CEPI EUROKRAFT | EUROSAC

Study finds: Paper sacks are better for the climate

The carbon footprint of paper cement sacks is 2.5 times smaller than the carbon footprint of form-fill-seal (FFS) polyethylene cement sacks. This is the outcome of a comparative study by the Swedish research institute RISE on behalf of the European Paper Sack Research Group (ESG), a collaboration between Cepi Eurokraft and Eurosac. It also concludes that the paper cement sack is more climate-friendly and energy efficient.

The study by RISE compared the life cycle inventories (LCI) of a typical European 25 kg cement paper sack with a typical European 25 kg FFS polyethylene cement sack. It focused on different environmental influences of both packaging solutions: overall carbon footprint and fossil energy consumption as indicators of climate change and other environmental parameters, namely emissions to air and to freshwater. The study was peer-reviewed by Intertek. Its key result concerning climate change – the most important challenge of our planet today – was that the paper sack is clearly the favourable option.

 

Better overall carbon footprint

With 71 g of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) emissions from cradle to gate, the carbon footprint of paper sacks is 2.5 times smaller than the footprint of plastic sacks which totals 192 g CO2e. The higher amount of fossil CO2e from the plastic sack is comparable to the emissions of a laptop (with a power consumption of 25 W) running for nine hours [1]. Also, when extending the boundaries to consider the end-of-life scenarios – whether landfill, incineration or recycling – the paper sack’s carbon footprint is smaller.

 

More efficient fossil energy

consumption

Regarding the consumption of fossil energy in the production process, the study concludes that the paper sack is the more climate-friendly solution. The production of a cement plastic sack uses 4.72 MJ of fossil energy per sack as fuel input. This is approximately five times more as is consumed to produce a cement paper sack (0.97 MJ of fossil energy/sack). That means, one can produce almost five paper sacks with the same amount of fossil energy consumed to produce only one plastic sack. The study shows that the paper sack system uses more renewable energy sources (0.19 MJ of renewable energy/sack) to fulfil its production energy needs compared to the plastic sack (0 MJ of renewable energy/sack). In terms of fossil resources used as raw material within the sack, the paper sack uses even 18 times less fossil resources (0.18 MJ of fossil energy/sack) compared to the plastic sack (3.19 MJ of fossil energy/sack).

 

Mixed picture for other environmental

parameters

When looking at the study results of other emissions to air and emissions to freshwater during the production process, a conclusion as to which of the two packaging choices is better for the environment cannot be drawn. Paper sacks and FFS polyethylene sacks have different emission profiles because they use different raw materials, processes and energy mixes and have different energy requirements. In some respects, the paper sack shows better results, in others it is the plastic sack. One example: Regarding the emissions into freshwater, the cement plastic sack emits more heavy metals whereas the cement paper sack emits more organic substances.

 

Continuous improvements

in carbon footprint

The regularly conducted carbon footprint analysis by RISE of the value chain of an average European paper sack also shows a convincing outcome: alone between 2007 and 2015, the CO2e emissions have improved by 22 %, exceeding one of the EU climate targets for 2020 five years prior to this date, namely that of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % compared with 1990.

www.cepi-eurokraft.org

www.eurosac.org

[1] Based on the specific CO2 emission factor in the German electricity mix of 527 g per kWh estimated for 2016 by the German Federal Environment Agency

Related articles:

Issue 2019-1-2 GEMEINSCHAFT PAPIERSACKINDUSTRIE E.V. (GEMPSI)

Efficient and sustainable packaging for building materials

Whether it be for cement, mortar or plaster – efficient and sustainable packing materials are playing an increasingly important role in the packaging of building materials. Paper sacks offer...

more
Issue 2018-1-2 EUROSAC | CEPI Eurokraft

How to handle industrial paper sacks properly – new handling recommendations give guidance

When filling, storing or distributing industrial paper sacks, poor handling practices can increase the risk of damage to paper sack materials or filled paper sacks. The handling recommendations for...

more
Issue 2015-9 EUROSAC

Impressive environmental balance for paper bags

The European paper bag and bag ­paper industry improved its CO2 footprint significantly between 2007 and 2012. This is the conclusion of a study performed by Sweden’s Innventia research institute,...

more
Issue 2016-9 CEPI EUROKRAFT | EUROSAC

European Sack Group launches Industry Guidelines for dust-free paper sacks

Poor filling and handling practices as well as the use of inferior material and construction principles adversely affect the cleanliness of paper sacks along the supply chain. The first Industry...

more
Issue 2013-06

Cement industry switches to two-ply bags

In less than a year the Vienna/Austria-based Mondi Kraft ­Paper and local converters have successfully encouraged much of the South African cement market to use two-ply bags made with Mondi high...

more