. It details a total annual savings of 582.6 million GJ of energy (or the equivalent of more than 100 million barrels of oil) and a savings in GHG emissions of almost 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (equivalent to the emissions of 12.3 million passenger cars per year).

Presentation available on plastics recycling

The Environment and Plastics Industry Council (EPIC) has posted a presentation on the plastics recycling process on its web site. The presentation is available for downloading and would be beneficial to anyone involved in community outreach or educational programs.

It provides a little bit of information about EPIC before launching into a detailed review of the plastic recycling process, including the various stages of: inspection; chopping and washing; separation; drying, melting, filtering and extrusion; and pelletizing.

The EPIC presentation also deals with some of the more frequently asked questions about plastics, such as:

• Why aren’t all plastics being recycled?
• Will some plastics never be recycled?
• Why do we have packaging anyway?
• What about blister packs?
• Why are we using #7 bottles if they aren’t being recycled?