Tagged: recycling

Unpacking Life-Cycle Assessment Reports: Measurements, Model Mechanics, and Future Improvement

The field of environmental research has witnessed numerous advancements, and one such progression is the introduction of Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA). Unlike other tools, LCA stands out due to its unique ability to assess the environmental impact of a product, process, or decision throughout its entire lifecycle. This comprehensive evaluation of environmental impacts empowers LCA to provide invaluable insights for decisionmakers. It aids them in various arenas like product design, policymaking, and strategizing for sustainability.

So, how does LCA work? Think of LCA as an accountant, but not for money, for the environment. It begins its process by defining the objective and scope, then discerns what product or process is to be studied, identifies its lifecycle stages, and pinpoints its impact categories.

A product or process typically goes through several stages in its lifecycle. It starts with the raw material acquisition, wherein all the necessary elements are gathered. The subsequent phase is manufacturing or processing, where these materials are fashioned into the product in question. Then comes the distribution and transportation stage, the phase responsible for getting the product to its intended location. The next stage encompasses the use, maintenance, and repair of the product, which details its lifecycle while in the hands of consumers. Finally, the product reaches its end at the disposal or recycling stage, where it is either discarded or reprocessed for further use.

Following these stages, LCA delves into the inventory analysis. Here, it gathers detailed data about all the inputs, such as raw materials and energy, and outputs, like emissions and waste, associated with each stage of the lifecycle. This inventory serves as a comprehensive record of everything that contributes to and results from a product or process.

After the inventory analysis, LCA shifts its focus to the impact assessment phase. This is where the collected inputs and outputs are transformed into quantifiable environmental impacts. For example, Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions contribute to global warming and climate change by releasing heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Energy Use, spanning from the extraction of raw materials to the final disposal of the product, can escalate GHG emissions further. Toxicity involves the release of harmful substances throughout the lifecycle stages, which can adversely affect both human health and the environment. Eutrophication marks the runoff of nutrients into water bodies, sparking algal blooms and negatively impacting aquatic life. Water Use assesses the amount of fresh water utilized throughout the lifecycle stages, an aspect of particular concern in regions experiencing water scarcity.

Then, it moves into the interpretation phase, carefully analyzing and interpreting the results, spotlighting crucial issues, drawing conclusions, and charting out recommendations.

However, as meticulous as LCA might be, its precision hinges on the quality and specificity of the data used. Though LCA models can yield trustworthy estimates of environmental impacts, they involve intricate systems and factors used in the model that may have substantial uncertainty in the base data used, which can be compounded with the uncertainty of other variables during the analytical process. Additional uncertainty can occur due to geographic difference and variations in the processes used and end uses assumed for recovered materials. Despite these uncertainties, LCAs are widely regarded as a comprehensive tool for evaluating environmental impacts.

But like every great tool, LCA too comes with certain limitations. First, LCAs are data-intensive, which can make them time-consuming and costly. Second, while LCAs are adept at capturing many environmental impacts, they might fail to fully acknowledge some, such as the local effects of biodiversity loss due to land use changes or social impacts like labor conditions. Third, comparing LCAs can pose a significant challenge if different methodologies or boundaries are used, as inconsistency in these aspects can yield drastically different results, muddling the comparisons. Finally, the results of LCAs may not reflect the spectrum of activities and, hence, the range of environmental impacts, owing to the variability in processes and systems. 

Despite these limitations, LCA is a valuable and promising tool. Its comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of a product or process’s environmental footprint across its entire lifecycle provides decisionmakers with invaluable insights. By identifying potential areas for improvement and highlighting the most damaging stages of a product’s life cycle, LCA serves as a powerful instrument for promoting sustainability. While it may not be perfect, the LCA remains a crucial ally in our collective pursuit of a more sustainable and environmentally conscious world.

Implications of LCA Studies on Curbside Recycling in the U.S.

Curbside recycling has been proven to have significant environmental benefits, according to a recent Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) report released by the Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF). The study highlights the importance of various factors in determining the effectiveness of recycling programs and their environmental impacts.

The LCA emphasizes that curbside recycling can lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy use compared to landfilling. However, the environmental benefits of recycling are influenced by several factors. These include the types of materials being recycled, the efficiency of source separation by residents, the structure of the recycling program, and the viability of end markets for recovered materials.

It’s crucial to recognize that waste management entities have limited control over these factors. While they can dictate the type of recycling program, they cannot directly control source separation or the viability of end markets. This highlights the complex interplay of various stakeholders in making recycling economically and environmentally viable.

The LCA study reveals that different materials have varying levels of GHG and energy savings when recycled. Aluminum cans provide the highest emissions avoidance, with 9,130 kg of CO2 avoided per ton of aluminum recycled. In contrast, recycling glass results in the lowest emissions avoidance. Energy savings follow a similar trend, with aluminum providing the highest savings.

However, it’s important to note that these results are based on an idealized recycling scenario. The actual benefits will depend on the recycling system, whether it’s a closed-loop system or an open-loop system where materials degrade in quality over recycling iterations.

The inclusion of different materials in recycling programs has a significant impact on overall GHG emissions reduction. According to the LCA study, including aluminum containers in curbside recycling programs results in the most substantial reduction in GHG emissions. Fiber recycling, including old, corrugated cardboard and mixed paper, provides the largest program-wide energy savings. Glass and ferrous containers show the least benefits in GHG emissions reduction and energy savings, respectively.

However, it’s important to consider that in certain scenarios, recycling certain materials could potentially result in higher emissions or energy use than not recycling them at all. Improving the curbside capture rate in recycling programs presents a significant opportunity to reduce GHG emissions. The study suggests that a 10-percentage point increase in curbside capture could decrease program-wide GHG emissions by nearly 25 kg CO2e per metric ton of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) managed. Focusing on materials with higher GHG offsets, like aluminum cans, could lead to even greater emissions savings.

The transition to single-stream recycling programs, despite increased contamination rates and energy demand for sorting equipment, has resulted in a significant net reduction in GHG emissions. The increased quantity of recyclable commodities sent for remanufacturing outweighs the negative environmental impact.

The end use of recovered materials from Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) significantly impact system-wide GHG benefits. Materials with marginal emissions benefits, such as fiber and glass, are particularly affected. However, any deviation from closed-loop or best-case recycling scenarios could substantially reduce or even negate the environmental benefits of recycling.  For example, using recycled glass in non-closed loop situations should be considered carefully, particularly when the transport distance from the recycling facility is significant.

Recycled materials are transported via Over-the-Road (OTR) vehicles, rail, or ocean-going vessels. OTR vehicles have the highest energy use and GHG emissions, while rail and ocean shipping significantly lower these impacts. Maximizing the load on transport vehicles reduces overall GHG emissions, highlighting the importance of transportation efficiency in recycling programs. The geographical location also influences the environmental superiority of recycling compared to landfilling or Waste-to-Energy (WTE) options.

LCAs often rely on ‘best-case’ assumptions due to limited end-use data. However, more comprehensive research is needed to understand how the end use of materials impacts LCAs. For materials with low market demand and negligible environmental benefits in their recovery, landfilling may be a more sustainable short-term option.

EREF’s LCA highlights the complexity of recycling programs and the need to consider multiple factors in their design and evaluation. While recycling is beneficial in reducing GHG emissions and energy use, these benefits are material-specific and influenced by various factors. Waste management entities, residents, and end markets all play essential roles in making recycling economically and environmentally viable.

Sustainable Summers: Small Steps Towards Big Impacts

What costs $1.2 TRILLION and continues to get more and more expensive? The answer: Americans’ summer travel[1]

Now that it’s officially summer, many Americans are headed out of town. Whether weekends at the beach or months abroad, this summer is set to witness the strongest air travel since the pre-pandemic era, possibly making it the most robust ever. Over a quarter of Americans (26%), an increase from 19% in the first quarter, are preparing to embark on leisure travel in the coming three months[2]. This increase in travelers will translate into an approximate 12% growth in passengers for the three biggest U.S. airlines, expected to ferry 8.6 million people during the summer season[3]. While this mass mobilization symbolizes an exciting era of discovery and relaxation, it’s crucial to remember that our travel plans, while invigorating for us, can impose a heavy toll on the environment. In line with the increasingly prominent green trends sweeping the nation, it’s important that we approach our summer adventures with a mindful consideration of their environmental impact.

This summer’s surge in travel activity can unfortunately translate into increased waste production, with potential negative implications for our environment and lifestyle. Moreover, maintaining the allure and accessibility of our favorite scenic spots and lakes depends significantly on how well we protect them from pollution and trash accumulation. In a world where single-use plastic is commonplace, the path to sustainability can seem daunting. But a little planning can go a long way in fostering eco-friendly travel.

Unfortunately, it’s rare to see recycling bins at rest stops and gas stations, which makes it difficult for travelers to responsibly dispose of recyclables like plastic bottles or cans. As a result, these items often end up in general trash bins, destined for landfills. By including more visible and accessible recycling facilities at these high-traffic areas, we could make a substantial contribution to reducing travel-related waste.

As you plan your travel, consider these tips. When driving, pack snacks from home, carrying reusable beverage containers, and maintaining separate trash bags for recyclables and other waste in your car. Make a game out of minimizing waste – it not only teaches sustainability but can add a fun twist to the journey. When traveling by plane, one could manage waste by having a meal before a short flight to avoid single-use packaged snacks. For longer flights, taking advantage of in-flight meals helps reduce waste as these meals would otherwise be discarded. Train travel, in addition to being an efficient mode of transportation, also offers a refreshing respite from the bustling city traffic. If your travel requires documentation or tickets, digital documents on your phone or tablet help save paper and are less likely to be lost.

Choosing larger, shareable items, using snack cups for family members, and reducing hotel service to only when needed are effective ways to cut down waste. Don’t fall for the convenience of disposable utensils. Carrying reusable utensils, dishes, straws, and cloth napkins might seem like a chore, but such small steps can significantly lessen the landfill load.

Whether you’re headed to the beach, mountains, cities, or abroad, there are specific steps you can take to reduce waste. For beach or lake visits, the use of items that could be swept away by the wind or tide should be minimized. In the mountains, a pack it in, pack it out mindset goes a long way in preserving the natural beauty[4]. City travelers can cut down waste by enjoying meals in local restaurants instead of opting for takeaway. When traveling abroad, especially to European countries known for their waste minimization efforts, be sure to pay attention when you have items to discard as most offer a more diverse suite of options for disposal than the average American city and in many cases have separate recycling bins for plastic, glass, metal, paper and food.

These small steps may seem minor, but collectively, they can significantly impact our environment, potentially steering the future of the tourism industry towards a more sustainable path. As you make summer travel plans, and add to that $1.2 trillion price tag, consider a pledge to travel responsibly and sustainably.


[1] https://www.ustravel.org/research/us-travel-answer-sheet

[2] https://www.ustravel.org/news/summer-travel-expectations-still-strong-economic-pressure-and-poor-travel-experience-may#:~:text=This%20summer%2C%20air%20travel%20demand,up%20from%2019%25%20in%20Q1.

[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-24/summer-travel-in-2023-means-high-costs-and-big-crowds#xj4y7vzkg

[4] https://www.pcta.org/discover-the-trail/backcountry-basics/leave-no-trace/pack-it-in-pack-it-out/

Shopping Online this Holiday Season? Recycle those Cardboard Boxes, Expert Says

recycle cardboard this holidayOnline shoppers can help combat climate change and reduce deforestation by recycling cardboard boxes and other packaging materials this holiday season.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues to surge, a growing number of consumers across the country are shopping online this holiday season – a trend that could have severe environmental consequences if packaging materials aren’t properly disposed of.

“Packaging materials, whether they’re made from paper or plastic, are very important because they help protect products,” said Richard Venditti, the Elis-Signe Olsson Professor of Pulp and Paper Science and Engineering at NC State’s College of Natural Resources. “But some of these materials, especially plastics, are still making their way into trash cans instead of recycling bins.”

Venditti, whose areas of expertise include paper recycling and environmental life cycle analysis, added that packaging materials in trash cans are sent to landfills where non-biodegradable materials occupy space for centuries and biodegradable materials break down and release greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

In the United States, more than 95% of the packages shipped to the country’s 200 million online shoppers are sent in containerboard – cardboard and corrugated containers. The use of cardboard and other packaging materials is expected to increase in the coming years as online sales continue to grow, according to Venditti. Between January and November of this year alone, American consumers spent about $547 billion online. That’s an increase of roughly 33% from the same period in 2019.

Several companies are working to reduce packaging waste and find more sustainable alternatives. For example, Amazon – which ships an average of 608 million packages each year – has eliminated more than 665,000 tons of packaging materials and more than 1.18 billion shipping boxes since 2008 through its Frustration-Free Packaging program, which provides consumers with recyclable boxes that are easy-to-open and free of excess materials such as plastic bindings and wire ties.

Venditti said recycling is one of the most efficient methods available for both retailers and consumers to reduce the number of cardboard boxes in the waste stream. It not only conserves energy and natural resources but also helps reduce pollution.

Cardboard, like other paper-based products, is manufactured from cellulose fibers extracted primarily from trees. “Paper and paperboard recycling makes more efficient use of our forest resources and avoids some of the environmental burdens associated with making cardboard from trees,” Venditti said.

More importantly, when consumers recycle packaging, it reduces the amount of cardboard in landfills – and the amount of greenhouse gases that it emits during decomposition. Cardboard packaging that is sent to landfills releases some fugitive methane that is not captured in landfill collections systems. Methane has a global warming potential that’s 20 times higher than carbon dioxide over the course of 100 years. It’s estimated that when consumers recycle 1 ton of cardboard, they save over 9 cubic yards of landfill space.

The percentage of cardboard boxes that Americans recycle has increased from 55% in 1993 to 92% in 2019. The remaining 8% of cardboard boxes is sent to landfills because it’s unsuitable for recycling, since it may be disposed of in remote areas, or contaminated with food or other material, according to Venditti.

“Paper is definitely a success in the materials recycling universe, with recovery rates far higher than plastics or glass and other materials,” Venditti said. “The recycling levels that we’re seeing with these boxes are incredible. But we need people to be more effective in their overall recycling, especially with other materials such as plastics and metals.”

Most Americans have access to community curbside or drop-off recycling for paper and paperboard packaging. But as consumers receive more products directly from online retailers, they’re recycling less and throwing away more. Part of the reason is the confusion over what is recyclable, according to Venditti.

However, while consumer behavior certainly plays a role in the country’s ongoing packaging waste, recycling programs in the U.S. face a bigger challenge. For the past quarter century, the U.S. and other countries around the world have sent a significant portion of their recyclable discards to China for recycling. But in 2018, China implemented strict restrictions on imported waste, including plastic, mixed paper and cardboard. This has left many municipalities and companies with nowhere to send their waste for recycling.

“China was purchasing recyclable materials for rather high prices, but now they’re not buying from us anymore,” Venditti said. “As a result, the price for recycled paper has decreased dramatically. What that means is that collectors and haulers don’t get as much money for their efforts. They’re not going to go the extra mile to collect the fringe materials that are on the borderline of profitability, so now we’re experiencing an excess buildup of waste materials.”

To address this issue, Venditti is spearheading a study that will examine the potential use of low-grade mixed paper waste in cardboard packaging in order to increase demand for recycled materials. The study is funded by the Environmental Research and Education Foundation, a Raleigh-based organization that supports solid waste research and education initiatives.

“A key challenge in the recycling industry is creating end-market demand for lower value/quality recyclables,” said Bryan Staley, president and CEO of the Environmental Research and Education Foundation. “Dr. Venditti’s research aims to strengthen pathways to increase recycled content using these materials. This allows for increased circularity of materials that otherwise would have limited value and improves overall sustainability.”

One of the study’s primary objectives is to better understand consumer impressions of packaging that contains paper waste, according to Venditti.

“Most cardboard boxes are brown with a consistent texture. But we’re using low-grade mixed paper waste to create boxes that have lighter speckles that might be recognizable as copy paper or magazine paper,” he said. “If a consumer sees a box with recycled content on the outside, how does that make them feel? Are they more likely to think that the packaging and therefore the product and company are more environmentally friendly? That’s what we want to know.”

In addition, Venditti and his research team are analyzing how the use of low-grade mixed paper waste impacts the physical properties of cardboard boxes, including strength and durability. Preliminary results show that the physical properties decrease by about 20%. The research team is currently working to compensate for that loss by exploring the addition of recycling process changes and additives.

Initial results from the study will likely be published sometime in 2021. Although the study is funded for 18 months, Venditti expects it to extend into the future as students and colleagues conduct additional research.

“The research, showing the benefits of low quality waste in paper packaging, is expected to demonstrate to companies a green and effective way to protect their products that have the added benefit of projecting a positive image of the product,” he said. “As the population of the world increases and demands for packaging increase, research projects to develop solutions like this one are critical for society.”

Written by Andrew Moore, College of Natural Sciences, NC State University

Definition Dilemma: A Look at the Varying Recycling Definitions

ARD 2019 Recycling Definitions FINAL smaller (1)

Of the 49 states that have recycling definitions, EREF identified 18 DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS! States use these when creating their waste reduction goals and measuring to see if they met their goals.

Check out this infographic on the differences in state recycling definitions!

Recycle Right: Are you Falling for these Recycling Myths?

ARD 2019 Recycling Myths FINAL smaller

When you hear phrases like “think green” or “environmental stewardship,” recycling is likely one of the first things that comes to mind. With all of the pseudo-science and myths out there, you might be confused on how to recycle and even the definition of recycling.

Check out this infographic in which EREF addresses common misconceptions associated with recycling!

How Much of Our Waste is Actually Recyclable?

Since 1995, the amount of commodity recyclables in the waste stream has fallen 10 points from 53% to 43%.

A recent EREF analysis examined the waste management policies set by state/local agencies, such as recycling and diversion goals. EREF found that states across the U.S. have recycling goals ranging from 10% – 50%.

If every item that was capable of being recycled actually was recycled, could these goals be achieved? This concept, applicable to diversion in general, is known as the theoretical maximum recovery.

New Study Quantifies Needlestick Injury Rates for Material Recovery Facility Workers

Results found in a groundbreaking new report from the Environmental Research & Education Foundation (EREF), in collaboration with the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), indicate a needlestick injury rate at material recovery facilities (MRFs) of 2.7 per 100 workers. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) 2016 data, MRF injuries (including non-needlestick related) occur at a rate of 6 per 100 workers, suggesting 45 percent of MRF injuries could be attributed to needlesticks.

Click here for more information (PDF)