Increasing Durable Packaging Circularity in Chicago

Abstract

Sustainable packaging concerns and solutions should be addressed more holistically by policymakers. Focusing only on its direct environmental impact is insufficient and possibly counterproductive. Manufacturers have been replacing plastic packaging with alternative materials that are more readily recyclable than plastic. Some U.S. states are considering various policies to increase packaging sustainability, including bans or restrictions. Most policies and studies, however, only consider the direct environmental impact of packaging without considering its overall effect on the packaged product. This comparative lifecycle assessment (LCA) compared the total carbon footprint (CFP) effect of expanded polystyrene (EPS) and molded fiber (MF) packaging stabilizers used to secure a television in a cardboard box shipped from South Korea to Chicago. The study included the direct CFP of both the packaging and product. I aimed to identify the conditions under which each material can result in a lower comprehensive CFP. The LCAs compared different scenarios, including varying amounts of packaging materials, energy use, and end-of-life treatments. Data were gathered from commercially available lifecycle inventories, LCAs, packaging textbooks, trade associations, and company information to create this model. The results showed that EPS packaging stabilizers resulted in a lower CFP than MF under various scenarios. The baseline comparison resulted in an EPS CFP of 5.1 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) compared to 108.2 for MF. Since available data suggested that 96% of MF’s CFP relates to energy, the amount and carbon intensity of MF energy was varied. Under these energy scenarios, energy CFP was not sufficiently reduced to outperform EPS. EPS still outperformed MF even with the addition impact of increasing EPS mass or including carbon intensive recycling. For example, it takes about three times the mass of MF to pack a television compared to EPS in this model. Applying the MF to EPS packaging ratio added 24 kg of CO2e to EPS and carbon intensive recycling added 9.9. Both variations were less than MF’s baseline CFP. However, MF had a lighter CFP when EPS exceeded 13% product loss and MF had no product loss. This reflected both the carbon-intensive nature of MF and of a carbon-intensive product – a television. There was a significant data gap in the available MF production and packaging performance and optimization that could alter these results. Given this, policymakers should consider creating incentives that reduce overall CPF by considering comprehensive CPF that includes product loss and not just packaging impact. Additionally, policy should avoid making assumptions about packaging material performance since optimizing CFP is fact and circumstance dependent. Lastly, policy should increase publicly available data on all materials, especially MF and product loss. These suggestions will help policymakers and other stakeholders make more informed decisions, avoid unintended consequences, and decrease overall climate impact.