Report

Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emission Savings

of ECO2GO Recycling Service
For:
ECO2GO Recycling Solutions
Columbus, Ohio

By:
Sustainable Enterprises, Inc.
Atlanta, GA 30306

Table of Contents
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Conversions..................................................................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 ECO2GO ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Life Cycle Assessment .......................................................................................................... 6
2. Goal and Scope Definition .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Goal of Study ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Scope of Study ...................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Functional Unit ..................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 System Description & Study Boundaries ............................................................................. 8
2.6 Geographic Coverage............................................................................................................ 8
2.7 Data Categories ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.8 Data Quality .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.9 Key Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 9
3 Relevant Life-Cycle and Emissions Data .................................................................................. 10
3.1 Aluminum ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.2 PolyEthylene Terephtalate (PET - No. 1 Plastic) ............................................................... 11
3.3 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE - No. 2 Plastic) ........................................................... 13
3.4 Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE - No. 4 Plastic) ............................................................ 13
3.5 Cardboard ............................................................................................................................ 14
3.6 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 15
4. Greenhouse Gas Impact and Savings for ECO2GO Service .................................................... 16
4.1 Box Manufacture ................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Transportation Impact ......................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Contents Recycling Benefits ............................................................................................... 18
4.4 Total Savings ...................................................................................................................... 18
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 19
References ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Page 2 of 21

Acronyms
ADt
Al
AP
APME
BTU
CO 2
CO 2 e
CO 2 eq
EoL
EPA
gal
GHG
GJ
GWP
HDPE
IPCC
ISO
kg
kg CO 2 e
kg CO 2 -eq
km
kWh
lbs
LCI
LCA
LDPE
m
MJ
MMBTU
NREL
PE
PET
tonne
t-km
UPS

AirDried tone
Aluminum
Architectural Panel
Association of Plastic Manufacturers in Europe
British Thermal Unit
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
End-of-Life
Environmental Protection Agency
Gallon
Greenhouse Gas
Giga Joules
Global Warming Potential
High Density PolyEthylene
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International Organization of Standardization
kilogram
kilogram Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
kilogram Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
kilometer
kilowatt-hour
pound
Life Cycle Inventory
Life Cycle Assessment
Low Density PolyEthylene
meter
Mega Joule
Million BTU
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PolyEthylene
polyethylene terephthalate
metric ton = 1,000 kilogram
tonne-kilometer
United Parcel Service

Page 3 of 21

Conversions
1 barrel = 42 US gallons = 159 liters
1 BTU = 0.000293 kWh
(1 kWh = 3414 BTU)
1 gallon (US) = 3.785 liters (1 liter = 0.264 US gallons)
1 kilogram = 2.205 lbs
(1 lbs = 0.454 kg)
1 kWh = 3.6 MJ
(1 MJ = 0.278 kWh)
1 mile = 1.609 kilometers
(1 kilometer = 0.621 miles)
1 quart = 0.946 liters
(1 liter = 1.057 quarts)

Page 4 of 21

Executive Summary
ECO2GO Recycling Solutions provides a unique recycling service where customers can dispose
recyclables in a cardboard box. When the box is full, it is shipped by UPS to a recycler. This
study was done to determine the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission savings (in kilogram carbon
dioxide equivalents, i.e., kgCO 2 e) of ECO2GOs service.
The LCA methodology as described in ISO 14040 standards was followed with the exception of
a peer review. The functional unit was a single box with an average amount of recyclables.
Manufacturing, transportation and material data was provided by ECO2GO. Greenhouse gas
emission factors and data were obtained from a variety of industrial, governmental, and
academic sources. Where possible, data from different sources was compared to assess the data
quality.
The results for the ECO2GO service have been summarized in Table 1. A worst case
manufacturing scenario for the box and bag was used in order to be conservative in the claims.
Similarly, average shipping distances of 1,000 and 200 were used for empty and full boxes,
respectively. In reality, these distances could be lower, but are not as significant compared to the
amount of materials shipped and recycled in the box. Low and high estimates were used for the
recycling benefits for the various materials because of the variability in the literature data on
recycling benefits. For the specific scenario and box contents provided by ECO2GO, the net
benefit of the ECO2GO service ranges from three to well over eleven kilograms carbon dioxide
emissions saved (see Table 1). It is clear that the benefits of recycling the contents
significantly outweigh the impact of producing and shipping the ECO2GO box.
Table 1 ECO2GO Content Recycling Impact/Benefits
Process
Box manufacture
Empty box shipping (1,000 miles)
Full box shipping (200 miles)
Box & content recycling (savings)
Net Savings [kgCO 2 e]:

Impact [kgCO 2 e]
Low
High
0.949
0.949
0.282
0.282
0.182
0.182
-4.482
-12.987
-3.069
-11.574

The manufacturing of the box and bag represent a worst case scenario. In practice, savings of an
additional kilogram CO 2 may be realized because the ECO2GO corrugated container is made
from 100% recycled fiber and the plastic liner is made renewable energy and contains 30-50%
recycled content and plastic.
In conclusion, the ECO2GO service analyzed resulted in significant greenhouse gas emission
savings compared the manufacturing and shipping impact of the ECO2GO box. Variations in
impact savings exist due to variations in recycling process, location, and impact data.
Nevertheless, it is clear that using the ECO2GO service will reduce greenhouse gas emissions
without a doubt provided the contents are recycled appropriately.
Page 5 of 21

1. Introduction
1.1 ECO2GO
ECO2GO Recycling Solutions provides an alternative and unique method of collecting and
transporting recyclable materials. This service is particularly well suited for those institutions
and facilities where traditional recycling services are not logistically or financial advantageous.
The ECO2GO service sends out empty corrugated boxes with a plastic bag inside to institutions.
These boxes can be placed at locations as recyclable collecting points. Once the bag and box are
full, the customer closes the box and arranges for pickup by United Parcel Service (UPS). The
full box is shipped by UPS directly to a predetermined recycling facility that takes and recycles
the complete box and all contents. In this way, the ECO2GO customers are ensured that their
recyclables are recycled with minimal effort on their part. A box with representative contents is
given in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 ECO2GO Box with Contents

The purpose of this study is to determine the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and potential
savings of the ECO2GO service over its life cycle. The assessment includes production of box
and bag material, transportation and recycling of box, bag and customer provided content. The
study used data and a representative set of recyclables provided by ECO2GO.
1.2 Life Cycle Assessment
A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodical approach to evaluate the environmental impacts
associated with a product, process or service by identifying and quantifying material and energy
flows. LCA is defined as the "compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and potential
environmental impacts of a product system throughout its lifecycle. Thus, LCA is a tool for the
analysis of the environmental burden of products at all stages in their life-cyclefrom the
extraction of resources, through the production of materials, product parts and the product itself,
andin the case of a cradle-to-grave LCAthe use of the product and the management after
it is discarded, either by reuse, recycling or final disposal.
Page 6 of 21

The procedures of an LCA are defined by the

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
under the ISO 14000 environmental management
standards. ISO 14040 concerns the principles and
framework of LCA, while ISO 14044 establishes the
requirements and guidelines for completing an ISO
compliant LCA. As shown in Figure 1.2, the first step in
the process is to define the goals of the assessment and
define the scope of what aspects of the products life
cycle the assessment will cover. Second is a full analysis
of all the components and processes that are within the
scope. Third is an assessment of the impacts from all of
these components and processes. Finally, the meaning
and import of the results are interpreted. The results can
be used for identifying and evaluating opportunities for
improvement.

Figure 1.2 - Phases of Life

Cycle Assessment

2. Goal and Scope Definition

2.1 Goal of Study
The main goal of this study is to identify the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions savings of the
ECO2GO service over its life-cycle (raw material production, product manufacture,
transportation and end of life recycling).
2.2 Scope of Study
The scope of the Life Cycle Assessment covers the life cycle (production, shipments and
recycling) of the ECO2GO service with respect to a given box with representative content of
recyclables. The representative contents and data provided by ECO2GO are as follows:
68 12 oz. aluminum cans @ .5 oz. per can = 34oz. / 2.12 lbs.
21 20 oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles @. 75 oz. per bottle = 15.75oz. / .98 lbs.
14 12 oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles @ .5 oz. per bottle = 7oz. / .44 lbs.
7 32oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles @ 1.75 oz. per bottle = 12.3oz. / .76 lbs.
2 gallon #2 (HDPE) plastic container @ .75 per container = 1.5oz. / .1 lbs.
6 - #4 (LDPE) US Bank shipping bags = 6.75oz. / .42 lbs.
Total weight of contents = 4.82 lbs
Box is made of recycled cardboard
Weight of the box = 1 lb 13oz

Page 7 of 21

Bag is #4 LDPE - One (1) mil. , made from completely renewable energy and 30% to
50% recycled content.
Weight of the bag = 2oz.
Total weight of recyclable material = 6.82 lbs.

The goal will be to identify the net savings of the ECO2GO service, so emphasis will be placed
on identifying the savings for recycling the preceding materials versus virgin material
production.
2.3 Functional Unit
The functional unit of the Life Cycle Assessment is one ECO2GO box with plastic liner and
representative recyclable contents.
2.4 System Description & Study Boundaries
The Life-Cycle Inventory (LCI) data for the system will include the life-cycle phases of: (1)
resource extraction; (2) materials manufacture; (3) box manufacture; (4) transport to and from
customer; (5) end of life disposition (recycling) of box and contents compared to producing
content materials from virgin sources. Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions will be broken down
by Raw Materials production, Box Manufacture, Transportation, and End-of-Life disposition.
The goal will be to identify the net savings of the ECO2GO service, so emphasis will be placed
on identifying the savings for recycling materials versus virgin material production.
Table 2.1 - LCA System Boundaries

Included
Raw materials extraction
Processing of materials
Transportation of raw and processed materials
Production of box
Transportation of finished box to user
Transportation of finished box to recycler
Recycling of materials

Excluded
Capital equipment and maintenance
Maintenance and operation of equipment

2.5 Technology / Time Coverage

In this study, site-specific data representative of current technology of reference year 2010-2011
was collected for the various materials.
2.6 Geographic Coverage
The geographical coverage for the assessments is based on applicable international and general
domestic operations and conditions.
Page 8 of 21

2.7 Data Categories

The analysis for this study focused on one impact category: Global Warming Potential (GWP)
that results from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The details of each impact category are
shown in Table 2.1. The Global warming potential (GWP) is a measure of how much a given
mass of greenhouse gas is estimated to contribute to global warming, typically expressed in
terms of the mass of carbon dioxide resulting in an equivalent effect. A GWP is calculated over a
specific period of time, usually 20, 100 or 500 years. All GWPs in the Pharos system are based
on the 100 year time scale. In this report, the 100-year time scale is used, unless specified
otherwise.
Table 2.1 - Life-cycle Inventory Categories, Indicators of Contribution to Environmental
issues, Units of Measure & Brief Descriptions
Impact
Category
(issue)
Climate
Change

Indicator

Global
Warming
Potential
(GWP)

Description

A measure of greenhouse gas

emissions, such as CO 2 and methane.
These emissions are causing an
increase in the absorption of radiation
emitted by the earth, magnifying the
natural greenhouse effect.

Unit

kg CO 2
equivalent

Reference

Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC).
Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis.
Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University
Press, 2001.

2.8 Data Quality

Data available in the public domain from the US Department of Energy, US Environmental
Protection Administration (EPA), Ecoinvent LCA database, Athena Institute, European Plastics,
industry associations, academic journals, and other industrial, governmental, and academic
sources. This data is in general representative of 1995-2011 production techniques. The data are
assumed to be of acceptable quality to meet the stated goals. Where possible, data from different
sources will be compared to assess their quality. Primary data available from ECO2GO is based
on 2011 product information.
2.9 Key Assumptions
Several key assumptions were made in completing this study:
The contents to be recycled were based on a representative sample provided by ECO2GO
Transport is assumed to be entirely by heavy-duty truck.
Empty ECO2GO cardboard boxes are shipped from Columbus, Ohio to clients all over
the country
UPS trucks collect full boxes and ship those to recycling plants in the same UPS zone
(about 200 miles on average)
Page 9 of 21

UPS box shipment to recycling plant is a backhaul trip because the UPS delivery has to
come to ECO2GO customers for package deliveries anyway
The exact distance for all transportation is unknown so varying assumptions were made
to test the sensitivity of the results with respect to 10, 100 and 1000 mile transportation
distances for empty boxes. Shipments of full boxes to recycler were assumed to be 200
miles on average.
The impact of UPS shipping labels is negligible.
The impact of paint is negligible.
The impact of manufacturing equipment and recycling equipment is ignored.
Manufacturing losses are ignored.

Other assumptions are discussed in the relevant product and material sections (see Sections 3 and
4).

3 Relevant Life-Cycle and Emissions Data

There are a number of studies that have focused on quantifying the potential benefits of
recycling. These benefits vary often due to local conditions with respect to recycling and
material production. For example, (Smith, Brown et al. 2001) state that European numbers for
producing certain plastics are higher than in the US when compared to a US EPA study for the
US data (EPA 1998). It is therefore not surprising that large variability exists between studies
performed over time, which makes it hard to exactly quantify the benefits of the ECO2GO
service. In the following, we will discuss the greenhouse gas emissions impacts for producing
and recycling the materials found in an ECO2GO box.
3.1 Aluminum
Aluminum cans are part of ECO2GOs recyclables. In this section, we will discuss the impact of
aluminum production and recycling.
Aluminum is extracted from bauxite, a mineral that must be mined and refined into aluminum
oxide. Through an electrolytic process, application of carbon anodes, and refining, aluminum
that is harvested from a mine or gathered from recycling efforts is made into ingots for industrial
use. These can then be shaped into usable products through hot working, cold working and other
finishing operations. In traditional concrete construction methods, aluminum forms are necessary
to stabilize and shape concrete as it sets.
The CO 2 content of aluminum is highly dependent on the amount of recycled aluminum used
and the type of electricity used. For example, in Table 3.1, Berge lists two numbers for
aluminum that consists of 50% recycled aluminum. As can be seen, the CO 2 impact of
production in the Scandinavian Peninsula is significantly lower than the production in
continental Europe. This is due to the fact that Scandinavia has a large amount of hydropower,
Page 10 of 21

which results in lower CO 2 emissions/kWh for electricity used in the electrolysis of virgin
aluminum. Typically, electrolysis requires about 13,000-15,000 kWh of electricity per ton of
salable aluminum. As can be seen in Table 3.1, numbers for CO 2 emissions vary per kg
aluminum produced.
Table 3.1 Emission Factors for Aluminum Production and Recycling (in kg CO 2 e/kg)
Type
Aluminum, 50% recycled, Scandinavia
Aluminum, 50% recycled, Continental Europe
Aluminum, 85% recycled
Aluminum, from ore
Aluminum, primary at plant (Europe)
Aluminum, mix of primary and secondary aluminum
according to their share on world-wide production
Aluminum, primary ingot production
Aluminum remelting and casting
Aluminum can recycling savings
Aluminum can recycling benefit

GWP [kgCO 2 e]
1.900
11.102
3.1
15
12.385
8.656
11.1
0.432
-10.67
-3.88

Reference
(Berge 2000)
(Berge 2000)
(Berge 2002)
(Berge 2002)
EcoInvent v2.2, #1054
EcoInvent v2.2, #1056
(PE Americas 2010)
(PE Americas 2010)
(The Aluminum Association 2010)
(EPA 1998)

With respect to aluminum cans, the Aluminum Association (The Aluminum Association 2010)
reports that
The aluminum can has a 68% total recycled content, the highest of any beverage package
material.
Secondary aluminum production, which is produced from recycled beverage cans, generates
95% less Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) emissions than primary production
The LCA substantiating these claims for aluminum can production is given in (PE Americas
2010). In (PE Americas 2010), it is estimated that 11.1 metric tons of CO 2 are emitted per ton of
primary aluminum ingot produced of which 8.7 tons (78%) are from the electrolysis process
alone. They also analyze the impact of the process when recycled aluminum is used. Averaged
LCI data for remelting and casting (1,000 kg of secondary aluminum ingot) representing gate
togate information includes a global warming potential of 431.7 kgCO 2 e per 1,000 kg of
secondary aluminum ingot. This results in a maximum saving of 10.67 kgCO 2 e/kg aluminum
recycled, almost 95%.
The study reported in (EPA 1998) is more conservative and reports savings of 3.88 kgCO 2 e/kg
for aluminum can recycling. Given this information, we will assume that the greenhouse gas
emissions for producing aluminum for cans is 11.1 kgCO 2 e/kg aluminum in this report and
use a value of 3.88 and 10.67 kgCO 2 e/kg as the minimum and maximum savings,
respectively, due to recycling in this report, based on the data provided in (PE Americas 2010)
and (EPA 1998).
3.2 PolyEthylene Terephtalate (PET - No. 1 Plastic)
According to (American Chemistry Council 2011), PolyEthylene Terephtalate (PET), which is
also known as polyester, is clear, tough, and has good gas and moisture barrier properties. This
Page 11 of 21

resin is commonly used in beverage bottles and many injection-molded consumer product
containers. Cleaned, recycled PET flakes and pellets are in great demand for spinning fiber for
carpet yarns, producing fiberfill and geo-textile (American Chemistry Council 2011).
The EcoInvent LCA database provides GWP data on polyethylene terephthalate, granulate,
bottle grade, at plant (record #1828), namely, 2.90 kgCO 2 e/kg. Disposal to landfill would result
in emissions of 0.08 kgCO 2 e/kg PET according to the EcoInvent database. In (PlasticsEurope
2010), the Global warming potential (100 years) of 1 kg bottle grade PET is given as 2.15
kgCO 2 e/kg PET.
Adidas sponsored a life cycle analysis (LCA) study by the University of Utrecht in the
Netherlands, to investigate the environmental impact of the various stages in recycled polyesters
life cycle. According to (Adidas 2010), the LCA results of the study show that recycled polyester
fibres offer important environmental benefits over virgin polyester with GWP savings of 25-75%
can be achieved. Assuming a GWP of 2.90 kgCO 2 e/kg for virgin PET production, the impact of
recycled PET would therefore result in 0.73-2.18 kgCO 2 e/kg PET. A maximum saving of 1.95 in
avoided processes is reported in (Kuczenski and Geyer 2009). Transportation and reclamation
will reduce this number, but the ECO2GO service already includes transportation and thus could
result in the maximum savings reported by (Kuczenski and Geyer 2009).
Estimates of GWP for virgin and recycled PET are also presented in (Franklin Associates 2010),
see Table 3.2. Processing data is also provided. Sorting and separation takes 0.0249 kgCO 2 e/kg,
reclaimer processing to flake takes 0.653 kgCO 2 e/kg and conversion of flake to pellet takes
0.376 kgCO 2 e/kg, for a total of 1.054 kgCO 2 e/kg. We will use the low and high values for the
US recycling savings (-0.61 and -1.95 kgCO 2 e/kg) to calculate the worst and best case
scenario for ECO2GO savings.
Table 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with PET Production and Recycling (in
kg CO 2 e/kg)
Plastic
type

EU
virgin

Polyethylene
terephthalate, granulate,
bottle grade, at plant
Bottle grade PET
PET production burdens
(2010 resin data)
Maximum saving in
avoided processes due
to recycling
Recycling benefits of
25-75% over virgin
production
PET granules
PET recycling

2.90

EU
recycled

US
virgin

US
recycled

EU
recycling
savings

US
recycling
savings

EcoInvent v2.2, #1828

2.15
2.746

1.054

-1.692

-1.95

0.114

1.160

0.450

-2.086

Page 12 of 21

(PlasticsEurope 2010)
(Franklin Associates 2010)
(Kuczenski and Geyer
2009)
(Adidas 2010)

-0.72 to
-2.17
2.200

Reference

-0.610
-0.62

(Smith, Brown et al. 2001)

(EPA 1998)

3.3 High Density Polyethylene (HDPE - No. 2 Plastic)

According to (American Chemistry Council 2011), LDPE is used predominately in film
applications due to its toughness, flexibility and relative transparency, making it popular for use
in applications where heat sealing is necessary. LDPE also is used to manufacture some flexible
lids and bottles as well as in wire and cable applications. Products made with recycled content
are shipping envelopes, garbage can liners, floor tile, paneling, furniture, film and sheet, compost
bins, trash cans, landscape timber, and outdoor lumber (American Chemistry Council 2011).
Data from various references is summarized in Table 3.3. The EcoInvent LCA database provides
data on polyethylene, HDPE, granulate, at plant, in Europe (record #1829). Its GWP is given as
1.95 kgCO 2 e/kg HDPE.
Estimates of GWP for recycling HDPE are also presented in (Franklin Associates 2010), see
Table 3.3. Processing data is also provided. Sorting and separation takes 0.0344 kgCO 2 e/kg,
reclaimer processing to pellet takes 0.376 kgCO 2 e/kg, for a total of 1.053 kgCO 2 e/kg. EPA
savings estimates given in (EPA 1998) are more conservative, but include collection impacts
which lowers the savings. US estimates in (Smith, Brown et al. 2001) are based on (EPA 1998).
We will use the low and high values for the US recycling savings (-0.37 and -1.304
kgCO 2 e/kg) to calculate the worst and best case scenario for ECO2GO savings.
Table 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with HDPE Production and Recycling
(in kg CO 2 e/kg)
Material

EU
virgin

polyethylene,
HDPE, granulate,
at plant, Europe
HDPE production
burdens (2010
resin data)
HDPE granules
HDPE recycling

1.95

1.000

EU
recycled

US
virgin

US
recycled

EU
recycling
savings

US
recycling
savings

Reference

EcoInvent v2.2, #1829

0.341

1.822

0.518

0.700

0.280

-0.659

-1.304

(Franklin Associates 2010)

-0.420
-0.37

(Smith, Brown et al. 2001)

(EPA 1998)

3.4 Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE - No. 4 Plastic)

According to (American Chemistry Council 2011), LDPE is used predominately in film
applications due to its toughness, flexibility and relative transparency, making it popular for use
in applications where heat sealing is necessary. LDPE also is used to manufacture some flexible
lids and bottles as well as in wire and cable applications. Products made with recycled content
are shipping envelopes, garbage can liners, floor tile, paneling, furniture, film and sheet, compost
bins, trash cans, landscape timber, and outdoor lumber (American Chemistry Council 2011).

Page 13 of 21

The CO 2 emissions of producing virgin LDPE range from 2.1 to 2.6 kgCO 2 e per Ecoinvent
database (record #1830) and (Athena Institute 1999). In (PlasticsEurope 2008), a value of 1.89 is
reported for Linear LDPE (LLDPE). In (Smith, Brown et al. 2001), values for virgin and
recycled LDPE are mentioned for both the EU and US. They cite a US EPA study for the US
data (EPA 1998). Table 3.4 shows the data found from various sources for LDPE. We will use
the low and high values for the US recycling savings (-0.49 and -0.56 kgCO 2 e/kg) to
calculate the worst and best case scenario for ECO2GO savings.
Table 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with LDPE Production and Recycling
(in kg CO 2 e/kg)
Material

EU
virgin

LDPE
LDPE granules
LLDPE granules
LDPE
LDPE

2.10
2.320
1.910

EU
recycled

US
virgin

US
recycled

0.890

0.330

EU
recycling
savings

US
recycling
savings
-0.560

2.6
-0.49

Reference

EcoInvent v2.2, #1829

(Smith, Brown et al. 2001)
(Smith, Brown et al. 2001)
(Athena Institute 1999)
(EPA 1998)

It should be noted that LDPE is not so commonly recycled (yet) as HDPE and PET. This is
primarily due to included contaminations.
3.5 Cardboard
Corrugated cardboard is made in pulp and paper mills from layers of Kraft paper. Greenhouse
gas emissions in the pulp and paper industry vary significantly depending on the age of the plant.
The pulp and paper industry as a whole is a large consumer of energy resources, but various
sources report wide variation in electricity consumption between different facilities (Martin,
Anglani et al. 2000; Francis, Towers et al. 2002; Jacobs and IPST 2006; Kramer, Massanet et al.
2009). This becomes more complicated because some paper mills generate their own electricity
(and may even supply electricity to the grid) whereas others purchase electricity from the local
grid. According to (Francis, Towers et al. 2002), net electricity demand for kraft mills can vary
from an excess of 17kWh/ADt to a demand of over 800 kWh/ADt for the Canadian mills. A
modern mill produces all its electricity requirements by steam condensing and backpressure
turbines, with a slight excess of 17 kWh/ADt (Francis, Towers et al. 2002).
In this report, however, we will rely on a recent study prepared for the Corrugated Packaging
Alliance. According to (PE Americas 2009), the life-cycle of 1 kg corrugated cardboard results
in a GWP of 1.01 kgCO 2 e/kg corrugated board. This includes transport in the use phase.
Disposal of cardboard packaging in landfill results in 0.025kgCO 2 e/kg cardboard according to
EcoInvent LCA database (record #2105).
According to ECO2GO, their cardboard box is made from 100% recycled cardboard using
renewable energy. Furthermore, the box is fully recyclable. Hence, a value of 1.01 kgCO 2 e/kg
Page 14 of 21

cardboard as per (PE Americas 2009) may be on the high end for the ECO2GO box. Also, data
in (EPA 1998) states savings of 0.70 kgCO 2 e/kg corrugated cardboard for recycling. So, the
impact of the ECO2GO box may be essentially carbon neutral, but the absolute worst case
maximum would be 1.01 kg CO 2 e/kg.
3.6 Transportation
Various greenhouse gas emission numbers exist for transportation. In Table T.1, UK and US
emission factors are given for transportation based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG
Protocol) which is a widely used international accounting tool for government and business
leaders to understand, quantify, and manage greenhouse gas emissions. The GHG Protocol, a
decade-long partnership between the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council
for Sustainable Development, is working with businesses, governments, and environmental
groups around the world to build a new generation of credible and effective programs for
tackling climate change. On their website (http://www.ghgprotocol.org/), a number of sector
specific calculation tools have been provided. Table 3.5 below includes the emission factors used
in their transportation greenhouse gas emissions calculation tool. As can be seen, both UK and
US data is used, with the UK data being more specific per vehicle type.
Table 3.5 - UK and US freight transport CO 2 emission factors (Adapted from Table 11 in
(WRI 2009))

Vehicle type

Type

Subtype

Heavy
goods
vehicle

Road
vehicles

Air

Light goods
vehicle

Emission factors (kg CO 2 / tonne unit

distance)
UK Defra
US EPA emission
emission factors
factors
kg
CO 2
kg CO 2
kg CO 2
kg CO 2
per
per
per
per
tonne
tonne
tonne
tonne
km
mile
km
mile

Body type

Gross vehicle weight

Rigid

>3.5 <7.5t

0.591

0.951

0.185

0.297

Rigid

7.5 - 17t

0.336

0.541

0.185

0.297

Rigid

>17t

0.187

0.301

0.185

0.297

Rigid

Don't know/default

0.276

0.444

0.185

0.297

Articulated

>3.5 - 33t

0.163

0.262

0.185

0.297

Articulated

>33t

0.082

0.132

0.185

0.297

Articulated

Don't know/default

0.086

0.138

0.185

0.297

0.132

0.212

0.185

0.297

Don't know/default
Petrol

1.25 tonnes

0.449

0.722

0.185

0.297

Diesel

3.5 tonnes

0.272

0.437

0.185

0.297

LPG or CNG

3.5 tonnes

0.272

0.437

0.185

0.297

Don't know/default

Don't know/default

0.283

0.456

0.185

0.297

Domestic

2.071

3.333

2.071

3.333

Short haul

1.439

2.316

1.439

2.316

long haul

0.665

1.070

0.665

1.070

0.021

0.034

0.016

0.025

Rail

Page 15 of 21

Large RoPax ferry

Watercraft

Shipping

0.384

0.618

Not available

Small tanker

844 tonnes deadweight

0.020

0.032

0.050

0.08

Large tanker

18371 tonnes deadweight

0.005

0.008

0.050

0.08

Very large tanker

100000 tonnes deadweight

0.004

0.006

0.050

0.08

Small bulk carrier

1720 tonnes deadweight

0.011

0.017

0.050

0.08

Large bulk carrier

Very large bulk
carrier
Small container
vessel
Large container
vessel

14201 tonnes deadweight

0.007

0.011

0.050

0.08

70000 tonnes deadweight

0.006

0.001

0.050

0.08

2500 tonnes deadweight

0.015

0.024

0.050

0.08

20000 tonnes deadweight

0.013

0.021

0.050

0.08

The Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 600.113) provides values for carbon content per
gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel which EPA uses in calculating the fuel economy of vehicles.
The diesel carbon content is 2,778 grams/gallon (EPA 2005). This results in CO 2 emissions from
a gallon of diesel = 2,778 grams x 0.99 x (44/12) = 10,084 grams = 10.1 kg/gallon = 22.2
pounds/gallon (EPA 2005). The EPA also published estimates for the life-cycle CO 2 emissions
as a function of direct emissions. For heavy-duty diesel truck, these are 1.18-1.39 times the direct
emissions from fuel use. (EPA 2006)
In keeping with EPA impact factors for truck transport, we assume an impact factor of
0.297 kgCO 2 e/tonne.mile in this report.

4. Greenhouse Gas Impact and Savings for ECO2GO Service

In this section, the impact of the ECO2GO service is assessed using the representative sample
provided by ECO2GO. In Table 4.1, the materials and their mass have been summarized. A US
to SI (metric) unit conversion is done because most international data on greenhouse gas
emissions uses metric data and results.
Table 4.1 ECO2GO Box and Contents for Assessment
Materials
Box (recycled cardboard)
Plastic Bag (30-50% recycled LDPE)
Total
12 oz. aluminum cans
20 oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles
12 oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles
32oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles
gallon #2 (HDPE) plastic container
#4 (LDPE) US Bank shipping bags
Total:

Amount
1
1
68
21
14
7
2
6
118

Unit mass
[oz]
29
2
31
0.5
0.75
0.5
1.75
0.75

Page 16 of 21

Total mass
[oz]
29
2
31
34
15.75
7
12.25
1.5
6.75
108.250

Total mass
[lb]
1.813
0.125
1.938
2.125
0.984
0.438
0.766
0.094
0.422
6.766

Total mass
[kg]
0.822
0.057
0.879
0.964
0.446
0.198
0.347
0.043
0.191
3.068

4.1 Box Manufacture

In Table 4.2, the impact of manufacturing a single ECO2GO box is given. The impact factors
represent a worse case scenario where no renewables or recycled content is taken into account.
The impact calculated does take transportation to ECO2GO into account (see also Section
3.4). As shown in Table 4.2, the total impact of this (worst case) scenario for manufacture
of the box and bag is 0.949 kgCO 2 e.
Table 4.2 Box Production Impact
Materials
Box (recycled cardboard)
Plastic Bag (30-50%
recycled LDPE)
Total

Mass [oz]
29

Mass [lb]
1.813

Mass [kg]
0.822

2
31

0.125
1.938

0.057
0.879

Production impact
factor [kgCO 2 e /kg]
1.010

Total Impact
[kgCO 2 e]
0.830

2.100

0.119
0.949

4.2 Transportation Impact

Two types of transport occur as part of the ECO2GO service:
Shipping an empty box from ECO2GO in Columbus, OH to the customer
Shipping a full box from the customer to a recycler within a UPS zone
In both cases, the exact shipping distance is uncertain. The distance of shipping empty boxes to
customers can average up to a 1,000 miles. The shipment of full boxes, however, do not average
more than 200 miles. We assume that transport takes places with a heavy duty truck and assume
an impact factor of 0.297 kgCO 2 e/tonne.mile per (WRI 2009) and Table 3.5. This impact factor
means that 0.297 kg of CO 2 is emitted for every 1,000 kilogram of freight transported over 1
mile.
The resulting transportation impact is given in Table 4.3. As shown in Table 4.3, the impact for
shipping an empty box 1,000 miles is 0.282 kgCO 2 e. The impact of shipping a full box
(weighing 3.068 kilograms) over a distance of 200 miles is 0.182 kgCO 2 e. The total impact of
transportation for shipping an empty box 1,000 mile and a full box 200 mile is 0.464
kgCO 2 e.
Table 4.3 Empty Box Shipping Impact
Materials
Empty Box

Full Box

Mass [kg]
0.879

Transport impact factor

[kgCO 2 e/tonne.mile]
0.297

3.068

0.297

Distance [miles]
10
100
1,000
200

Page 17 of 21

Total Impact [kgCO 2 e]

0.003
0.028
0.282
0.182

4.3 Contents Recycling Benefits

Based on the preceding sections, we can conclude that the impact of manufacturing and
shipping ECO2GO boxes over 1,000 mile distances is 0.949 + 0.464 = 1.413 kgCO 2 e. Again,
the manufacturing impact represents a very conservative, worst case scenario.
In this section, we will calculate the savings of recycling the contents of a full ECO2GO box to
determine whether the benefits of recycling the content outperform the impact of manufacturing
and shipping the boxes. Given the variability of numbers and data (see Section 3), we use high
and low values to calculate whether ECO2GOs service always provides a benefit.
The impact of recycling the ECO2GO box and its contents are given in Table 4.4. The low and
high unit impact factors are derived from the US recycled savings listed in Section 3 for each
material.
Table 4.4 ECO2GO Content Recycling Impact/Benefits

Materials
Box (recycled cardboard)
Plastic Bag (30-50% recycled LDPE)
Total
12 oz. aluminum cans
20 oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles
12 oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles
32oz. #1 (PET) plastic bottles
gallon #2 (HDPE) plastic container
#4 (LDPE) US Bank shipping bags
Total:

Mass [kg]
0.822
0.057
0.879
0.964
0.446
0.198
0.347
0.043
0.191
3.068

Recycling Unit Impact

[kgCO 2 e/kg]
Low
High
0.000
-0.700
-0.490
-0.560
-3.880
-0.610
-0.610
-0.610
-0.370
-0.490

-10.670
-1.950
-1.950
-1.950
-1.304
-0.560

Total recycling impact

[kgCO 2 e]
Low
High
0.000
-0.575
-0.028
-0.032
-0.028
-0.607
-3.739
-10.283
-0.272
-0.871
-0.121
-0.387
-0.212
-0.677
-0.016
-0.055
-0.094
-0.107
-4.482
-12.987

As can be seen in Table 4.4, the minimum benefit for recycling the materials constituting the
box and content is 4.482 kgCO 2 e, and the maximum benefit is 12.987 kgCO 2 e. The majority
of the benefit is due to the recycling of the aluminum cans. These savings represent the gross
savings and the impact of manufacturing the box and bag plus the transportation impact needs to
be subtracted to obtain the net greenhouse gas emission savings for the Ec2Go service.
4.4 Total Savings
The complete results for the ECO2GO service have been summarized in Table 4.5. Deducting
the 1.413 kgCO 2 e impact for a worst case manufacturing and shipping scenario (1,000 miles
empty and full) from the low and high estimate of recycling benefits results in a net benefit of
3.069 to 11.574 kgCO 2 e for the service based on the given contents. It is clear that the benefits
of recycling the contents significantly outweigh the impact of producing and shipping the
ECO2GO box.
Page 18 of 21

Table 4.5 ECO2GO Content Recycling Impact/Benefits

Process
Box manufacture
Empty box shipping (1,000 miles)
Full box shipping (200 miles)
Box & content recycling
Net Impact [kgCO 2 e]:

Impact [kgCO 2 e]
Low
High
0.949
0.949
0.282
0.282
0.182
0.182
-4.482
-12.987
-3.069
-11.574

5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the ECO2GO service analyzed resulted in significant greenhouse gas emission
savings compared the manufacturing and shipping impact of the ECO2GO box. Variations in
impact savings exist due to variations in recycling process, location, and impact data.
Nevertheless, it is clear that using the ECO2GO service will reduce greenhouse gas emissions
without a doubt provided the box is filled with appropriate materials and these contents are
recycled appropriately.

Page 19 of 21

References
Adidas.
(2010).
"Recycled
Polyester."
from
http://www.adidasgroup.com/en/sustainability/Environment/case_studies/2010_recycled_polyester.aspx.
American
Chemistry
Council.
(2011).
"Plastic
Packaging
Resins."
from http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Plastic-Resin-Codes-PDF.
Athena Institute (1999). Life Cycle Inventory Analyses of Building Envelope Materials: Update
and Expansion. Ottawa, Canada, The Athena Sustainable Materials Institute.
Berge, B. (2000). The Ecology of Building Materials. Oxford, Architectural Press.
Berge, B. (2002). The Ecology of Building Materials. Oxford, Architectural Press.
EPA, U. S. (1998). Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Management of Selected Materials in
Municipal Solid Waste - EPA530-R-98-013, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA, U. S. (2005). Emission Facts - Average Carbon Dioxide EmissionsResulting from Gasoline
and Diesel Fuel. Washington, DC Office of Transportation and Air Quality 3.
EPA, U. S. (2006). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the U.S. Transportation Sector Office of
Transportation and Air Quality
Francis, D. W., M. T. Towers and T. C. Browne (2002). Energy Cost Reduction in the Pulp and
Paper Industry - An Energy Benchmarking Perspective. Ottawa, Canada, Pulp and Paper
Research Institute of Canada (Paprican).
Franklin Associates (2010). Life Cycle Inventory of 100% Postconsumer HDPE and PET
Recycling Resin from Postconsumer Containers and Packaging. Prairie Village, Kansas.
Jacobs and IPST (2006). Pulp and Paper Industry Energy Bandwith Study. A. I. o. C. E.
(AIChE). Greenville, SC and Atlanta, GA.
Kramer, K. J., E. Massanet, T. Xu and E. Worrell (2009). Energy Efficiency Improvement and
Cost Saving Opportunities for the Pulp and Paper Industry - An ENERGY STAR
Guide for Energy and Plant Managers, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkely National
Laboratory.
Kuczenski, B. and R. Geyer (2009). LCA and recycling policy a case study in plastic. Life
Cycle Assessment IX
Martin, N., N. Anglani, D. Einstein, M. Khrushch, E. Worrell and L. K. Price (2000).
Opportunities to Improve Energy Efficiency and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
the U.S. Pulp and Paper Industry, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory.
PE Americas (2009). Life Cycle Impact Assessment of U.S. IndustryAverage Corrugated
Product. Boston, MA, Corrugated Packaging Alliance.
PE Americas (2010). Life Cycle Impact Assessment of Aluminum Beverage Cans. Boston, MA,
Aluminum Association, Inc.
PlasticsEurope (2008). Linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE). Environmental Product
Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers.
PlasticsEurope (2010). Poly-ethyleneterephtalate (PET) - Bottle grade. Eco-profiles of the
European Plastics Manufacturers. Heidelberg, Germany.

Page 20 of 21

Smith, A., K. Brown, S. Ogilvie, K. Rushton and J. Bates (2001). Waste Management Options
and Climate Change - Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment.
Luxembourg:, European Union.
The Aluminum Association (2010). U.S. Aluminum Can Recycling Rate Reached 57.4 Percent
in 2009. Washington, D.C., .
WRI
(2009).
Emission
Factors
from
Cross-Sector
Tools. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools/all-tools.

Page 21 of 21