University of Sheffield study shows: Plastic products often have lower greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.
Life cycle assessment underscores the importance of efficiency optimization and recycling for sustainable plastic use.
New Study from the University of Sheffield: Plastic Products Frequently Result in Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions Than Alternatives.
A recent study from the University of Sheffield reveals that substituting plastic with alternative materials often leads to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Conducted by Dr. Fanran Meng from Sheffield’s Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Cambridge and the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, the research examined the emissions associated with plastic products compared to their alternatives.
Published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, the study analyzed plastics and their replacements across various applications such as packaging, construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. It found that in 15 out of 16 applications, plastic products actually result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives.
The reduction in emissions ranges from 10 percent to as high as 90 percent over the product life cycle.
To understand the environmental impacts, the Sheffield academics employed a tool called life cycle assessment (LCA) to compare how different products affect the environment. The study adopted an LCA approach to evaluate the GHG emissions associated with plastic products versus alternatives across different sectors.
Even when focusing solely on direct life-cycle emissions, plastics maintain their advantage in nine out of 14 applications. Factors such as lower energy intensity during production and the weight efficiency of plastics contribute to their reduced environmental footprint compared to alternatives like glass or metal.
Plastics also demonstrate superiority in upstream processes, including production and transport, in 10 out of 16 applications. This advantage stems from their lower energy intensity and lighter weight, highlighting the efficiency of plastic materials in mitigating emissions, according to the study.
Dr. Fanran Meng, Assistant Professor in Sustainable Chemical Engineering at the University of Sheffield, emphasized, "Not all alternative or recycled products are better for the environment than the products they replace. Environmental policymaking needs life cycle assessment guided decision-making to make sure that GHG emissions are not unintentionally increased through a shift to more emission-intensive alternative materials."
The study has also revealed the complexity of indirect impacts from background systems surrounding plastics, which play a substantial role in certain applications.
The research findings suggest that optimizing plastic use, extending product lifetimes, boosting recycling rates, and enhancing waste collection systems may offer more effective strategies for reducing emissions associated with plastic products.
Dr. Meng added, "Our research highlights the importance of using the life cycle assessment tool to better understand how plastics and their alternatives can affect the environment."
The research team notes that future modeling could be expanded to include reusable bioplastics, compostable, and biodegradable alternatives. These were excluded from this study due to small market values and a lack of reliable data on reuse.
The study, "Replacing Plastics with Alternatives Is Worse for Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Most Cases," was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. Read the full study here.
