World largest PET Life Cycle Assessment – One-way PET levels with refillable glass
Conducted by IFEU in Heidelberg, Germany, for the German Market
Petcore summary of the LCA
Petcore, September 2004
Introduction
The current German Packaging Ordinance (1988) imposes a mandatory deposit on one-way packaging systems if certain refillable quotas are not met. Confirmation of 2002 market shares, led to the introduction, in January 2003, of a mandatory deposit on one-way packaging holding waters, soft drinks and beer. Cartons and pouches were excluded from the deposit since they had been classified as “ökologisch vorteilhaft” (ecologically favourable) by the German Ministry of Environment (UBA), based on Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) conducted by IFEU under the auspices of UBA. The UBA LCA used refillable glass as their benchmark and one-way PET was one of the product categories deemed as “ecologically unfavourable”.
Petcore, the European trade association representing the interests of the PET beverage packaging sector and a reputable clearinghouse for sustainable sector practices, particularly in the field of post-consumer collection and recycling, refrained from getting involved in this, often politically-charged, debate. Furthermore, Petcore does not air preference between various collection systems for either one-way or refillables, provided that they are economically, ecologically, and socially sound.
However, several scientists and business stakeholders voiced their concern over the German “favourable/unfavourable” classification and Petcore shared this concern: relatively minor environmental differences between packaging systems often run parallel with their economical impact. Such “good or bad” stigmatisation can lead to market distortions triggered off by national business interests. Others argued that the UBA LCA II (2002) treated PET “unfairly” because only 50 percent of the ecological benefits were allocated to the PET bottle an the other 50 percent to the end-application, whereas most packaging systems benefit from full allocation. The truth is that it is not unfair, it merely reflects on LCA science. Glass is recycled back into glass, metal into metal, carton into carton. With PET, things are different. Most PET bottles are recycled back into non-PET applications such as polyester fibres, sheet, and strapping. Only a relatively small percentage is recycled back into PET bottles. In such cases, LCA scientists apply a Salomon’s judgment by allocating 50 percent of the gains to the supplier (PET bottles), and 50 percent to the recyclates (e.g. polyester fibres). This set Petcore into motion.
The international standards on LCAs (ISO 14040 series) stipulate that on such occasions, unrealistic allocations can be corrected by applying expanded system boundaries. In the case of PET bottles, the LCA would have to be expanded to include all main recycling outlet processes.
EG: Ethylenglycol
PTA: Purified Terephtalic Acid
Figure 1: Simplified model of extended boundaries in the one-way PET System
Such extension on a PET LCA has never been done before, because it also meant that the costs of conducting such a study would multiply. Petcore thought it would be a worthwhile exercise, but only if the study were 100 percent reputable.
In May 2003, Petcore commissioned IFEU to conduct the study, using realistic input data in full accordance with UBA practices. The study was actively supported by Forum PET in Bad Homburg and a number of local beverage businesses such as Aqua Montana, Beckers Bester, Brandenburger Urstromquelle, Eckes-Granini, Gehring-Bunte, Hansa-Heemann, Hochwald-Sprudel, Holsten Brauerei, SDI, Stute. Prof. Dr. Walter Klöppfer, a renowned German LCA scientist and chief editor of the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, was appointed as chairman of the study’s Peer Reviewers. Their mandate: “Due to the high political importance of the ‘refillable versus one-way packaging’ problem in Germany and a corresponding public awareness, the highest possible standard of performing the LCA as well as the critical review”. The Peer Review concludes that the study is “innovative, thorough, according to LCA standards and as detailed as ever”.
Other Peer Review observations include that “refillable glass was treated very fairly”, and “no attempt to smooth out PET data was observed ”. They also comment that while delivery of PET production data has improved significantly, transparency per individual producer is still lacking. We can only acknowledge this criticism, and hope the overall provision of details and balance will set the standard for years to come.
Scope
The study compares the effects of soft drinks and mineral waters packaged in one-way PET versus refillable glass, both under kerbside collection (DSD) and under deposits.
One-way PET is dominated by the 1.5L bottle, with a market share of more than 60 percent if you calculate in number of bottles.When market shares are depicted in litres, the 1.5L segment turns out to represent over 90 percent of the German one-way PET market. The 0.7L bottle is overwhelmingly dominant in the refillable glass segment. That is why much of the study compares 1.5L one-way PET with 0.7L refillable glass. Nevertheless, the results are always calculated back to effects per 1,000 litre units. Smaller sizes, such as the 0.5L PET bottle and the 0.5L and 0.33L glass bottle, are also included in the scope of the LCA.
Key Results
Under source-separated collection conditions such as DSD, the environmental effects of one-way PET are similar to those of refillable glass. (See figure 2). Under deposits, the environmental performance of one-way PET deteriorates. This is mainly due to the fact that most one-way PET deposit bottles are shipped to the Far East for recycling. This difference would disappear if deposit bottles were to be recycled in Europe, as it is the case with DSD bottles.Other interesting findings:
The environmental benefits of recycling PET bottles back into PET bottles, was clearly visible in close-loop studies. However, if all recycling outlets are taken into account – as is the case for this LCA with expanded system boundaries – then there is little difference between recycling PET into polyester fibres, sheet, strapping, or back into PET bottles: they all have a positive influence on the environmental profile of PET containers. Where differences do exist on specific environmental parameters, they often become insignificant when normal process variances are taken into account. See figure 1, as an example. Since greenhouse gases and the use of fossil resources are important parameters, IFEU was asked to express differences in units that can be easily understood by the general public. Their effects on one-way PET relative to refillable glass translate to the average German citizen driving 40 km extra per year on a standard car. Sensitivity analyses indicate that transport distances and bottle weights are important parameters that could, in the future, swing the balance to either side. Furthermore, significant energy savings are anticipated in next-generation PET manufacturing technologies.
Figure 2: Normalised relative results comparing 1.5L carbonised one-way PET (expressed as person equivalents) with the 0.7L refillable glass bottle system being the baseline (zero line).
Conclusions
This study shows without doubt that one-way PET bottles are as “ecologically favourable” as refillable glass under non - deposit circumstances. According to the present legal framework this would mean that one-way PET should be exempted from deposits and return to the DSD collection system. How the deposit system without the inclusion of one-way PET could continue to function – if it functioned at all, is an interesting question from a political point of view.
A plausible alternative could be to revise the Packaging Ordinance such, that ecologically favourable packaging systems would be included in a deposit without being discriminated when compared to refillable packaging. The current deposit fee of €0.25 for one-way is punitive compared to the voluntary refill deposit of €0.15 per bottle. Such revision could be supported by industry stakeholders, provided the system is truly nationwide, transparent, and functional.
Furthermore, it cannot be explained to consumers that they should return the empty bottles to the store if they are subsequently transported to the other side of the world for recycling in developing countries. This way we are losing the environmental gain that is the prime reason behind bottles collection.
Figure 3: Statistical variance of two parameters
This study was prepared specifically for the German beverage market. Comparative details can therefore only be reviewed based on local conditions. However, since this is the first time that all key PET reclaim outlets are included in a full LCA, it is important to identify relevant basic principles that should apply to any country with a nation-wide collection scheme.
The German kerbside collection system was, when it included one-way PET (until December 2002), very effective in terms of its collection rate. A collection rate of nearly 80 percent equals that of most deposit collection systems. DSD recovery rates for one-way PET (a mere 39 percent) should, however, be subject to significant improvements. The reasons are:
This study has shown that it does not matter whether collected PET is recycled into polyester fibre, sheet, strapping, or back into PET bottles: they all offer equal benefits to the ecological profile of PET. Mandatory or semi-mandatory requirements to recycle PET bottles back into PET bottles would therefore be as ridiculous as a requirement to recycle the steel of cars back into cars. It is all a matter of economics and overall value. “Bottle to Bottle” does however call for high-tech processing and current technologies have proven that this is a very interesting and sustainable market outlet.
“Distance to target” will remain an important parameter for high-value, lightweight packaging products such as PET. This principle applies to product distribution as well as to distances to the recycling outlet. It is also an area where the three principle cornerstones of sustainability: economy, ecology, and social responsibility, will have to find a balance that is appropriate to societal needs. Such issues are difficult if not impossible, to be judged based on LCAs alone.
Public perception does not always match reality. Few German citizens would have thought that PET bottles, even for single-use, are as good as their well-known refillable glass counterparts. This calls for further improvements in balanced, reputable education, independent and irrespective of local political agendas.
For more about LCA and CBA studies here on IP PETrecycling.cz (also with links to source in English or/and German):
Related links on IP PETrecycling.cz in English only:
More articles on IP PETrecycling.cz:
Articles in archives: 2007
> 2006
>
2005 >
2004 >
2003 >
2002 >
2001 >
2000
Contact:
J.F. Nezval
PETrecycling.cz