Many people believe paper cups, because they “come from trees”, to be a better environmental choice than polystyrene foam. These same people are surprised to learn that paper cups are lined with plastic on one side (and sometimes two sides) so they can hold liquids. Still, an unscientific bias remains.
Careful comparisons, however, have shown this paper “halo” may be undeserved. When comparing acquisition of components, the manufacturing process, as well as manufacturing's environmental impacts, plastic-lined bleached paperboard cups just don't do as well. They have a more significant impact in just about every category.
The three life-cycle inventories below have reached this conclusion. Although they were completed some time ago, the manufacturing processes have not changed much, and to our knowledge, no other studies comparing plastic-lined paper and polystyrene foam have been completed and made public as these have.
From the top, they are 1) the Executive Summary of a broad study of coated paper food packaging and PS foam food packaging; 2) a study comparing the energy usage of manufacture of ceramic, glass, and solid plastic reusable cups with PS foam and coated paper cups; and finally, 3) a study of uncoated paper and polystyrene foam.
Click on one of the icons below, and read the facts.
To view the Franklin Associates, Ltd., Final Peer-Reviewed Report Executive Summary: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products (prepared for the Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), click here. (PDF: 144 kB)
To view Dr Martin B. Hocking's study, “Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation, ” click here. (PDF: 60 kB)
To view “Is Paper Better Than Plastic? ” a study by Dr Martin B. Hocking, click here. (PDF: 820 kB)
* Franklin Associates, Ltd. Final Peer-Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products (Prepared for The Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006).
† Ibid, Table 2-3, p. 2-8.
‡ Ibid, Table 2-10, p. 2-23.
§ Ibid, Table 2-11, p. 2-24.
|
