Recycling is good, but reducing is better : an example of Coca-Cola
Recycling has taken on a fresh meaning in the last decade or so. There is a sense of urgency around the world to focus efforts on reducing the impact of global warming and the changing climatic conditions around us.
While recycling helps in reducing global warming effects brought on by waste disposal methods and it helps in reducing landfills that cause pollution, there is a cost - and a carbon footprint - associated with it. Recycling is beneficial if the entire process leads to less greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) - and pollution - than emitted otherwise. However, recycling is the third of the three R's and there's a reason for that: it should be the third priority in waste reduction management. Here's a thought on the first of the three R's; reduction.
Let's take the example of Coca-Cola. A 330ml aluminium can of the classic version of this fizzy, sugary, acidic drink in the UK is associated with a carbon footprint of 170g of CO2 equivalent (Campaignlive.co.uk, 2019); this includes the carbon footprint of responsibly recycling the cans after consumption. A study by academics at the University of Southampton have concluded that recycling aluminium cans saves GHG emission by about 8 kgCO2e (kg of CO2 equivalent) per kg of cans recycled. (Turner, Williams and Kemp, 2015). Finally, the average weight of an empty aluminium can is about 14 g. Based on these numbers, let's look at a few scenarios.
Scenario A: you drink one can a day for a year and don't recycle at all. The total carbon footprint of your consumption is 62 kgCO2e and the carbon footprint of disposal is 41 kgCO2e. The total carbon footprint for the year would be 103 kg of CO2 equivalent.
Scenario B: you drink one can a day for a year and recycle the cans. You save the 41 kgCO2e so your total carbon footprint for the year would be 62 kgCO2e.
Scenario C: you decide to reduce your consumption of Coke by 50% but still don't recycle at all. The total carbon footprint of your consumption is 31 kgCO2e and the carbon footprint of disposal is 20.5 kg of CO2 equivalent. The total carbon footprint for the year would be about 52 kgCO2e.
Scenario D: you reduce your consumption of Coke by 50% and recycle as well. Your total carbon footprint for the year would be only 31 kgCO2e.
What does this mean?
Looking at the four scenarios, and by sheer intuition, it's clear that reducing and recycling together lead to the lowest levels of carbon footprint for Coke consumption in a year. Interestingly though, reduction of consumption by 50% without recycling leads to a smaller carbon footprint than recycling but consuming more. Although the relationship may not be linear, this indicates the impact that reduction in consumption has on GHG emissions.
The food waste hierarchy pyramid talks about reduction of food surplus and food waste as the step with the most significant impact on overall sustainability that considers environmental, economic and social effects (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014). This is also reflected in the order of priority stated in "Reduce, reuse and recycle". However, recycling has overshadowed the importance of the other two steps, almost becoming a key USP for brands to gain competitive advantage in the minds of consumers. It is the responsibility of global citizens, however, to be aware of how important reducing unnecessary consumption is in the context of climate change and global warming. A simpler eating and drinking lifestyle can help in financial savings and reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, as in the case of Coca-Cola, reducing consumption can also lead to better individual health.
References:
Campaignlive.co.uk. (2019). Coca-Cola reveals carbon footprints of Coke brands. [online] Available at: https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/coca-cola-reveals-carbon-footprints-coke-brands/888281 [Accessed 27 Sep. 2019].
Coca-cola.co.uk. (2019). What's the carbon footprint of a Coca-Cola?. [online] Available at: https://www.coca-cola.co.uk/stories/whats-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-coca-cola [Accessed 27 Sep. 2019].
Papargyropoulou, E., Lozano, R., K. Steinberger, J., Wright, N. and Ujang, Z. (2014). The food waste hierarchy as a framework for the management of food surplus and food waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, pp.106-115.
Turner, D., Williams, I. and Kemp, S. (2015). Greenhouse gas emission factors for recycling of source-segregated waste materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 105, pp.186-197.
Williams, M. (2019). Is recycling worth it?. [online] Channel 4 News. Available at: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/is-recycling-worth-it [Accessed 27 Sep. 2019].