a clear, complete look at the carbon footprint of … · common lca methodologies: • gate-to-gate...

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

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

The Carbon FootprintChallengeChallenge

3

What is a Carbon Footprint?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:• Other common environmental impacts of products include:

CLIMATE CHANGE ENERGYWATER QUALITY

& QUANTITYCHEMICAL, TOXICS,

METALSBIODIVERSITY & LAND USE

4

AIR POLLUTION WASTE MANAGEMENT OZONE LAYER DEPLETION

OCEANS & FISHERIES DEFORESTATION

How is a Carbon Footprint Measured?How is a Carbon Footprint Measured?

Carbon footprint = amount of CO2e released into the environment during some, g ,or all, stages of a product’s life cycle

– Typical metric: 1 kg of CO2e CO e (carbon dioxide equivalent) = gases– CO2e (carbon-dioxide equivalent) = gases believed to be associated with global warming 1 kg of CO2e = amount

released driving 2.3 miles (3.7 km) in an

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be used to analyze and calculate

average car

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be used to analyze and calculate carbon footprints and other key environmental indicators

5

What Goes into an LCA?What Goes into an LCA?

• There are many stages of the product life cycle, each of which has its own carbon footprint

F i li it th 5 t• For simplicity, there are 5 steps:1. Raw material extraction & processing 2. Raw material transport2. Raw material transport3. Production process4. Transport of finished goods5. End-of-life management

Each stage generates carbon emissions that t ib t t th t t l b f t i t

6

contribute to the total carbon footprint

Many Approaches to the LCAMany Approaches to the LCA

Common LCA Methodologies:

• Gate-to-gateOnly includes one stepOnly includes one step, such as production

7



• Gate-to-gateOnly includes one step

• Cradle-to-gateO l i l d t t

Only includes one step, such as production

Only includes steps up to production or delivery

8







• Cradle-to-graveCradle to graveAll stages except impact of recycling/reuse

9







• Cradle-to-graveCradle to graveAll stages except impact of recycling/reuse

Cradle to cradle• Cradle-to-cradleAll stages includingimpact of recycling/reuse

10

The LCA Challenge: A Need for ConsistencyThe LCA Challenge: A Need for Consistency

• There is no set standard for LCA methodologies

Diff t h i ld tl diff t• 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

A Growing Call for ChangeA Growing Call for Change

Need an LCA Solution• Consensus on how carbon footprints are measured

Will bl i t i l & d t• Will enable comparisons across materials & products• Becoming a major discussion among retailers

Wal-Mart Sustainability Consortium

“…the company is helping create a consortium of i iti th t ill ll b t ith liuniversities that 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 ”from raw materials to disposal.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.News Release

12

July 16, 2009

O-I’s Complete Solution

13

Introducing the Complete LCAIntroducing the Complete LCA

• A detailed study of the complete supply chain

• Based on cradle-to-cradle approach, includes every stageIncludes impact of recycled• Includes impact of recycled materials

• Ensures complete, comparable p pcarbon footprint data

• Enables apples-to-apples comparisonscomparisons

14

The Clarity of a Complete LCAThe Clarity of a Complete LCA

Company A = Company A =Company A = Company A =Company A = Company A =17 it

Total

Company B =1 units

p y6 units

p y4 units

Company B =1 units

Company B =4 units

p y3 units

Company B =4 units

p y3 units

p y1 units

Company B =4 units Company B =

14 units

17 units

14 units

Chain 2Raw

material transport

Chain 3Production process

Chain 4Transport of finished

goods

Chain 1Raw material extraction & processing

Chain 5End-of-life

management

CO2e2

CO2e3

CO2e4

CO2e5

CO2e1

15

Approach and Data Third Party ValidatedApproach and Data Third Party Validated

• O-I’s complete LCA model was validated by AMR Researchy

• Ensures integrity and accuracy of data run through this modelling tooltool

• O-I used the model to run a global analysis comparing glass, aluminum, and PET

16

The Case for the Complete LCAe Case o t e Co p ete CContributing Factors

Raw Materials – Incorporation into LCAs• Raw material extraction and processing is sometimes omitted because it

h ff ithappens off-site• The treatment of raw materials can have a significant carbon footprint• This step should always be included

17


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

2617 miles

Weighted average distance = 2651 miles (4266 km)

18


Raw Materials – Location• Aluminum materials (bauxite) mined in Africa, South America• Glass is typically close to raw material sources (example: Europe) Materials• Glass is typically close to raw material sources (example: Europe). Materials

travel shorter distances

19


Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting

• Closed-Loop Recycling Company A• Closed-Loop Recycling- Example: Company A uses its

recycled material as an input for production of the same

Company A

for production of the same product (i.e. glass cullet becomes glass bottle)

- Maintains unbroken product plife cycle

20



• Down-Cycling Co. B Co. C y g- Recycled materials from one product are used

as inputs in manufacture of a different product- In this case, the life cycle circle is broken

????

, y- For example, Company B can’t use its end-of-

life 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

t i l lti i d bl timaterials, resulting in double counting- Does a company at the end of the series

eventually dispose of part or all of the material?

21

material?



• Double CountingDouble Counting- Several governmental and standard setting organizations

tell us credit should only be claimed by Company A and Company Cp y

Co. A Co. B Co. C

=

22

The Case for the Complete LCA

G

e Case o t e Co p ete CContributing Factors

Variations in Electrical Grids

Factor of 10,000x

kg C

O2

/ kW

h)ci

ty G

ener

atio

n (

ons

from

Ele

ctric

GH

G e

mis

sio

23

Source: AMR Research Report (www.carma.org data)

The Case for the Complete LCAe Case o t e Co p ete CAvoid Comparing Apples to Oranges

Critical Questions to Ask

• Has a complete analysis been done on all links in the carbon footprint chain?the carbon footprint chain?

• Is the extraction and processing of raw materials included in the analysis?

• What standard if any does the work follow?• What standard, if any, does the work follow?• Has the work been validated or endorsed?

Verify baseline assumptions so you are comparingVerify baseline assumptions so you are comparing like with like:

- Energy mix- Life cycle stagee cyc e stage- Raw material transportation distances- End-of-life scenarios- Recycling rates

24

y g- Has there been double counting?

Key Findings from O-I’s LCA

25

Composition of Carbon Footprintp pBy Life Cycle Stage for Glass

GLASS• Shows breakdown of carbon

emissions by stage• Transport of finished goods

is actually small contributor to footprintfootprint

• Impact of recycled glass is reflected in raw material

t ti & iextraction & processing section

26

Composition of Carbon Footprintp pBy Life Cycle Stage for Aluminum

• Raw material extraction & processing stage has a

ALUMINUM

bigger impact on aluminum

27

Composition of Carbon Footprintp pBy Life Cycle Stage for PET

PETPOLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE• Raw material extraction

& processing stage has the biggest impact on PET

28

Composition of Carbon Footprintp pTransport of Finished Containers

• Data shows transport is relatively small contributor

Carbon Emissions by Days of Refrigeration

0 12to carbon footprint• In fact, transport generates

less carbon than activities0.10

0.12

6 daysCO2e to Manufacture

less carbon than activities like refrigeration

• The CO2e caused by j t 5 d t i t

0.06

0.08

4 days

5 days

just 5 days spent in store refrigeration greatly exceeds CO2e caused

0.04

2 days

3 days

by transport

Source: Version 1.03z O-I Internal LCA Model, 505 miles RM transport, 35% Post Consumer Content0.00

0.021 day

y

CO2e to Transport

29

Comparing Carbon Footprints – North AmericaComparing Carbon Footprints North AmericaTypical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Assumptions:Total CO2e per Container North America

• 355 ml container weights• North American post-consumer content:

• Glass: 25%aine

r

• Glass: 25%• Aluminum: 43%• PET: 2%

• Typical US grid: Michigan areakg C

O2e

/ co

nta

• Typical US grid: Michigan area

Complete cradle-to-cradle comparisons with other packaging materials highlight glass’s advantage in carbon footprint

30

advantage in carbon footprint.

Comparing Carbon Footprints – EuropeComparing Carbon Footprints EuropeTypical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Assumptions:Total CO2e per Container Europe

• 355 ml container weights

• European post-consumer content:•Glass: 47%

aine

r

•Aluminum: 52%•PET: 2%

• Typical EU grid: Puglia, Italy areakg C

O2e

/ co

nta

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

of 30 times, they have a significantly reduced carbon footprint.

Comparing Carbon Footprints – South AmericaComparing Carbon Footprints South AmericaTypical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Assumptions:Total CO2e per Container South America

• 355 ml container weights• South American post-consumer content:

•Glass: 32%aine

r

•Glass: 32%•Aluminum: 60%•PET: 2%

• Typical SA grid: Rio Grande do Sulkg C

O2e

/ co

nta

• 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

causing a significantly reduced carbon footprint.

Comparing Carbon Footprints – Asia-PacificComparing Carbon Footprints Asia PacificTypical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Assumptions:Total CO2e per Container

Asia-Pacific• 355 ml container weights

• Asia-Pacific post-consumer content:•Glass: 25%

aine

r

•Aluminum: 57%•PET: 2%

• Typical AP grid: New South Wales areakg C

O2e

/ co

nta

Glass is the clear winner in the Asia-Pacific region.

33

Carbon Footprint of Refillable BottlesCarbon Footprint of Refillable Bottles

• Refillable glass bottles are reused an average of 20-30 times

• As seen in South America and Europe, each reuse results in a dramatic reduction in the carbon footprint of those bottlesdramatic reduction in the carbon footprint of those bottles

Carbon Footprint Relative to Number of Refills

34

Other Benefits of Glass

35

Other Benefits of GlassOther Benefits of GlassLooking Beyond the LCA

• The sustainable benefits of glass go far beyond those that are measured by the LCA

• Social benefits: health and safetysafety

- Protects content from contaminantsHeat stable- Heat stable

- Infinitely recyclable- Refillable bottles are reused

20 30 ti20-30 times

36

Other Benefits of GlassOther Benefits of GlassResource Efficiency

• Lightweighting technology reduces glass needed for containers• Has one-for-one impact on carbon footprint, with the primary benefit from

less raw material processedless raw material processed

Carbon Footprint Relative to % Weight of Bottleto % Weight of Bottle

37

Other Benefits of Glass

Trip 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9

Other Benefits of GlassEffective Recycling Trips

∞Trip 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 ∞

Glass1

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Carton2

(paper)

100% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 25% 0%13%

PET3

38100% 0%33%66% 2: Tumut Shire Council – Fact Sheet 2007 – Paper Recycling1: http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/petbottles_2.html

3: http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/petbottles_2.html

Other Benefits of GlassOther Benefits of GlassAbility to be recycled

• Glass containers can be reused in their original form more than any other packaging materialp g g

• Use of recycled glass in batch materials has significant benefits:

E 1 k ll t d t i l

O-I is the world leader in the reuse of recycled

glass- 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

5.2 million tonnes used in 2008

in carbon emissions and 3% energy savings

- Melting cullet requires only 70% of the energy needed to melt raw materialsenergy needed to melt raw materials

39

Sustainability Goals

40

O I’s Sustainability GoalsO-I s Sustainability Goals

• The complete LCA is just a first step in the larger sustainability initiative

D t f th LCA i f d t ibl• Data from the LCA informed tangible, actionable targets in 4 key areas:

- Energy reduction- Emissions reduction- Cullet usage- Workplace safetyWorkplace safety

• All goals set on 10-year basis, using 2007 as a baseline

41

O I’s Sustainability GoalsO-I s Sustainability Goals

ENERGY CULLET EMISSIONS SAFETY

Achieve60%

50%Reduction

65%Reduction

Zero accidents

BY 2017 BY 2017 BY 2017 BY 2017

accidents

Total energy/packed tonne

Post consumer cullet/

packed tonne

Total CO2e emitted Eliminate accidents

42

Baseline Year 2007

Thank You and Questions

43

TransportationTransportationFinished Goods

A t i l i t k t 6 5 MPG (36 2 L/100k ) iA typical semi-truck gets 6.5 MPG (36.2 L/100km) carrying filled product (34,800 containers, 190 g each, 355 ml volume)

A 400 mile (644 km) trip would result in 212 kg CO2e attributed to the glass containers

Glass34,800 filled containers6.5 MPG (36.2 L/100km)212 kg CO2e

212 / 34,800 = 0.0061 kg CO2e per container

g 20.0061 kg CO2e / container0.171 kg CO2e LCA3.6% of carbon footprint

Remember our LCA shows 0.171 kg CO2e per container for a representative North American situation

Therefore 0.0061 / 0.171 = 3.6% of the complete carbon footprint for which finished goods transportation accounts

44

(uses the EPA number of 22.2 lbs CO2e / gallon diesel fuel) (2.7 kg CO2e / L)

Contact DetailsContact Details

For more information please contact to:

Sílvia Casallachs C i [email protected]

or

Yvan AgnielDirector of Energy, Environment & Risk Management, Europe – O-I [email protected]

45

a clear, complete look at the carbon footprint of … · common lca methodologies: • gate-to-gate...

Documents