The Impacts of Packaging on the Environment

Birgitte Kjær, Ph.D.Household Waste Division

Packaging Waste in relation to the Total Waste Production

• Packaging waste 1 mill. tons in 1999• Total waste 12.2 mill. tons in 1999• 8% of total waste • 192 kg packaging waste per inhabitant

per year

High attention to packaging

• Visible• All consumers take care of packaging

waste each day • 30% of domestic waste by weight• > 50% of domestic waste by volume

The Impacts of Packaging on the Environment

• Packaging is short-lived• Consumes global resources• Especially: Raw material and energy

Environmental objective

• Aim: Consumption of packaging causes the least possible burden to environment.

• Methods:• Reduce the weight of packaging• Substitution to materials with less

environmental impact.• Promote reuse and refill systems

Life-cycle screening of 11 packaging materials

• Life-cycle screening: only the most important environmental impacts and phases in the packaging life cycle (from cradle to grave) are included

• Environmental impact of packaging materials http://www.mst.dk/homepage/default.asp?Sub=http://www.mst.dk/waste/Packagings.htm

Life-cycle screening of 11 packaging materials

• Not possible to add all impacts with respect to the environment, resources and waste, into a single figure.Thus, it is necessary to make some political choices

• Operational unit: 1 kg of packaging

The life-cycle of packaging

Included in the life-cycle screening:• Extraction of raw material• Production of material • Production of packaging• Distribution - (calculated later)• Waste disposal

Not included in the life-cycle screening:• Use of the packaging

Materials in the survey

Paper/cardboard Glass Tinplate/steel Aluminium

Plastic: HDPE LDPE PP PET PVC EPS PS

Assumptions

• Sales packaging• Waste disposal as the present situation

in Denmark today• Glass packaging 70 % recycling

(separate collection)• Steel packaging 64% recycling

(separated from incineration slag)• Paper, plastic,aluminium incineration

with energy recovery (no separate collection)

How are the results expressed?

• Basis: “a politically determined environmental space”.

• Environmental effects and waste: possible emission per person if the political objectives are to be met in the year 2000. Unit: mPEMWDK2000.

• Resource consumption: the share of known reserves per person in the world in 1990.

Unit: mPRW90.

Global warmingPrimary materials

-0,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

Paper

Glass

HPD

E

LDPE

PP EPS

PET

PVC

PS Steel

Al

mPE

MW

DK

200

AcidificationPrimary materials

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

Paper

Glass

HPD

E

LDPE

PP EPS

PET

PVC

PS Steel

Al

mPE

MW

DK

2000

Resources: Crude oilPrimary materials

0

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,05

0,06

Paper

Glass

HPD

E

LDPE

PP EPS

PET

PVC

PS Steel

Al

mPR

W90

WastePrimary materials

-0,4

0,0

0,4

0,8

1,2

Paper

Glass

HPD

E

LDPE

PP EPS

PET

PVC

PS Steel

Al

mPE

MW

DK

2000

Primary materials <> recyclingGlobal warming: LDPE and Aluminium

0

0,4

0,8

1,2

1,6

LDPE LDPE-recycling

Al Al-recycling

mP

EM

DK

W2

00

0

Presentation of the environmental impact from packaging

Overall assessment

Some general outlines per kg material:• Cardboard and glass: lowest environmental impact• Some plastic materials (LDPE, HDPE, PP, PET,

PS) prove to have higher environmental impacts than cardboard and glass. PS and PET have the highest impact in this group.

• Steel: some indicators ranking similar to plastics but with major negative impact on the environment due to waste.

• Major environmental impacts originate from PVC, EPS and aluminium.

Environmental index

Primarymaterial

Secondarymaterial

Cardboard/paper 0,5 0,3Wood 0,3Glass 1Tinplate/steel 5Plastic 7 4,2EPS and PVC 11Aluminium 18

No-one has opposed the overall ranking of the materials

• After the consultation process none of the parties had opposed to the overall assessment - the ranking of materials - of the LCA study.

• LCA experts have supported the ranking of the packaging materials - because it is in line with other studies.

Objection: “All results are given per kg packaging”

• One objective of the tax is to reduce the total amount of packaging waste.

• In a LCA it is the use value of one product that is being compared to the use value of another product.

• The use value of packaging is not one kg material - but the 34 grams of plastic used to produce a bottle. This plastic bottle can then be compared to another bottle of glass of 290 grams

Life cycle assessment of packaging systems

Life cycle assessment of packaging systems for beer and soft drinks

• Published May 1998• Main report and 7 technical reports

Packaging types

Packaging system Beer Soft drinksRefillable glass bottle 33 cl green glass 25 cl clear glass

Single-use glass bottle 33 cl green glass 33 cl clear glass

Aluminium cans 33 cl and 50 cl 33 cl and 50 cl

Steel cans 33 cl and 50 cl 33 cl and 50 cl

Refillable PET bottle 50 cl and 150 cl

Single-use PET bottle 50 cl and 150 cl

Main environmental impacts

final energy consumption

consumption of natural resources

global warming

photochemical ozone formation

acidification

nutrient enrichment

waste

33 cl packages for beer

Environmental impact Refillable glassbottle

Single-useglassbottle

Aluminium can

Steelcan

Global warming 1-2 2-4 1-3 3-4Photochemical ozoneformation

1-2 2-4 1-3 3-4

Acidification 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4Nutrient enrichment 1-2 3-4 1-2 3-4

50 cl packages for soft drinks

Environmentalimpact

RefillablePETbottle

Single-usePETbottle

Aluminiumcan

Steelcan

Global warming 1 2-4 2-3 3-4Acidification 1-2 4 1-2 3Nutrient enrichment 1-2 2-4 1-3 3-4

Conclusion

Environmental effects from packaging• Mainly use of raw material and energy

resources

Impact on environment can be assessed• Complex • Used in making political decisions