Catherine Kerninon, EUROSAC, and Elin Gordon, CEPI Eurokraft, Introduction

Transcription

1 PAPER BEATS PLASTIC Cathrin Krninon, EUROSAC, and Elin Gordon, CEPI Eurokraft, prsnt th rsults of a study by RISE, which compard typical papr cmnt sacks and form-fill-sal polythyln cmnt sacks. Introduction Th EU climat dbat and discussions on th cmnt industry s contribution to rducing global warming missions affct th critria for packaging dcisions: bsids filling spd, pack cost, product protction, and clanlinss, th nvironmntal aspcts of packaging ar bcoming incrasingly important to cmnt producrs. But which packaging solution offrs it all and combins stat of-th-art prformanc with strong nvironmntal crdntials?

2 In Europ, two systms ar widly usd for packaging cmnt: papr sacks and form-fill-sal (FFS) polythyln sacks. A comprhnsiv study among th fillrs and rtailrs of cmnt and othr building matrials by th Swdish rsarch institut, RISE (formrly Innvntia), has rvald that modrn papr sacks provid innovativ and rliabl solutions that satisfy th industry s high xpctations and rquirmnts. In particular, fillrs profit from lowr Tabl 1. Spcifications of th two compard sack systms. Typical 25 kg papr cmnt sack Typical 25 kg polythyln FFS cmnt sack 45 g outr ply (blachd) 67.8 g PE (85% LDPE, 15% LLDPE) 4 g HDPE poly linr 2.2 g ink 42 g innr ply (unblachd) Total sack wight of 70 g 3.7 g starch glu 1.1 g ink Total sack wight of 95.8 g packing costs and highr filling spds whn using papr sacks. 1 Concrning nvironmntal impact, svral lif cycl assssmnt (LCA) studis hav bn publishd by stakholdrs, claiming nvironmntal bnfits for polythyln FFS sacks for cmnt. Howvr, ths studis hav lackd transparncy, spcially in trms of th data applid and th assumptions mad. Subsquntly, CEPI Eurokraft and EUROSAC rqustd RISE to conduct a transparnt comparativ study, calculating important missions to air and watr, as wll as th carbon footprint of th two solutions. Its ky rsult concrning climat chang, th most important challng today: th papr sack is clarly th favourabl option. This articl will first dscrib th study dsign and thn prsnt th rsults in dtail. Th rsarch Th study compard th lif cycl invntoris (LCI) of a typical Europan 25 kg cmnt papr sack with a typical Europan 25 kg FFS polythyln cmnt sack. It considrd various nvironmntal intrvntions for both packaging solutions, for xampl ovrall carbon footprint and fossil nrgy consumption. Ths wr dmd to b indicators of climat chang and othr missions to air and frsh watr, ncompassing a widr rang of nvironmntal ffcts. Th carbon footprint calculations conductd ar basd on th Tn Tos Framwork for th dvlopmnt of carbon footprints for papr and board products, which was dvlopd by CEPI, and th CITPA calculation tool. Th two sack systms hav also bn modlld in th LCA softwar tool GaBi, with scondary data from GaBi and Ecoinvnt databass, to nabl an analysis of important missions othr than grnhous gass. Th study has bn pr rviwd by th sustainability tam at Intrtk, a lading total quality assuranc providr to industris worldwid. Spcifications of th compard systms Th functional unit considrd in th comparisons is a singl, filld 25 kg cmnt sack. Th spcifications of a 25 kg papr cmnt sack vary btwn sack supplirs. Thrfor, a typical construction has bn stimatd for th comparison, basd on primary information providd by svral supplirs. Th spcification considrd for th 25 kg FFS polythyln cmnt sack has bn basd on sampling sacks that ar availabl on th markt and discussions with industry stakholdrs. Th undrlying spcifications for both sacks ar shown in Tabl 1. Figur 1. Th systm boundaris from cradl to gat. Systm boundaris: from cradl to gat In th first stp, th study invstigatd th systm boundaris from cradl to gat. For th

3 FFS polythyln cmnt sack this covrs th following: l Polymr production (LDPE and LLDPE granulat). l Film production. l Flxo printing of th film. l Convrting procss into a tub. l Dlivry of th tub as a rl to th fillr. l Forming of th tub into a bag, filling, and saling in on opration. Th systm boundaris for th papr cmnt sack includ th following: l Production of sack kraft papr. l Printing and convrting into a papr sack. l Distribution to a fillr. l Filling and saling procss. Figur 1 shows th systm boundaris from cradl to gat of both sack systms in dtail. Th impact of cmnt production was xcludd from th analysis, as its goal is to compar th nvironmntal impacts of th two altrnativ packaging solutions. Systm boundaris: from cradl to grav In th scond stp, th systm boundaris wr xtndd to includ th distribution and rtail of th filld sacks, as wll as nd-of-lif managmnt. As far as distribution and rtail ar concrnd, a structurd valuation by RISE on bhalf of th Europan Papr Sack Rsarch Group in 2015 dlivrd th data basis. Th valuation invstigatd th distribution chains for cmnt in both papr sacks and FFS polythyln cmnt sacks, concluding that damag rats and losss from point-of-fill to point of sal at th rtailr ar likly to b lss than 1% for both. As a rsult, for this analysis losss in distribution of 0.5% hav bn considrd for both systms. It is furthr assumd that ths losss (both product and packaging) ar disposd of into landfill. Du to a lack of availabl data, no considration has bn mad for losss incurrd onc th cmnt has bn purchasd by th final consumr. As long as cmnt in ithr papr or FFS polythyln sacks is stord appropriatly by th consumr, thn thr is no rason to bliv that losss ar any diffrnt in papr sacks compard to FFS polythyln sacks. Concrning nd-of-lif managmnt, th following thr scnarios hav bn invstigatd for both packaging altrnativs: l 100% landfill. l 100% incinration with nrgy rcovry. l 100% rcycling. For th rcycling scnario, th cut-off mthod has bn applid in both cass. To invstigat th potntial influnc of this approach, for th FFS polythyln sack, a scnario has also bn modlld in which th missions associatd with rcycling, as wll as a crdit for offst virgin polythyln production ar includd. Dspit rducing th ovrall footprint of th FFS polythyln sack, th papr sack still shows bttr rsults. Data sourcs Th figurs usd for valuating papr sack production ar mainly primary data from rprsntativ Europan papr mills, papr convrtrs, and machinry manufacturrs. Scondary data is usd from GaBi and Ecoinvnt databass. Th analysis of th production of LDPE and LLDPE granulats and film production ar basd on lif cycl invntory data publishd by PlasticsEurop. Primary data on th filling and saling procss has bn providd by a machinry manufacturr. Why papr sacks ar bttr for th climat Th rsults of th comparativ study clarly show that papr sacks ar th bttr choic for th climat. Thy hav a smallr ovrall carbon footprint, no mattr which nd-of-lif scnario is considrd, b it landfill, incinration, or rcycling. In addition, rgarding th input of nrgy rsourcs, th papr sack is th mor nvironmntally-frindly packaging; it uss a gratr amount of rnwabl nrgy rsourcs to covr its production nrgy than th FFS polythyln sack. Concrning missions to air and frshwatr, th two solutions cannot b dirctly compard: in som missions, th papr sack showd bttr rsults, whras in othr missions it was th FFS polythyln sack. This convincing nvironmntal balanc validats th Europan sack kraft papr and papr sack industry in th continuing fforts to rduc its grnhous gas missions, improv nrgy fficincy, and incras th shar of rnwabl nrgis. This is simultanous to nhancing product protction and fficincy on th production lins. 2.5 tims smallr carbon footprint With 71 g of carbon dioxid quivalnt (CO 2 ) missions from cradl to gat, papr cmnt sacks hav significantly lowr fossil grnhous gas missions than FFS polythyln cmnt sacks (which total to 192 g CO 2 ). In othr words, missions from papr cmnt sacks ar 2.5 tims smallr and thrfor hav a lowr climat chang impact. Th diffrnc in th highr amount of fossil CO 2 from th FFS polythyln sack is comparabl to th missions of a laptop with a powr consumption of 25 W running for nin hours. Furthrmor, whn xtnding th boundaris to considr th nd of lif scnarios whthr landfill, incinration, or rcycling th rlativ standing of missions for

4 PAPER SACKS YOUR BETTER CHOICE FOR THE CLIMATE Th rsults prsntd ar basd on a study conductd by th Swdish rsarch institut RISE on bhalf of: / CEPIEUROKRAFT Europan Producrs of Sack Kraft Papr and Kraft Papr How dos CO 2 affct th climat? Incrasing grnhous gass (GHG) in th atmosphr lad to global warming. Carbon dioxid quivalnt (CO 2 ) is a masur for dscribing how much global warming a GHG may caus, using th quivalnt of CO 2 as a bnchmark. POLYETHYLENE 192 g CO 2 Th carbon footprint of papr sacks is 2.5 tims smallr than that of FFS PE sacks. PAPER 71 g CO 2 vrsus Summary Concrning climat chang th most critical challng for our plant th papr sack is clarly th favourabl option. Papr sacks and FFS PE (polythyln) sacks hav diffrnt mission profils bcaus thy us diffrnt raw matrials, procsss, nrgy rquirmnts and nrgy mixs. That s why th rsults cannot b dirctly compard in all aspcts. Emissions into frshwatr during th production procss FFS PE sack mor havy mtals papr sack mor organic substancs Mor nrgy fficint: Almost 5 papr sacks can b producd with th fossil nrgy consumd to produc 1 plastic sack. Climat-frindlir production: 18 tims lss fossil rsourcs ar usd as raw matrial within th papr sack. Clar climat bnfit: Th production uss a high dgr of rnwabl nrgy sourcs. End-of-lif missions: th papr sack s carbon footprint is smallr. Jun 2018 Figur 2. Infographic showing th most important rsults of th study. th two diffrnt packaging altrnativs rmains unchangd: th papr sack s carbon footprint is smallr. Mor fficint fossil nrgy consumption Rgarding th consumption of fossil nrgy in th production procss, th study concluds that th papr sack is th mor climat-frindly solution. Th production of a cmnt FFS polythyln sack uss 4.72 MJ of fossil nrgy pr sack as ful input. This is approximatly fiv tims mor than is consumd to produc a cmnt papr sack (0.97 MJ of fossil nrgy pr sack). This mans that almost fiv papr sacks can b producd with th sam amount of fossil nrgy that is consumd in th production of only on plastic sack. Th study also shows that th papr sack systm uss mor rnwabl nrgy sourcs (0.19 MJ of rnwabl nrgy pr sack) to fulfil its production nrgy nds, compard to th plastic sack (0 MJ of rnwabl nrgy pr sack). Considring th fossil rsourcs consumd as fdstock within th product itslf, as would b xpctd th FFS polythyln sack has a significantly highr consumption, using 18 tims mor fossil rsourcs (3.19 MJ of fossil rsourcs pr sack) than th papr sack (0.18 MJ of fossil rsourcs pr sack). This fossil nrgy consumption is still highr, vn with crdit for offst virgin polythyln production in th systm boundaris of th rcycling scnario. Mixd pictur for othr nvironmntal paramtrs Whn looking at th study rsults of othr missions to air and frshwatr during th production procss, a conclusion as to which of th two packaging choics is bttr for th nvironmnt cannot b drawn. In som rspcts, th papr sack shows bttr rsults, whr in othrs it is vic vrsa. Du to th highr consumption of fossil fuls, FFS polythyln cmnt sacks produc highr nitrogn oxid (NO X ) and sulphur oxid (SO X ) missions, as wll as highr missions into th air of th havy mtals lad and mrcury. In contrast, papr cmnt sacks produc highr missions of ammonia, non-mthan volatil organic compounds, and particulats into air. Rgarding missions into frshwatr, th production of FFS polythyln sacks mits mor havy mtals, whil papr sack production mits mor organic substancs into frshwatr. Ths rsults cannot b dirctly compard in all aspcts bcaus papr and FFS polythyln sacks hav diffrnt mission profils, du to thir us of diffrnt raw matrials, procsss, nrgy rquirmnts, and mixs. Figur 2 displays th ky rsults of th comparativ study. Continuous improvmnts in carbon footprint Asid from this LCI for a typical Europan papr cmnt sack, RISE rgularly conducts carbon footprint analyss of th valu chain of an avrag Europan papr sack. Th outcom is convincing: btwn 2007 and 2015 alon, CO 2 missions from

5 this procss hav improvd by 22%. This xcds on of th EU climat targts for 2020, fiv yars bfor this dat namly that of rducing grnhous gas missions by 20% compard with Th total annual improvmnt in trms of CO 2 quats to around circumnavigations around th glob by car. If th carbon squstrd by forsts, nd-oflif, and avoidd missions wr considrd in th calculation of th carbon footprint, it would actually com to lss than zro. Strong nvironmntal argumnts As a cornrston of th bio-basd conomy, th Europan sack kraft papr and papr sack industry contributs to sustainabl dvlopmnt, mting th rquirmnts of modrn packaging, consrving natural rsourcs, and protcting th nvironmnt. Inspird by natur s organic packaging solutions, th industry crats high-prformanc papr sacks that ar basd on natural rsourcs. Th fibrs usd to produc sack kraft papr ar 100% natural, rnwabl, and biodgradabl. This also maks papr sacks an xcllnt sourc of fibr for th rcycling industry aftr thir us, as thir long, strong fibrs can b rcycld svral tims. Morovr, th matrial fficincy of papr sacks has bn gratly nhancd ovr th past two dcads: th papr wight pr sack has bn rducd by 25%, whil th strngth of sack kraft papr has bn improvd by 45%. This rsults in considrabl rductions in natural rsourcs and costs for fillrs. Th sustainabl managmnt of forst aras is a cntral lmnt of th valu chain for papr sacks. Th fibrs for sack kraft papr ar xtractd from tr thinnings and from procss wast from th timbr industry, originating from sustainably managd Europan forsts. Thanks to th continuous rplanting of trs, th amount of stat ownd forst in Europ is growing by 200 million m 3 /yar, according to Eustafor. Ths living forsts provid habitats for wildlif and rcrational aras for popl. Furthrmor, thy act as a carbon sink whn thy grow and thrfor play a ky rol in climat chang mitigation. Conclusion Th comparativ study of papr cmnt sacks and FFS polythyln cmnt sacks has concludd that papr cmnt sacks ar th bttr option for th climat. Thir ovrall carbon footprint is smallr and thy ar mor nrgy fficint. Cmnt fillrs using papr sacks not only profit from high prformanc, spcially in trms of lowr packing costs and high filling spds whn using papr sacks, but thy can also rduc CO 2 missions and contribut to th mitigation of climat chang with thir choic of packaging. Rfrnc 1. KERNINON, C., and FLORESJÖ, E., Papr Sacks Mt High Dmands, (April 2016), pp About th authors Elin Gordon has bn Scrtary Gnral of CEPI Eurokraft sinc Sptmbr 2014 and bcam Chairman of CEPI Eurokraft in March Cathrin Krninon has bn Gnral Dlgat of EUROSAC sinc 2011 and has spnt most of hr carr working in th papr sack industry.