Life Cycle Assessment Of Paper And Plastic Shopping Bags

Identify all relevant information regarding the products (energy consumption rate (kW/h), alternatives, efficiency, usage (hr/d, days per week etc), cost of the device etc.).

Service Required in this Scenario

The aim of this report is to give a relationship between two shopping bags made from different raw materials. The two alternative materials are the plastic shopping bags and the paper shopping bags. The assessment is based on the social, economic and environmental impact of the life- cycle of the product, hat is from the point of manufacturing to the time of retirement of disposal (Christensen, 2010). We look at the cycle right from the raw materials to the disposal stage of these two alternative products.

Service required in this scenario is a suitable shopping bag that is economically affordable, socially eco- friendly and environmentally friendly (Christensen, 2010). The sustainability of the bags is sassed in terms of the its suitability towards being environmentally  friendly bio- degradable, recyclable, ozone friendly and contribution towards global warming (Veronica, et al., 2011).

Two Alternatives of shopping bags that are considered in this report are paper and plastic shopping bags. The life- cycle of these two products will be assessed using a GaBi software. The assessment involve acquisition of raw material, processing of material, manufacturing and assembly, the uses and services of the products and the retirement and retirement (Das, et al., 2011) The assessment also involves the investigation of the possible materials that are re- used, recycled or remanufactured (Lopez, et al., 2014)

GaBi software will be used for the life cycle assessment process. GaBi software is a program for conducting life assessment modelling (Connolly, et al., 2014). The assessment is made up of goal and scope definition, analysis of inventory, assessment of the impact and interpretation of the results (Connolly, et al., 2014). The goal and scope definition involves the analysis off the purpose of the life cycle analysis and the target audience of the assessment (Litvinova & Kosulina, 2009). Inventory analysis involves very important units of the assessment, the assessment boundaries and analysis of data assumptions considered and likewise assessment limitations (Eleazer, et al., 2012). Impact assessment of the effects of the products life cycle on the environment (De, et al., 2013). These effects are either atmospheric effects on the social aspect as well as economic effect (Eleazer, et al., 2012).

Recommended procedure International Organization for Standardization have to be followed in order to successfully assess the cycle in a clear specified manner (Eleazer, et al., 2012). This procedure can be represented in a flow chart as shown in the diagram below. The flow chart is a brief display of the steps proposed and supported by ISO for conducting a life cycle assessment 

Two Alternatives of Shopping Bags

The analysis in GaBi software defines the scope and the goal, analysis of inventory as well as analysis of the possible or potential impact to the environment. Impact analysis and interpretation (De, et al., 2013). This is a demonstration that the assessment is actually an iterative process repeating again and again in order to achieve the desired outcome (Eleazer, et al., 2012).

Goal definition provides another of aspects. These aspects include the aim of this assessment, the potential groups, assessment decisions and degree of the decisions at hand (Dehnen, 2011). In our scenario, our objective is to deciding on whether to use a plastic shopping bag or a paper shopping. The decision is based on impact of these two alternative products on the environment and their contribution towards the going green initiative. The decision also involves the sustainability in terms of the environmental effects, economic effects as well as social effects.

Scope definition of the other hand tells much about the product scope of the product to be assessed, the services that the product is capable of offering (the alternative products as well), the portion of the product that should be included and finally the environmental exchanges that are involved. The solution to base on this case is the effects that the two products (paper and plastic shopping bags) have on the environment.

Environmental effects of a plastic water bottle is that the product is made from products that are not bio- degradable. Impact assessment section on the other hand outlines the consumption of resources and the potential impacts of the product use to the environment, to the economy and the social aspect (Christensen, 2010). The assessment outlines important impacts as well as those impacts that are considered as the most important. Similarly, we also assess the possible data gaps that exists in the product manufacturing process.

The raw materials needed to manufacture the two different alternative products are shown in the table below. 

Type of shopping Bag	Material Name	Quantity
Plastic Shopping Bag	1. HDPE Plastic 2. Water 3. Fluorides	1. 405grams 2. 200milllitres 3. 250millitres
Paper shopping Bag	1. Recycled paper 2. Resins	1. 123grams 2. 125 grams

Impact analysis of the life cycle assessment is based on the GaBi output. GaBi analysis reveals that it requires a relatively little amount of materials to manufacture a paper shopping bag than it is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the manufacturing process of a plastic paper bag leads release of toxic carbon gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping bag, it is recommended to use the paper one.

GaBi Software and Life Cycle Assessment Process

Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a plastic bag may also be recycled, recycling a paper shopping bag is more eco- friendly than recycling a plastic bag.

Conclusion

It requires a relatively little amount of materials to manufacture a paper shopping bag than it is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the manufacturing process of a plastic paper bag leads release of toxic carbon gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping bag, it is recommended to use the paper one. Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a plastic bag may also be recycle, recycling a paper shopping bag is more eco- friendly than recycling a plastic bag. (Battarbee & Binney, 2008)

Furthermore, plastic shopping bags causes a great amount of pollution when disposed of as solid wastes (Connolly, et al., 2014). This implies that they lead to much environmental population and degradation (De, et al., 2013). A product that causes environmental degradation does not support the concept of environment sustainability. This again confirms that given the two alternatives, it is better to choose a paper shopping bag over a plastic one (Meyers, 2012).

Solid wastes from plastic shopping bags are not biodegradable. This means that they can result into serious environment degradation (De, et al., 2013). They can cause degradation to the soil. Plastic solid wastes can also cause soil pollution by causing eutrophication (Das, et al., 2011). Therefore, when soil is polluted, the plant life is destroyed (Battarbee & Binney, 2008). This eventually causes the backward steps into the going green initiative. Plastic wastes does not decompose. This implies that they cause ugly scenes in the surrounding (Chau, et al., 2015). Hence, it is generally acceptable that a paper shopping bag is more environmentally sustainable than a plastic shopping bag. 

References

Ban Marko & Krajacic, G., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.

Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.

Bulakho, V. L. & Gasso, V. Y., 2008. Role of Amphibians and Reptiles in Creation of an Ecologiccal Buffer Against Technogenic Pollution. Volume 02, p. 4.

Recommended Procedure

Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy, Volume 143, p. 19.

Christensen, T. T., 2010. Solid Waste Technology & Management (Christensen/Solid Waste Technology & Management) || Introduction to Waste Management. Volume 10, p. 16.

Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy, 73(016), p. 16.

Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization - Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.

Das, K., Dey, U. & Bhaumik, R., 2011. A comparative study of lichen Biochemistry and air pollution status of urban, semi urban and industrial area of hooghly and burdwan distric, west bengal. Volume 7, p. 13.

Dehnen, H. A., 2011. Global warming in the light of an analytic model of the earth's atmosphere. Volume 153, p. 15.

De, P. P., Wcquier, William & Cool, W., 2013. Level Radioactive Waste Management; Spent Fuel, Fissile Material, Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste Management - The Belgian Program for Low and Intermediate Short Lived Waste Management: From 1985 to License Application. Volume 01, p. 09.

Diadchenko, O. & Kovalenko, L., 2008. Estimation of Atmospheric air Pollution Extent on City Highways by Vehicles with Account of Traffic management. Volume 01, p. 04.

Dosmukhamedov, N. K., 2014. Choice and Justification of the Initial Charge in Processing Middlings, Recycled Materials and Slag Lead Production. Volume 67, p. 3.

Eleazer, P. R., Lisa, M. C., Maark, A. W. & Andres, F. C., 2012. Comparison of algae cultivation methods for bioenergy production using a combined life cycle assessment and life cycle costing approach. Volume 126, p. 9.

Fan, H., Zhaoping, Y., Hui, W. & Xiaoliang, X., 2011. Estimating willingness to pay for environment conservation: a contingent valuation study of Kanas Nature Reserve, Xinjiang, China. 180(107), p. 9.

Frano, B., 2009. Transition to renewable energy systems with hydrogen as an energy carrier. Journal of Energy, 34(10), p. 5.

Gehrer, M., seyfried, H. & Staudacher, S., 2014. Life cycle assessment of the production chain of oil-rich biomass to generate BtL aviation fuel derived from micraoalgae. Volume 09, p. 9.

Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi

Goverdhan, M. & Saikat, S., 2010. Probing Fluorine Interactions in a Polyhydroxylated Environment. 20(10), p. 1.

Litvinova, T. & Kosulina, T., 2009. Recycling of Oil and Gas Complex Solid Wastes. Volume 10, p. 1.

Lopez, et al., 2014. Assessing changes on poly(ethylene terephthalate) properties after recycling: Mechanical recycling in laboratory versus postconsumer recycled material. Volume 147, p. 11.

Madgin, R., 2010. Reconceptualising the historic urban environment: conservation and regeneration in Castlefield, Manchester, 1960–2009. Journal of Planning Perspectives, 25(10), p. 20.

Meyers, R. A., 2012. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology || Solid Waste solid waste Disposal solid waste disposal and Recycling solid waste recycling , Introduction. Volume 3, p. 1472.

Mizgirev, D. S., 2015. The concept of improving environmental engineering systems for integrated waste management ships (IWMS). Volume 01, p. 4.

Muthu, S. & Senthilkannan, 2015. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes] Environmental Implications of Recycling and Recycled Products || Recycled Paper from Wastes: Calculation of Ecological Footprint of an Energy-Intensive Industrial Unit in Orissa, India. Volume 287, p. 24.

Poul, A. O., 2009. Reviewing optimisation criteria for energy systems analyses of renewable energy integration. Journal of Energy, Volume 34, p. 10.

Raban, K., 2009. Substantiation of necessity of performing regular monitoring researches of the Azov sea water Pollution By Oil Products. Volume 10, p. 03.

Sarancha, V., Vitale, K., Oreskovic, S. & Sulyma, 2014. Life cycle assessment in healthcare system optimization. Introduction. Volume 10, p. 6.

Seong, R. L., Donghee, P. & Jong, M. P., 2008. Analysis of effects of an objective function on environmental and economic performance of a water network system using life cycle assessment and life cycle costing methods. Volume 144, p. 11.

Simone, M. & Rana, P., 2013. Improving the environmental performance of bio-waste management with life cycle thinking (LCT) and life cycle assessment (LCA). Volume 18, p. 7.

Simon, P., Jiri, K. & Igor, B., 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to reduce the carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Journal of Energy, 33(10), p. 9.

Suroviatkina, D. G. & Semenova, I. V., 2014. Energy- Saving Process of "Hardor Topsoe" (Denmark) Production of Sulpur Acid from Hydrogen Sulfide. Volume 01, p. 2.

Surviatkina, D. G., 2008. Water environment conservation in a closed water body by high concentrated oxygen water. Journal of Water Science & Technology, 58(10), p. 6.

Trogl, H. P. & Bravdyova, T., 2012. Comparison of compatibility of study programs Waste management (J. E. pukyn? university in ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) and Ecobiotechnology (knrtu, Kazan, Russia). Volume 15, p. 04.

Veronica, B. M., Amy, E. L. & Laura, A. S., 2011. A benchmark for life cycle air emissions and life cycle impact assessment of hydrokinetic energy extraction using life cycle assessment. 36(109), p. 7.

Voloschynska, S. S., 2008. Bioindication of the Heavy Metals Environmental Pollution. Volume 02, p. 05.

Xiliang, Z., WAng, R., Huo, M. & Eric, M., 2010. A study of the role played by renewable energies in China's sustainable energy supply. Volume 35, p. 8.