AN ADVERTISING SUPPLEMENT TO THE WASHINGTON POST
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012
EZ
EE
7
E N V I R O N M E N TA L L E A D E R S H I P
Understanding Sustainable Packaging Options Robb De Kleine Research Specialist, University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems WHAT MAKES FOR sustainable packaging? Many consumers consider recyclable packaging to be sustainable. While this is one important aspect of sustainability, the question is more complex. After all, not all recyclable materials actually are recycled. For example, even though aluminum beverage containers can be recycled into new containers repeatedly, and the recycling infrastructure for this type of packaging is well established, only about half of these containers are actually recycled. Although recycling packaging can reduce the amount of solid waste sent to landfills, there can be environmental tradeoffs. For instance, consumers often rinse containers prior to recycling, thus increasing water consumption in the home. To judge the sustainability of packaging, we need a way to understand these potential tradeoffs.
A product is studied through every stage of its existence, including raw material production, manufacturing, use and end of life. Fortunately, a method called life cycle assessment can help us evaluate the sustainability of packaging and other goods. In life cycle assessment, a product is studied through every stage of its existence, including raw material production, manufacturing, use and end of life. By calculating the material and energy inputs and outputs for each stage, one can understand a product’s total environmental impact.
The Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan has used life cycle assessment to find ways to improve the sustainability of packaging systems. For example, we worked with Stonyfield Farms, producers of organic yogurt, to evaluate their product delivery system. When the company was considering changing its yogurt lids, our research showed that switching from the previous plastic lid and plastic film closure to a foil closure used 16 percent less energy. This change saved enough energy to power about 180 U.S. households for a year. A common approach to making packaging more sustainable is to reduce the amount of packaging. Since Walmart pledged only to sell concentrated liquid laundry detergent, many manufacturers now produce smaller bottles of detergent with the same cleaning power as the previous, larger bottles. These smaller bottles require less plastic to manufacture, which means less petroleum is necessary to produce the plastic and less material ends up in the landfill when the bottle is emptied. In addition, more bottles can be shipped to the store in the same truck space, thus reducing the amount of fuel needed for transport. Another opportunity to improve the sustainability of packing is to utilize refillable packaging systems. Historically, it was common for milk to be delivered to American homes in refillable bottles. Today, disposable plastic jugs are the most common retail packaging for milk, but our research showed that adopting refillable milk packaging would have environmental advantages. Even though refillable containers need to be stronger and, therefore, require more material to manufacture, they still would require less material consumption than the disposable packaging they would replace. Using
Fuel Efficiency – The Road to Auto Industry Success Michelle Robinson Director of the Clean Vehicles Program Union of Concerned Scientists
Stonyfield eliminated these plastic yogurt tops in favor of more environmentally-friendly foil tops. (Photo courtesy of Center for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan.)
refillable packaging would reduce packaging costs, energy consumption and solid waste significantly. Life cycle assessment is a useful tool for evaluating alternative packaging designs (For more information, please visit http://css.snre.umich.edu). Other strategies g for improving p g
H7
the sustainability performance of packaging include use of bio-based materials, dematerialization, increasing recycled content and bulk merchandising. Ultimately, packaging must protect the product because damaged goods have a negative impact on n sustainability. ability.
JUST A FEW SHORT YEARS a after being saved from the brink of collapse, the U.S. auto industry is getting back on its feet, hiring back workers and increasing production. The prospect of a reinvigorated auto industry is exciting, but the industry must stay on track by meeting the demands of a changing market and avoiding the same pitfalls that led to its brush with disaster. Put simply, the old way of doing things doesn’t work anymore. As consumers, we need a new kind of vehicle, one that is not only powerful and practical, but also protects us from rising gasoline prices. As a country, we need vehicles that cut our oil use; save us money; and reduce the harmful, heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution that causes climate change. The U.S. auto market has already fallen behind. European and Asian nations are demanding that vehicles be more fuel efficient, and automakers have responded by investing in their overseas plants. Now, with tougher U.S. standards on the horizon, we must invest in innovation here in the United States to produce clean, fuelefficient vehicles. Strong fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards will push the U.S. auto industry to regain its technological lead. According to a report by Citigroup, strong fuel efficiency standards will likely boost the industry’s profits, sales and global competitiveness. Another analysis, by the nonprofit Ceres, concluded that stronger standards could help create hundreds of thousands of full-time jobs in 2030, tens of thousands of those in the auto industry. Last November, the Obama administration took a big step toward new fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards for cars, trucks and SUVs. For vehicles sold in
model years 2017 to 2025, the administration proposed a standard that will nearly double new vehicle fuel economy and cut their global warming pollution levels to 163 grams per mile by 2025. Automakers can meet such a standard with existing technology, including more efficient engines, smarter transmissions, stronger materials and conventional hybrid powertrains. In fact, automakers are already starting to put some of this technology to work, thanks to a first round of fuel efficiency and global warming pollution standards that are already phasing in from 2012 to 2016, just in time to help consumers deal with the latest gas price spikes. When combined, that first round and the proposed standards would cut oil consumption by as much as 3.5 million barrels per day — 54 billion gallons of gasoline annually — by 2030. That is nearly equivalent to U.S. imports from Canada and Mexico in 2010. Less fuel consumption will keep more money in drivers’ wallets, instead of contributing to the $2 billion a day we spend on oil when prices are over $100 per barrel. And for children, like my niece who is three years old today — these standards will help ensure that when they are ready to drive in 2025, they will have cleaner, more efficient choices in the marketplace. If U.S. automakers are going to remain competitive, they must accept the challenge the changing market is presenting. Ford’s recent announcement that it plans to double the number of engineers working specifically on maximizing fuel economy in its product line is a great example of the kind of commitments companies can make now. We need a new kind of vehicle, one that not only meets, but beats the new standards. And, as it has time and time again, the U.S. auto industry can—and should— stand and deliver.
Protecting the Ozone Layer Through Innovation Paul T. Anastas, PhD Teresa and H. John Heinz III Professor in the Practice of Chemistry for the Environment, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies; Director, Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University Julie B. Zimmerman, PhD Associate Professor of Green Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science (Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering), School of Forestry and Environment, Yale University INNOVATION. INNOVATION WAS THE real hero that saved the ozone layer and is continuing to protect it. The people who diagnosed the emerging problem before it could become a tragedy are heroes as well. Credit also goes to those who invented the new materials and approaches that allowed society to maintain its quality of life and economic growth while eliminating a class of chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), that it had come to rely upon. Common uses for CFCs were as coolants in refrigeration systems, as coolants and propellants in air conditioning systems, as solvents for
later won the Nobel Prize for their work.) There was a recognition that depleting the ozone layer would result in potentially tragic effects on people’s health and the environment. Consequently, leaders from all levels mobilized to address the issue. In 1987, over 150 nations came together to ratify the aforementioned Montreal Protocol, which called for the phasing out of CFCs for virtually all significant uses. This has largely taken place. What was needed to make this important pact a reality was the genius of scientists and engineers — innovators — to invent and develop the new approaches that would allow the world to maintain access to the services that CFCs produced without the harm that they caused. And they did it. The use of CFCs as a high-performance cleaner was addressed by a range of approaches, including compressing carbon dioxide (CO2) gas into a fluid that functions much like a CFC. A similar approach allowed structural foams, such as Styrofoam, to be made using CO2 instead of CFCs. Collectively, these innovations and many more allowed for tremendously positive results. According
“If international agreements are adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover.”
cleaning electronic components and as blowing agents in plastic-foam manufacturing. To eliminate these damaging chemicals, it was necessary to redesign complex industrial systems; this overhaul required scientific knowledge, insight, research and collaboration. Concern over the depletion of the ozone layer led to the great success of an international treaty, the Montreal Protocol. People began to take notice after Drs. Frank Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina and Paul J. Crutzen spotlighted the fact that CFCs reaching the stratosphere were responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer. (The three scientists
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “Because of the phaseout, CFCs are no longer accumulating in the atmosphere at an accelerating rate. CFC-11 and CFC-113 levels are decreasing... If international agreements are adhered to, the ozone layer is expected to recover around 2050.” The health benefits are equally impressive. Per the EPA, “The phaseout of CFCs is expected to have direct health benefits over the next century, including reduced incidence of skin cancer and cataracts, decreased risks to human immune systems, and increased protection of plant and animal life from excessive UV exposure.”
The innovations that made the Montreal Protocol a reality also taught us important lessons. The first is that not all of the solutions needed to be new chemicals to replace CFCs. For instance, printed circuit boards are utilizing “no-clean” technologies that do not require any solvents. Moreover, innovators in the developing world have designed “refrigerators” without using refrigerant chemicals, instead exploiting evaporative cooling and their native pottery. The second lesson is that continuous improvement is essential. The most immediate replacements for CFCs were the so-called HCFCs, a modification that dramatically
reduced the ozone depleting potential of the chemicals. However, a remaining problem with the HCFCs is that they have significant global warming potential. While HCFCs were a tremendous step forward, those who follow with next innovations to address these challenges must pursue systems thinking so that we achieve our technological goals without unintended consequences. For more information on health and environmental benefits of CFC elimination please visit: epa.gov/ozone/geninfo/benefits.html and epa.gov/sunwise/uvandhealth.html.