A Clear, Complete Look at the Carbon Footprint of Glass Packaging

Transcription

1 A Clear, Complete Look at the Carbon Footprint of Glass Packaging

2 Agenda The Carbon Footprint Challenge O-I s Complete Solution Key Findings from O-I s LCA Other Benefits of Glass O-I s Sustainability Goals 2

3 The Carbon Footprint Challenge 3

4 What is a Carbon Footprint? Measures global warming potential (GWP), one common indicator of the environmental impact of a product Other common environmental impacts of products include: CLIMATE CHANGE ENERGY WATER QUALITY & QUANTITY BIODIVERSITY & LAND USE CHEMICAL, TOXICS, METALS AIR POLLUTION WASTE MANAGEMENT OZONE LAYER DEPLETION OCEANS & FISHERIES DEFORESTATION 4

5 How is a Carbon Footprint Measured? Carbon footprint = amount of CO 2 e released into the environment during some, or all, stages of a product s life cycle Typical metric: 1 kg of CO 2 e CO 2 e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) = gases believed to be associated with global warming 1 kg of CO 2 e = amount released driving 2.3 miles (3.7 km) in an average car A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be used to analyze and calculate carbon footprints and other key environmental indicators 5

6 What Goes into an LCA? There are many stages of the product life cycle, each of which has its own carbon footprint For simplicity, it there are 5 steps: 1. Raw material extraction & processing 2. Raw material transport 3. Production process 4. Transport of finished goods 5. End-of-life management Each stage generates carbon emissions that contribute tib t to the total t carbon footprint t 6

7 Many Approaches to the LCA Common LCA Methodologies: Gate-to-gate Only includes one step, such as production 7

8 Many Approaches to the LCA Common LCA Methodologies: Gate-to-gate Only includes one step, such as production Cradle-to-gate Only includes steps up to production or delivery 8

9 Many Approaches to the LCA Common LCA Methodologies: Gate-to-gate Only includes one step, such as production Cradle-to-gate Only includes steps up to production or delivery Cradle-to-grave All stages except impact of recycling/reuse 9

10 Many Approaches to the LCA Common LCA Methodologies: Gate-to-gate Only includes one step, such as production Cradle-to-gate Only includes steps up to production or delivery Cradle-to-grave All stages except impact of recycling/reuse Cradle-to-cradle All stages including impact of recycling/reuse 10

11 The LCA Challenge: A Need for Consistency There is no set standard for LCA methodologies Different approaches yield vastly different carbon footprint figures - Gives companies ability to release selective data These LCA inconsistencies difficult to make comparisons Further exacerbated by industry factors - Recycling, electrical grids, raw materials 11

12 A Growing Call for Change Need an LCA Solution Consensus on how carbon footprints are measured Will enable comparisons across materials & products Becoming a major discussion among retailers Wal-Mart Sustainability Consortium the company is helping create a consortium of universities iti that t will collaborate with suppliers, retailers, NGOs and government to develop a global database of information on the lifecycle of products from raw materials to disposal. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. News Release July 16,

13 O-I s Complete Solution 13

14 Introducing the Complete LCA A detailed study of the complete supply chain Based on cradle-to-cradle approach, includes every stage Includes impact of recycled materials Ensures complete, comparable carbon footprint data Enables apples-to-apples comparisons 14

15 The Clarity of a Complete LCA Total Company A = Company A = Company A = Company A = Company A = 6 units 3 units 1 units 3 units 4 units Company A = 17 units Company B = 1 units Company B = 4 units Company B = 4 units Company B = 4 units Company B = 1 units Company B = 14 units Chain 1 Raw material extraction & processing Chain 2 Raw material transport Chain 3 Production process Chain 4 Transport of finished goods Chain 5 End-of-life management CO 2 e 1 CO 2 e 2 CO 2 e 3 CO 2 e 4 CO 2 e 5 15

16 Approach and Data Third Party Validated O-I s complete LCA model was validated by AMR Research Ensures integrity and accuracy of data run through this modelling tool O-I used the model to run a global analysis comparing glass, aluminum, and PET 16

17 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Raw Materials Incorporation into LCAs Raw material extraction and processing is sometimes omitted because it happens off-site The treatment of raw materials can have a significant carbon footprint This step should always be included 17

18 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Raw Materials Location Aluminum materials (bauxite) mined in Africa, South America Jamaica 45% 1176 miles Guinea 20% 5084 miles Guyana 9% 2617 miles Sierra Leone 9% 5143 miles Brazil 14% 3021 miles Weighted average distance = 2651 miles (4266 km) 18

19 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Raw Materials Location Aluminum materials (bauxite) mined in Africa, South America Glass is typically close to raw material sources (example: Europe). Materials travel shorter distances 19

20 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting Closed-Loop Recycling - Example: Company A uses its recycled material as an input for production of the same product (i.e. glass cullet becomes glass bottle) - Maintains unbroken product life cycle Company A 20

21 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting Down-Cycling Co. B Co. C - Recycled materials from one product are used as inputs in manufacture of a different product - In this case, the life cycle circle is broken - For example, Company B can t use its end-oflife materials, so it sends them to Company C who uses the materials as inputs in their own life cycle. - In this case, both companies are likely to claim the carbon offset credits from the same materials, resulting in double counting - Does a company at the end of the series eventually dispose of part or all of the material????? 21

22 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting Double Counting - Several governmental and standard setting organizations tell us credit should only be claimed by Company A and Company C Co. A Co. B Co. C = 22

23 The Case for the Complete LCA Contributing Factors Variations in Electrical Grids Factor of 10,000x city Generation (kg CO2 / kwh) ons from Electric GHG emissio Source: AMR Research Report ( data) 23

24 The Case for the Complete LCA Avoid Comparing Apples to Oranges Critical Questions to Ask Has a complete analysis been done on all links in the carbon footprint chain? Is the extraction and processing of raw materials included in the analysis? What standard, if any, does the work follow? Has the work been validated or endorsed? Verify baseline assumptions so you are comparing like with like: - Energy mix - Life cycle stage - Raw material transportation distances - End-of-life scenarios - Recycling rates - Has there been double counting? 24

25 Key Findings from O-I s LCA 25

26 Composition of Carbon Footprint By Life Cycle Stage for Glass Shows breakdown of carbon emissions by stage Transport of finished goods is actually small contributor to footprint Impact of recycled glass is reflected in raw material extraction ti & processing section GLASS 26

27 Composition of Carbon Footprint By Life Cycle Stage for Aluminum Raw material extraction & processing stage has a bigger impact on aluminum ALUMINUM 27

28 Composition of Carbon Footprint By Life Cycle Stage for PET Raw material extraction & processing stage has the biggest impact on PET PET POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE 28

29 Composition of Carbon Footprint Transport of Finished Containers Data shows transport is relatively small contributor to carbon footprint In fact, transport generates 0.10 less carbon than activities like refrigeration 0.08 The CO 2 e caused by 0.06 just 5 days spent in store refrigeration greatly 0.04 exceeds CO 2 e caused by transport CO 2 e to Manufacture CO 2 e to Transport Carbon Emissions by Days of Refrigeration 6 days 5 days 4 days 3 days 2 days 1 day Source: Version 1.03z O-I Internal LCA Model, 505 miles RM transport, 35% Post Consumer Content 29

30 Comparing Carbon Footprints North America Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container kg CO2e / conta ainer Total CO 2 e per Container North America Assumptions: 355 ml container weights North American post-consumer content: Glass: 25% Aluminum: 43% PET: 2% Typical US grid: Michigan area Complete cradle-to-cradle comparisons with other packaging materials highlight glass s advantage in carbon footprint. 30

31 Comparing Carbon Footprints Europe Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container kg CO2e / conta ainer Total CO 2 e per Container Europe Assumptions: 355 ml container weights European post-consumer content: Glass: 47% Aluminum: 52% PET: 2% Typical EU grid: Puglia, Italy area Refillables hold over 35% of the market in Europe. Because they are used an average of 30 times, they have a significantly reduced carbon footprint. 31

32 Comparing Carbon Footprints South America Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container kg CO2e / conta ainer Total CO 2 e per Container South America Assumptions: 355 ml container weights South American post-consumer content: Glass: 32% Aluminum: 60% PET: 2% Typical SA grid: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil area Refillables hold over 60% of the market in some parts of South America, again causing a significantly reduced carbon footprint. 32

33 Comparing Carbon Footprints Asia-Pacific Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container kg CO2e / conta ainer Total CO 2 e per Container Asia-Pacific Assumptions: 355 ml container weights Asia-Pacific post-consumer content: Glass: 25% Aluminum: 57% PET: 2% Typical AP grid: New South Wales area Glass is the clear winner in the Asia-Pacific region. 33

34 Carbon Footprint of Refillable Bottles Refillable glass bottles are reused an average of times As seen in South America and Europe, each reuse results in a dramatic reduction in the carbon footprint of those bottles Carbon Footprint Relative to Number of Refills 34

35 Other Benefits of Glass 35

36 Other Benefits of Glass Looking Beyond the LCA The sustainable benefits of glass go far beyond those that are measured by the LCA Social benefits: health and safety - Protects content from contaminants - Heat stable - Infinitely recyclable - Refillable bottles are reused times 36

37 Other Benefits of Glass Resource Efficiency Lightweighting technology reduces glass needed for containers Has one-for-one impact on carbon footprint, with the primary benefit from less raw material processed Carbon Footprint Relative to % Weight of Bottle 37

38 Other Benefits of Glass Effective Recycling Trips Trip Glass 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Carton 2 (paper) 100% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 25% 13% 0% PET 3 100% 66% 33% 0% 1: 2: Tumut Shire Council Fact Sheet 2007 Paper Recycling 3: 38

39 Other Benefits of Glass Ability to be recycled Glass containers can be reused in their original form more than any other packaging g material Use of recycled glass in batch materials has significant benefits: - Every 1 kg cullet used as raw material = 1.2 kg virgin materials saved - Every 10% cullet used = 5% savings in carbon emissions and 3% energy savings - Melting cullet requires only 70% of the energy needed to melt raw materials O-I is the world leader in the reuse of recycled glass 5.2 million tonnes used in

40 Sustainability Goals 40

41 O-Is I s Sustainability Goals The complete LCA is just a first step in the larger sustainability initiative Data from the LCAinformed tangible, actionable targets in 4 key areas: - Energy reduction - Emissions reduction - Cullet usage - Workplace safety All goals set on 10-year basis, using 2007 as a baseline 41

42 O-Is I s Sustainability Goals ENERGY CULLET EMISSIONS SAFETY Achieve 60% 50% Reduction 65% Reduction Zero accidents BY 2017 BY 2017 BY 2017 BY 2017 Total energy/ Post consumer Total CO 2 e emitted Eliminate packed tonne cullet/ accidents packed tonne Baseline Year

43 Thank You and Questions 43

44 Transportation Finished Goods At typical semi-truck it gets 6.5 MPG (36.2 L/100km) carrying filled product (34,800 containers, 190 g each, 355 ml volume) Glass 34,800 filled containers 6.5 MPG (36.2 L/100km) 212 kg CO 2e kg CO 2 e / container kg CO 2 e LCA 3.6% of carbon footprint A 400 mile (644 km) trip would result in 212 kg CO 2 e attributed to the glass containers 212 / 34,800 = kg CO 2 e per container Remember our LCA shows kg CO 2 e per container for a representative North American situation Therefore / = 3.6% of the complete carbon footprint for which finished goods transportation accounts (uses the EPA number of 22.2 lbs CO 2 e / gallon diesel fuel) (2.7 kg CO 2 e / L) 44

45 Contact Details For more information please contact to: Sílvia Casallachs Communications or Yvan Agniel Director of Energy, Environment & Risk Management, Europe O-I 45