× close
Graphical abstraction. credit: environmental science and technology (2024). DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c05191
Research from the University of Sheffield shows that replacing plastics with alternative materials is likely to increase GHG emissions.
Research carried out by Dr Fanlan Meng from the University of Sheffield’s School of Chemical and Biological Engineering, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Cambridge and KTH Royal Institute of Technology, has revealed the emissions associated with plastic products compared to their alternatives.
It was published in the magazine environmental science and technologyThe study investigated plastics and their alternatives across a variety of applications, including packaging, construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. Together, these sectors account for a significant portion of global plastic usage.
The study found that in 15 of the 16 applications investigated, plastic products actually have lower GHG emissions compared to their alternatives. Emission reductions range from 10 percent to up to 90 percent over the product lifecycle.
To understand the environmental impact, Sheffield academics used a tool called life cycle assessment (LCA). This method is useful for comparing the environmental impact of different products. This study adopted an LCA approach to assess his GHG emissions associated with plastic products and alternative products across different sectors.
Even when focusing only on direct lifecycle emissions, plastics maintain their benefits in 9 out of 14 applications. Factors such as lower energy intensity during manufacturing and the weight efficiency of plastics contribute to a reduced environmental footprint compared to alternatives such as glass and metal.
Plastics also show advantages in upstream processes such as production and transportation in 10 out of 16 applications. The study attributes this advantage to its low energy intensity and low weight, highlighting the efficiency of plastic materials in mitigating emissions.
Dr Fanran Meng, assistant professor of sustainable chemical engineering at the University of Sheffield, said: ‘Not all substituted or recycled products are better for the environment than the alternatives. We need informed decision-making to ensure that moving to higher-emitting alternative materials does not unintentionally increase greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Reducing demand, optimizing efficiency, extending lifespan, and reusing/recycling are win-win strategies to effectively reduce emissions. Focusing solely on switching to alternative materials is unlikely Not.”
This study also revealed the complexity of indirect effects from the background systems surrounding plastics, which play a key role in certain applications. For example, in scenarios such as insulation and hybrid car fuel tanks, indirect effects mask the direct emissions of plastics, providing a nuanced perspective on the environmental performance of plastics.
Additionally, plastic packaging plays a critical role in maintaining food quality across a wide range of categories and helps prevent food spoilage and the greenhouse gas emissions it causes. This important feature highlights the immense environmental benefits of plastic packaging when compared to alternative materials.
For more information:
Fanran Meng et al, Replacing plastics with alternatives almost always worsens greenhouse gas emissions. environmental science and technology (2024). DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.3c05191
