Muovipakkauksilla 70% pienempi hiilijalanjälki kuin vaihtoehdoilla

Kun päätöksenteon väitetään perustuvan tieteeteeseen ja tutkimustuloksiin, niin suunta muovipakkausten suhteen varmaankin kääntyy? No, tuskinpa, koska tunteella ja aatteenpalolla jatketaan niin kuin aina aiemminkin.

Elizabeth Avery, Experience Nduagu, Eric Vozzola, Timothee W. Roux, Rafael Auras, Polyethylene packaging and alternative materials in the United States: A life cycle assessment, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 961, 2025, 178359, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178359.

A comprehensive life cycle assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of polyethylene (PE) packaging and its alternatives, including paper, glass, aluminum, and steel in the United States. The assessment focuses on five major packaging applications: collation shrink films, stretch films for pallet wraps, heavy-duty sacks, non-food bottles, and flexible food pouches. The study compares PE and the alternative packaging materials based on the following environmental impact categories: global warming potential (GWP), fossil energy use, mineral resource use, and water scarcity. The research integrates sales volume estimates for each application, examining the substitution ratios of PE-based materials and the GWP decrease capabilities of using PE as packaging material. The findings reveal that substituting PE for other packaging materials can lead to an average life cycle GWP emissions decrease of approximately 70 %. This significant decrease highlights the potential GWP benefits of PE in the context of packaging solutions in the United States. We also provide a detailed analysis of the potential environmental impacts and trade-offs associated with PE and its alternatives. The insights gained from this study are intended to assist stakeholders and policymakers in making informed decisions that balance environmental impact mitigation with maintaining product functionality and achieving sustainability objectives.