Addressing plastic packaging is key to reversing these negative trends. It accounts for 42% of all non-fiber plastics produced.
But the plastics industry is pushing back. Industry representatives claim efforts to regulate plastic packaging will have negative environmental consequences because plastic is a lightweight material with a lower carbon footprint than alternatives like glass, paper and metal.
These claims are based on what's known as life-cycle assessment (LCA). It's a tool used to measure and compare the environmental impact of materials throughout their life, from extraction to disposal.
While independent LCA practitioners may adopt rigorous processes, the method is vulnerable to misuse. According to European waste management consultancy Eunomia, it is limited by the questions it seeks to answer: "Ask inappropriate, misleading, narrow or uninformed questions and the process will only provide answers in that vein."
Industry-commissioned life-cycle assessments often frame single-use plastic packaging positively. These claim plastic's light weight offsets its harmful impacts on people, wildlife and ecosystems. Some studies are even used to justify the continued expansion of plastics production.
But plastic can come out looking good when certain important factors are overlooked. In theory, LCA considers a product's whole-of-life environmental impact. In practice, the scope varies as practitioners select system boundaries at their discretion.
Zero Waste Europe has highlighted that life-cycle assessment for food packaging often omits important considerations. These include the potential toxicity of different materials, or the impact of leakage into the environment. Excluding factors like this gives plastics an unjustified advantage.
Researchers have acknowledged the method's critical failure to account for marine pollution. This is now a priority for the research community, but not the plastics industry.
Even questionable LCA studies carry a veneer of authority in the public domain. The packaging industry capitalizes on this to distract, delay and derail progressive plastics legislation. Rebutting industry studies that promote the environmental superiority of plastics is difficult because commissioning a robust LCA is costly and time-consuming.
Life-cycle assessment and packaging policy
LCA appeals to policymakers aspiring to develop evidence-based packaging policy. But if the limitations are not properly acknowledged or understood, policy can reinforce inaccurate industry narratives.
The Rethinking Plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand report, from the office of the prime minister's chief science adviser, has been influential in plastics policy in New Zealand.
The report dedicates an entire chapter to LCA. It includes case studies that do not actually take a full life-cycle approach from extraction to disposal. It concedes only on the last page that LCA does not account for the environmental, economic or health impacts of plastics that leak into the environment.
The report also erroneously suggests LCA is "an alternative approach" to the zero-waste hierarchy. In fact, the two tools work best together.
The zero-waste hierarchy prioritizes strategies to prevent, reduce and reuse packaging. That's based on the presumption that these approaches have lower life-cycle impacts than recycling and landfilling.
One of LCA's limitations is that practitioners tend to compare materials already available on the predominantly single-use packaging market. However, an LCA guided by the waste hierarchy would include zero-packaging or reusable packaging systems in the mix. Such an assessment would contribute to sustainable packaging policy.
New Zealand is also a voluntary signatory to the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, which includes commitments by businesses and government to increase reusable packaging by 2025.
Prominent organizations, including the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, estimate reusables could replace 30% of single-use plastic packaging by 2040. The Pew report states: "A reduction of plastic production—through elimination, the expansion of consumer reuse options, or new delivery models—is the most attractive solution from environmental, economic and social perspectives."
Policymakers should take life-cycle assessment beyond its industry-imposed straitjacket and allow it to inform zero-packaging and reusable packaging system design. Doing so could help New Zealand reduce plastic pollution, negative health impacts and greenhouse gas emissions.
Citation:
How life-cycle assessments can be (mis)used to justify more single-use plastic packaging (2020, November 9)
retrieved 9 November 2020
from https://phys.org/news/2020-11-life-cycle-misused-single-use-plastic-packaging.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.