Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Disposable Vs Reusable Foodservice Products JANUARY 2017
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
LITERATURE REVIEW & INVENTORY Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Disposable vs Reusable Foodservice Products JANUARY 2017 T STOP WASTE BEFORE IT STARTS Acknowledgements This study was written by Bill Sheehan, Ph.D. with supervision, review and input provided by Clean Water Fund staff, Miriam Gordon and Samantha Sommer. This project has been funded in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement X99T38501 to Clean Water Fund. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Clean Water Fund thanks the Roy A. Hunt Foundation for supporting this work. T STOP WASTE BEFORE IT STARTS ReThink Disposable, created and implemented by Clean Water Fund (CWF), works in partnership with municipal stormwater and zero waste programs to engage food businesses and institutions (academic and corporate campuses) and consumers to minimize disposable take-out food and beverage packaging at the source to reduce plastics and trash that pollute our waterways and the ocean. This award winning program takes a pollution prevention approach to the ever-increasing problems of solid waste and marine debris. Based on research CWF conducted with five San Francisco Bay Area local jurisdiction partners in 2011, ReThink Disposable learned that food and beverage packaging is the primary component of trash (67%) entering the San Francisco Bay and polluting local creeks. Since 2012, ReThink Disposable has worked with more than 100 food businesses and five corporate and university campuses to reduce over 150,000 pounds of waste and the use of over 15 million disposable packaging items from food service operations, each year. Learn more at www.rethinkdisposable.org. Clean Water Fund is a national 501(c)(3) research and education organization that has been promoting the public interest since 1974. Clean Water Fund supports protection of natural resources, with an emphasis on water quality and quantity issues. Clean Water Fund’s organizing has empowered citizen leaders, organizations, and coalitions to improve conductions of hundreds of communities and to strengthen policies at all levels of government. www.CleanWaterFund.org ©2017 Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund. Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund requests that you provide appropriate credit on all reprinted materials. Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Disposable vs Reusable Foodservice Products Executive Summary “Compostable” bioplastic foodware is marketed as “green” but in practice almost all is landfilled. Using bioplastic foodware (like PLA) that is landfilled yields no greenhouse gas reduction benefits. Hot and cold cups are the most studied foodservice product in terms of life cycle energy inputs and greenhouse gas impacts. Depending on the selected system boundaries, results vary widely. Improvements in dishwashing energy efficiency and changes in the electrical grid suggest that reusable cups have lower impacts than disposable cups in many situations. Reuse is far superior to recycling. A detailed study of drinking water delivery options showed that washing reusable water containers (glasses and bottles) has far lower global warming potential impacts than recycling single-use water bottles. Comparative life cycle studies of single-use versus reusable clamshells, plates, bowls and flatware have been less detailed than those for cups and water systems, but they generally reported low usage levels beyond which reusables have lower overall greenhouse emissions or energy usage than single-use products (“break- even points”). Introduction Life cycle assessment (LCA) has risen to emissions in the absence of direct measurements prominence in professional environmental of the latter. circles in the past two decades. LCAs aim to This review is further restricted to foodservice quantify impacts of a product or service over products, including cups, bowls, plates, cutlery, its full “lifetime.” Robust — and often costly — and clamshells. A limited number of LCA studies of LCA software programs can evaluate dozens of foodservice products include energy or greenhouse impacts. While environmental impacts are typically gas metrics, and an even smaller number compare the primary focus of analysis, social impacts disposable with reusable products. Two trends can be considered as well. The focus of this stand out: (1) hot and cold cups have received literature review and inventory is environmental the most attention, and (2) the entrance of plant- impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions based “bioplastic” materials, such as polylactic from extraction, manufacturing, distribution, acid (PLA), onto the food serviceware market consumption, and end-of-life management. has spurred LCA studies. Unfortunately, few LCA Most recent LCAs directly assess greenhouse gas studies that compare compostable and non- emissions, which are emissions from burning fossil compostable foodservice products also include fuels. They are typically reported in units of carbon analysis of reusable products. dioxide equivalents, or CO2-eq, a measure used to compare emissions from various greenhouse The studies reviewed vary dramatically in scope, gases based upon their global warming potential. detail, relevance and quality. Several are non- Older studies report only energy usage (reported peer reviewed university class projects. One in British thermal units or in metric Joules). Energy difficulty noted by the most detailed LCAs is getting usage can serve as a proxy for greenhouse gas accurate information — or any information — 1 from manufacturers of covered products (e.g., which merely breaks materials into smaller and Franklin Associates 2011b). Moreover, some of smaller pieces, with no benefit to agriculture the more robust underlying data sets are from and risks to the environment (Responsible Europe and reflect conditions that may or may Purchasing Network, 2012). On first principles it not be applicable to North America. Selection of would seem that composting food scraps together “system boundaries” is another factor that varies with compostable “food soiled” foodservice widely between studies. One need only look at the items could have considerable greenhouse gas divergent results for life cycle energy usage and reduction benefits. That’s because food scraps that greenhouse gas impacts of hot and cold cups to decompose anaerobically in landfills are a major see the effects of the myriad different assumptions source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. And that go into an LCA (see table below). food scraps, compared with hard-to-decompose plates and cups, are easier to compost and may “Compostable” Serviceware generate tip fees. Indeed, looking at food discards Summary: Compostable bioplastic foodware together with compostable cutlery, Razza et al. is marketed as “green” but in practice little is (2009) found significant greenhouse gas benefits. composted; almost all is landfilled. Using bioplastic The reality, however, is that very little of current- foodware (like PLA) that is landfilled yields no generation PLA food serviceware is actually greenhouse gas reduction benefits compared with composted in the United States. For one thing, conventional plastics (like PET). most compost facilities don’t accept PLA food First a word about “compostable” food serviceware. Seventy percent of the 4,914 facilities serviceware; most LCAs of food serviceware nationwide only compost yard trimmings; only conducted in the last decade have focused on about 7% accept food scraps (Platt and Goldstein, “compostable” products that mimic conventional 2014). PLA, according to composting industry plastics, so-called “bioplastics,” primarily specialists, generally is not accepted by yard- those made from plant-based materials such trimmings-only composters and is accepted by as polylactic acid (PLA). We use PLA as a proxy those that compost food scraps on a case-by-case for “compostable” plant-based materials used basis (Steve Sherman, interview). This is consistent in food serviceware since it is modeled in EPA’s with data from US Environmental Protection Waste Reduction Model and is most common in Agency that shows that only 5% of food scraps North American markets. (Note that conventional nationally are recovered for composting; the vast paper- and pulp-based foodservice products, like majority of the remaining materials are landfilled paper napkins, plates and clamshells, are also (US EPA 2015, p. 62). compostable.) A larger problem is that the current generation PLA is marketed as a “green” material because of compostable food serviceware products do it is made from plants (“bio-based”) rather not degrade within the 60 to 90 day cycling times than from petroleum-based chemicals, the used by commercial composters. This is especially burning of which is the primary cause of true in California (Steve Sherman, interview). (It climate changing greenhouse gas emissions; should be noted that plastic-coated paper food and because it is designed to be compostable, serviceware can also be problematic in composting which in theory returns biological nutrients to operations [EcoCycle and Woods End, 2011]). In the soil (NatureWorks, 2016). The Biodegradable practice, partially degraded PLA is screened out Products Institute (BPI) publishes guidelines that and winds up in the landfill, either directly or as distinguish between “compostable,” which can “alternative daily cover.” An exception