Cups - Reusable v Disposable

Try: http://www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html

Raj Lathigara
Environmental Services Department
City of San Jose
200 East Santa Clara Street, Floor 10
San Jose, CA 95113-1905
Phone: (408) 975-2526
Fax: (408) 292-6211
[email protected]
www.sjrecycles.org

The article referenced below does not take into account the energy and resources required to transfer the disposable cup to the landfill.

Cynthia Mallett

Environmental Specialist
City of Oceanside
Phone: 760.435.5807

I know this wasn't part of the question but the obvious missing link is what happens to the cup once it is used - landfill, recycling... and the energy used in that process. I would think it makes the outcome of the equation different.

Sigrid Kulkowitz

Great report, Raj.

As a straight energy comparison it's very interesting, but it doesn't take into account the effects of disposable cups in terms of the physical environment and landfill, also the resources used to transport disposable cups to point of sale and beyond, rather than the single purchase of reusable cups which should last significantly longer. And then there's packaging.... There are so many factors to consider, aren't there?! :-)

Best wishes
Lisa Mariah

Sustainable Energy Information Partnership
Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

That reusable/single use analysis also seems to be purely energy analysis, yet refers to the "overall environmental impact." However, it doesn't mention anything about what happens to foam cups, and how many of them are floating around in the ocean being eaten by (and killing) wildlife. In local shoreline cleanups, foam and plastic cups are very common. See article below:

AWASH IN A SEA OF SYNTHETICS by Ian Connacher
Saturday, January 17, 2004 - Page A21

A car tire. A Japanese traffic cone. Ten-year-old water jugs. Fishing floats from China and Russia. Miles of tangled fishing nets. This is some of the bounty found floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in an area called the North Pacific subtropical gyre, which lies between Hawaii and California. Charles Moore, sea captain, sailor and ocean crusader, describes the area's combination of winds and currents as creating "a sort of toilet-bowl effect where you've got a little bit of depression in the middle and a circulating current brings stuff from the edges into the centre." Since 1999, Capt. Moore has been trawling the ocean's garbage patches in his 50-foot catamaran research vessel Alguita ("little kelp plant" in Spanish). "It makes me very upset because I'm basically a marine mammal and my habitat is now trashed," he says. He came across the gyre back in 1997, as he was returning home from a regatta in Hawaii, and decided to take a shortcut. The North Pacific subtropical gyre is an area of flat calm that sailors tend to avoid like the plague. His craft, however, was equipped with twin diesels and an extra fuel bladder, so he headed into it. Its currents collect decades worth of garbage. For 10 straight days, he couldn't look over the side without seeing plastic debris. Capt. Moore would later learn that the area he had crossed is also known among oceanographers as the "eastern garbage patch," a term coined by the oceanographer and world-leading expert on floating debris, Curtis Ebbesmeyer. "You have to visualize twice the size of Texas, swirling around like the hand of a clock," says Prof. Ebbesmeyer. When he examined several specimens of jellyfish from the Pacific under a microscope, he saw long slivers of fishing line and chunks of shredded bags embedded in their bodies. He also took pictures of albatross chicks literally filled with plastic bottle caps, lighters and balloons. "People have seen the mother birds cough up a plastic toothbrush to give to the chicks," says Capt. Moore. "It's tragic." A former chemistry major and veteran of a Sixties Berkeley commune, Capt. Moore has used his personal inheritance from his family's sulphur plant to fund his non-profit organization, the Algalita Marine Research Foundation. To quantify the gyre's synthetic soup of debris, he began trawling the patch using what he calls a manta trawl -- basically, metal wings with a long, tapering sock to capture anything over one-third of a millimetre in size. He was shocked to discover six pounds of plastic debris for every pound of plankton. The problem is not limited to the North Pacific subtropical gyre: He's now trawling at the mouths of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers, to learn where all this plastic is originating and how it travels. Just a little rain can wash it from the land to the rivers and on to open water. "It doesn't take a lot of rain to give us a lot of debris, because along with the rain comes the wind and a lot of these things are very light," he says. "The Styrofoam cups and the plastic bags are our modern tumbleweeds." After 15 minutes, the trawl is brought to the surface. At first, it doesn't look like much -- some leaves, some plankton and a few insects. On closer inspection, with the light just right, one can see tiny shards of blue, pink and white plastic. The attributes that make plastic so ubiquitous today -- it is indestructible, watertight and easy to shape -- are the very reasons why it turns up in the middle of the ocean. "No. 1, it doesn't biodegrade," explains Ann Zellers, a research biologist with the Algalita foundation. "No. 2, it just gets more friable and breaks into smaller pieces. As it breaks into smaller pieces, it becomes food for animals with the same sized mouth." What's worse, petroleum-based plastics are hydrophobic -- water-repellent -- but also lypophilic, which means they attract oily chemicals, some of which are toxic, such as polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. These chemicals accumulate into the fatty tissue of fish, and pass up into marine mammals and eventually humans. We'll eventually eat what we toss into the sea. Capt. Moore steers the vessel past cargo ships anchored in the bay and into open water. He's looking for a line of debris called a "windrow." Within minutes, Styrofoam cups and plastic wrappers begin to appear in a long line stretching out to sea. Excited, Capt. Moore orders the manta trawl into the water. After 30 minutes, the trawl is emptied. There's a plastic Powerade label, a plastic fork, a foam peanut with some plankton attached to it, and a handful of pre-production plastic pellets called "nurdles." In a three-month period, Capt. Moore's team has recovered more than a million nurdles on Orange County beaches, weighing more than two tons. "We make a hundred billion pounds of these pellets every year," says Capt. Moore. "Every plastic object starts its life as one of these pellets. And they escape from factories and make their way into the ocean. They're the most common contaminant on our beaches." Rob Krebs, director of communications for the American Plastics Council, insists that responsibility for this sea of synthetics does not lie with his industry alone: "This is a problem that we all share and understand. It is litter and it's human behaviour that's causing this amount of debris in the ocean." Capt. Moore thinks one reason humans haven't yet galvanized around the issue of plastics pollution is that the oceans are so vast, it's hard to appreciate the scale of the problem -- or the effort required to do something about it. "The average depth of the ocean is over a mile deep," Capt. Moore points out. Meanwhile, out in the toilet bowl known as the North Pacific subtropical gyre, the human-made bits keep swirling round and round. Ranking environmental problems on a scale from one to 10, "I would rank oil spills as a one," says Prof. Ebbesmeyer. "Plastic is a nine."

Ian Connacher is an associate producer at Daily Planet on Discovery Channel Canada.

Hi there,

Thanks you to everyone who has made contributions to this reusable v disposable question. The debate indeed can get complex - no wonder the answer was not easily available! The real info I am trying to get at is a calculation of the costs for the company considering both options. Looking at dishwasher, energy in washing, and the cost of the cup against the cost of getting the product, using, and discarding of the disposable. I need to bring an economic argument that is a winner to bring in the reusable option. Any other takers?

Cheers,
Elaine
[email protected]

Here in San Juan County WA, there is a petititon circulating to ban Styrofoam food containers...an effort initiated by a passionate 85-year old woman. In her many presentations to groups here, she's pointed out what has become a mantra and guiding principle to me. "Why should you throw away something that will be on the Earth for at least 1,000 years for 5 minutes of your convenience?" That says it for me!

Helen

Hi,

Would anyone have updated information on the economic & environmental benefits of reusable vs. disposable cups?

The link above (http://www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html) doesn't work anymore... has anyonw got a copy of the report that was posted there?

Thanks,

Alexia

Alexia Martinez
Australia

I love the quote fromthe 85 year old lady. I'm wondering if anyone can tell me how long the waxed paper cups take to break down? We are trying to convince a purchasing manager to buy ceramic mugs over travel mugs with lids for a staff cafeteria, so any other info would be gratefully accepted

mynews 

Because of the way that landfills seal all garbage, essentially in an airless tomb, a styrofoam cup takes just about as long to decompose as a paper cup. Unless you are doing composting, paper is just about as bad.
Not that I'm an advocate for Styrofoam because I've become somewhat of a staunch environmentalist, but with correct programs in place (which we don't have) Styrofoam can be recycled and reused over and over again. Unfortunately the US as a whole lacks that infrastructure. I believe places in Europe do have some sort of system in place (correct me if I'm wrong).
Reusables are the only sound way to go, and carrying your own and washing it yourself, in cold water, only when needed, is the best, most environmentally friendly thing to do.

Ashley Zell
Waste Reduction Intern
Marshfield Clinic
United States

Hi,

interesting discussion. I would be interested in the article that was posted on http://www.ilea.org/lcas/hocking1994.html. As Alexia mentioned before the link is not working anymore. Does anyone have the report and is willing to share it?

Thanks

Angela Mayer
Australia

The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (ILEA) seems to have a new site. I found the article at http://www.iere.org/ILEA/lcas/hocking1994.html And I was just about to head to the Way Back Machine, www.archive.org

A recent comment from one of my co-workers outside my sustainability team, he just prefers paper cups to reusable ceramic mugs. Our office has a small collection of glassware and we just had two donations of ceramic mugs I am distributing to offices and break rooms. I am stumped to respond, because it isn't an ease factor, he's opposed to washing a cup. I suspect it's a tooth or texture thing, but all he can say is that he likes the paper.

As a financial analyst, this person wants to see the numbers. This article is a good start, but how do we change behaviour of shear preference?

For now he is at least reusing the paper cup throughout the day, which according to this may be the best option. Unfortunately, this is now a bit dated, and contrary to the organization's name, it doesn't take in the full lifecycle, ie disposal and processing, as others have stated.

Is there a valid study to the claims made on shows like Oprah, where someone will state using one less cup or one less napkin results in XX trees saved?

William Rutledge
Sustainability Assistant
Stanford School of Medicine OFPM

Hello,

A couple of comments.

1. The 1994 study assumed current methods of washing durables, using water heated by electricity, produce3d by hydroelectricity, in a dishwasher of 1994 efficiency standards. Substitute solar hot water, collected from rooftops, held in a reservoir, heated by the sun, and you get a different answer.

2. Nero fiddles, while Rome burns. Disposables on principle should be avoided, but it probably turns out that the life cycle analysis of energy/petroleum/Greenhouse Gases consumed or produced to produce, transport, and dispose of the disposable cups, is similar to the energy to shape, bake in a kiln,transport, wash and rewash, and eventually dispose of the more durable cups. Assuming current methods of pumping water, heating water, dishwasher efficiency, etc.

In the meantime, we waste vast amounts of electricity with poor insulation, lights left burning, etc.


Norm Ruttan
President
iWasteNot Systems
Canada
www.iwastenotsystems.com

I tend to agree with Norm's assessment that we're likely worrying about negligible savings when it comes to disposable vs. reusable cups. As Nathan Shedroff argues in "Design is the Problem," we need to be addressing the circumstances in which each item is likely to be used rather than working with static comparisons.

The Hocking paper also raises the challenge of relying on life cycle analysis to inform decision-making: the LCA is accurate only insomuch as the assumptions and technologies and methodologies used to create it remains static. Which it rarely does.

The fact that you've even gotten your co-worker to consider paper cup re-use, though, indicates that at some level he recognizes the value of considering the impact of this particular decision. The "I just like it better" attitude is likely a result of habit more than anything.

If we make the paper cup less attractive (he has to purchase one each time he wants to use it, for example), and the ceramic mug more so (e.g. maintain a large collection of mugs and install an energy efficient dishwasher so he doesn't have to wash them), then perhaps he'll switch. Or, have a 2-week challenge: anyone who switches to a full two weeks of ceramic mug use gets a reward. I believe that's about the time it takes to develop a new low-level habit, so perhaps by then he'll no longer have such an ingrained preference for paper.

Just thinking out loud here.

Jess Sand
Owner
Roughstock Studios
United States
http://www.roughstockstudios.com

Identify the barrier to behavior change - is not wanting to wash the cup because he has very dry hands, the soap in your kitchen irritates his hands or because he has to walk back to the kitchen to do it.

How's this for a new argument. What's the exposure to dioxins from putting his mouth on a paper cup??? People like that are just goofy. He probably uses anti-bacterial soaps.



Ginger Wireman
Environmental Educator
WA State Dept. of Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program
United States

Hi guys,

first of all thanks for posting the link to Hocking's study again. Interesting document, but I agree with you, important considerations are missing like energy/resources used for transport and new technologies like energy efficient dishwashers. Hope someone is having another go on this issue after 15 years.

Coming back to a few posts about behaviour change, I am currently working on a paper to identify the barriers why people are not using reusable coffee cups. In other words, why are the existing reusable coffee cups not used to a scale that they have real impact on our waste stream?

If you are interested I will keep you posted on this issue and include you in some of my research.

Cheers
Angela
Australia, Sydney

Angela Mayer
Australia

The Green Lantern is an interesting summary of similar debates posted on Slate.com; for instance, here is the link to the coffee cup discussion:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200158/

Grande Americano, Extra Green What's the best way to drink your morning joe?
By Jacob Leibenluft

Sam Fox
Boise WaterShed Env. Edu. Center
Boise, ID
 

I just wrote a summary of why I think LCA is useless for a co-worker, and the next day up pops this thread in my inbox.

We need to evaluate whether something is sustainable or not BEFORE we try to use LCA on it. Styrofoam is not. Washing is. Therefore the two cannot be compared in any meaningful way--it is not comparing apples to apples. I will post my summary for anybody who is interested.

Ruben Anderson
Communications Specialist
Metro Vancouver
Canada

Roel Hammerschlag's article on energy costs can be found at the weblink below. But I notice that the elaborate energy calculations do not include the environmental considerations of what happens in the landfill. Landfill calculations might include costs of:
- the loss of other use of the land for thousands of years (conservative estimate)
- contamination of water
- contamination of air
- landfill monitoring
- cleanup



**********************

http://www.iere.org/ILEA/lcas/hocking1994.html
Reusable vs. Disposable Cups
University of Victoria 1994

This classic life-cycle energy analysis was performed by University of Victoria professor of chemistry Martin B. Hocking. Hocking compared three types of reusable drinking cups (ceramic, glass and reusable plastic) to two types of disposable cups (paper and polystyrene foam).

Lois Sturm
Neighborhood Energy Network
United States

Hi
Angela (re comment posted 14 Sept), yes I'd be interested in your paper; and Ruben, thanks for posting your paper Life Cycle Analysis must die.
Barbara

Barbara Hammonds
Taranaki Regional Council
New Zealand