Design Life-Cycle

Javier Casimiro

Professor Cogdell

DES 40A/SAS 43

5 June 2024

Life Cycle of Disposable Plastic Cup: Materials

Introduction

Disposable cups have taken over our lives from local coffee shops to fast food industries. We use these items casually, never seeking further knowledge of how they are produced and ultimately where they end up. Disposable cups have shifted raw materials over the years, currently now used in the production of the cups is polyethylene terephthalate. When compared to other raw material competitors for disposable plastic cups, polyethylene terephthalate is worse suited when it comes to the overall life cycle of the product. It must be stated how nearly five-hundred billion plastic disposable cups are used every year around the world, being thrown away so casually as if the consumer was the only one buying them (Tristan Lebleu). 

Raw Materials

To begin the analysis, the concept “raw materials” means the fundamental material that creates the product. The raw material that will be discussed is polyethylene terephthalate for disposable cups. Polyethylene terephthalate is derived from crude oil or natural gas, which contains ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid (KEVIDKO). The polymer production itself has a detrimental environmental impact causing more than sixty percent of climate change via raw material production compared to forty-five percent for polypropylene (Christian Moretti). The product of polyethylene terephthalate is then distributed to the manufacturer of disposable cups. 

When manufacturing disposable cups, polyethylene terephthalate is a resin taking the form of small pellets. The small resin is then heated to create a molten liquid, that liquid is placed into molds that resemble the final cup shape. Once placed into those molds, rapid cooling solidifies the polyethylene terephthalate. The final product is lastly given a quality check, this shows how cost-effective a disposable cup is (KEVIDKO). Comparing the manufacturing impact on the environment of a thousand single-use cups created from polyethylene terephthalate and polypropylene towards the environment, polyethylene terephthalate consumes ten percent more of fossil fuels than its counterpart polypropylene. Comparing the overall production from raw material to the disposable cup, polyethylene terephthalate cups have a twenty-seven percent higher impact in climate change than its competitor of polypropylene (Christian Moretti). The manufacturing processes of these cups do not ultimately only have a change in climate and fossil fuels, it also has an impact on four environmental impacts. 

The four other environmental impacts are particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, acidification, and terrestrial eutrophication. The concept of particulate matter are solid particles and liquid droplets in the air being produced from manufacturing processes. Polyethylene terephthalate cups produce roughly sixty percent more particulate matter than that of polypropylene (Christian Moretti). Particulate matter is harmful since breathing in significant levels of it causes health problems such as asthma and heart disease (New York State Department of Health). The next concept is photochemical ozone formation and it states that the emission of air pollution causes ground level ozone in the atmosphere to have negative impacts toward human health and plant health (LC-IMPACT). Polyethylene terephthalate cups produce roughly twenty-two percent more impact towards photochemical ozone formation than that of polypropylene (Christian Moretti). The next concept is acidification, this creates conditions that eat away at the minerals used by oysters, clams, and more species that help these creatures build their shells and skeletons (NOAA FISHERIES). Polyethylene terephthalate produces thirty percent more ocean acidification compared to polypropylene. (Christian Moretti). Finally, there is terrestrial eutrophication, the upbringing of air pollution results in loss of sensitive species and eco-systematical shift (European Environment Agency). This brings us back to how polyethylene terephthalate produces twenty percent more air pollution that causes terrestrial eutrophication compared that to polypropylene (Christian Moretti). From all the concepts previously discussed polyethylene terephthalate does not measure up to that of its competitor, polyethylene terephthalate’s overall life cycle has a detrimental impact towards the environment compared that to one of its competitors. 

Energy

Moving forward, the manufacturing process takes a toll for the environment when it deals with polyethylene terephthalate. Let us consider the impact it has when we talk about energy. For a polyethylene terephthalate container to be produced it needs 32 megajoules of energy, compared to a glass container it uses 34 megajoules. The issue is understood when you compare the energy needed to make a pound of plastic resin, it takes nearly nine times more energy compared to produce a pound of glass (Ecology Center). On the other hand, polyethylene terephthalate does outcompete the glass bottle when comparing the carbon footprint (Patnarin Benyathiar). Taking into consideration what we previously discovered, the energy production tallies what we already know. That the production of disposable cups created from polyethylene terephthalate does considerable damage environmentally when being produced into these cups. Just taking the numbers here blatantly one would say it nine times too much energy needed to produce the same amount of product. Although one pound of glass takes less energy, glass bottles are significantly heavier thus less product is produced. At least polyethylene terephthalate does outcompete one of its competitors. 

Waste

Polyethylene terephthalate life cycle comes to an end or so we think. Polyethylene terephthalate cups can be recycled. Once recycled polyethylene terephthalate cups go to a recycling center. Polyethylene terephthalate cups are washed and cleaned to remove any contaminants. Once finished with that stage, it is grinded down to flakes so it can be melted once again to restart its life cycle. The flakes end up creating recycled polyethylene terephthalate that are put into new cups (KEVIDKO). Polyethylene terephthalate cups do get recycled, and the previous information considered the population that does recycle this material. Competitors of polyethylene terephthalate such as polypropylene and high-density polyethylene are also recyclable, they offer better alternatives towards environmental impact. 

Conclusion

Polyethylene terephthalate cups are not best equipped to be used as a daily cup compared to its competitors. As seen from the raw materials section, just creating the polymer has more environmental impact compared to one of its competitors. Helping create climate change, especially considering the amount of plastic created per year due to consumers using more of it in their daily lives. Such cups can come from Hefty disposable cups, Boba cups, or Starbucks coffee cups. 

When it comes to manufacturing process, we need to consider the six environmental impacts: particulate matter, photochemical ozone formation, acidification, terrestrial eutrophication, climate change, and fossil fuels. These six categories are the only ones mentioned since these were the only ones that could be accurately measured to demonstrate the given data. From these six categories polyethylene terephthalate cups did not prevail against any of its competitors, polylactide nor polypropylene. 

A subject line in which polyethylene terephthalate cups do outcompete a “competitor” of sorts is energy. The production of polyethylene terephthalate cups against glass bottles is a clear example of how much energy is used up. To produce a pound of product, polyethylene terephthalate cups take up more energy. Although more product is being produced, its significant trail of environmental impact cannot be unspoken of. It does outcompete when it comes to business but when it comes to the design, it is flawed. 

Finally, it all comes down to waste. Its competitors simply do everything better than that of polyethylene terephthalate. They also get recycled and reused. The life cycle of polyethylene terephthalate is one that cannot be ignored when there are better suited candidates to take its place. Its popularity is only to ask for more demand, that demand will cause only more damage to our planet. 

Full Bibliography

1. Aruwa, Christiana Eleojo, et al. “Biodegradability and Current Status of Polyethylene Terephthalate.” ScienceDirect.Com | Science, Health and Medical Journals, Full Text Articles and Books., 19 Jan. 2023, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323898584000117

2. Benyathiar, Patnarin, et al. “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Bottle-To-Bottle Recycling for the Beverage Industry: A Review.” Polymers, vol. 14, no. 12, June 2022, p. 2366, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14122366

3. “Eutrophication of Terrestrial Ecosystems Due to Air Pollution  —    European Environment Agency.” European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2018/natural-capital/eutrophication-of-terrestrial-ecosystems. Accessed 5 June 2024.

4. “Guide to Thermoforming | Formlabs.” Formlabs, https://formlabs.com/blog/thermoforming/.  Accessed 5 June 2024.

5. “LCI - Photochemical Ozone Formation.” Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methodology, https://lc-impact.eu/HHphotochemical_ozone_formation.html#:~:text=Air%20pollution%20causing%20tropospheric%20ozone,ecosystems%2C%20e.g.%20plant%20biomass%20decrease. Accessed 5 June 2024.

6. Lebleu, Tristian. “Cleancup, Fighting Plastic Pollution One Cup at a Time.” Solar Impulse Foundation: Clean and Profitable Solutions for the Environment, Solar Impulse Foundation, 8 Feb. 2019, https://solarimpulse.com/news/cleancup-fighting-plastic-pollution-one-cup-ata-time#:~:text=An%20estimated%20500%20billion%20plastic,created%20a%20long%2Dlasting%20mess

7. Moretti, Christian, et al. “Cradle-To-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Single-Use Cups Made from PLA, PP and PET.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 169, June 2021, p. 105508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105508

8. “Particle Pollution and Health.” New York State Department of Health, https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/pmq_a.htm#:~:text=Particle%20pollution%20from%20fine%20particulates,the%20air%20to%20appear%20hazy. Accessed 5 June 2024.

9. “PTF: Manufacturing | Ecology Center.” Ecology Center | Environment, Community, Justice, https://ecologycenter.org/plastics/ptf/report1/#:~:text=The%20total%20energy%20required%20to,producing%20a%20pound%20of%20glass. Accessed 5 June 2024

10. “Understanding Ocean Acidification | NOAA Fisheries.” NOAA, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/insight/understanding-ocean-acidification#:~:text=For%20good%20reason%2C%20ocean%20acidification,health%20is%20also%20a%20concern. Accessed 5 June 2024.

11. “What Is Particulate Matter? | SCDHEC.” Homepage | SCDHEC, https://scdhec.gov/environment/your-air/most-common-air-pollutants/particulate-matter/what-particulate-matter#:~:text=Particulate%20matter%20(PM)%20is%20made,vehicles%20and%20industrial%20plant%20smokestacks.  Accessed 5 June 2024.

Daisy Lu

Javier, Jorja, Daisy

Des 040A

Professor Cogdell

 Energy Usage In Disposable Plastic PET Cups

Plastic cups are a very commonly used disposable cup in every-day life and continuing with the increasing opening of cafes and beverage shops. Plastic cups are mainly made out of PET, or polyethylene terephthalate. SImilar to polystyrene foam, traditional plastics break down extremely slowly, and given the impatience of many workers, there was a need to fasten the pace to break down the plastic. Furthermore, when plastic is emitted, with a singular plastic cup, it is able to produce a minimum of 10 grams to a maximum of 30 grams of CO2. In addition, plastics harm the environment and wildlife because of breaking into microplastics. This is partly due to the factor that a majority of plastic ends up in the ocean either during transportation or waste disposal. And because of this, the plastic may slowly work its way into the human body (Nowell, 2024). Disposable plastic cups are not sustainable and are harmful to the environment during nearly every part of their life cycle. The energy used during this life cycle has the majority being used and aimed at the management of the waste product and discarding of the plastic waste into the environment.

PET is not the only material being used in order to form plastic cups, in fact there are other materials that are added together in order to manufacture PET into plastic cups. PET is a polyethylene terephthalate, which is a polymer, from a chemical point of view is a polymer. The PET is then manufactured from terephthalic acid, which is a dicarboxylic acid and ethylene glycol. These two substances are then reacted together to form a long polymer, creating the PET (Welle, 2018). The raw materials used to make these molecules come from crude oil, and in fact about 5% of worldwide oil goes into making plastics. There are around 40 basic chemicals in crude oil, which can be used to make a huge number of further chemicals. Some of these, in turn, can be polymerized to form plastics (Brunning, 2015). PET materials are manufactured in a two stage process. This process includes PET granules melted at about 280 degrees Celsius and is then processed into preforms. Before the filling process, the preforms are heated to 110 degrees Celsius and blown into their final shape (Welle, 2018). Furthermore, PET not only uses a wide range of energy during the manufacturing of products, because of the energy used, it consumes more energy when transported and re-used in the process.

PET during the transportation process may not be using a large amount of energy, however, the recycling process still consumes a large amount of energy supply. Haulage transportation became fundamental for the global economy, and plastics considerably reduced the energy demand for the transport (Klemes, 2020). In addition, the energy used in re-using and maintenance for PET was largely consumed. Various technologies such as landfilling, gasification, and recycling towards energy recovery. The energy represented in plastic during production and the recycling products may be energy efficient. It takes less energy to manufacture a plastic cup, which then concludes that it would also take less energy to transport the plastic cup in comparison to glass materials. However, the energy production process of PET includes embodied energy, total plant energy, energy mortgage to production plant, total plant energy to the blow molding of the final product (Radin, 2014). Aside from the energy usage in transportation, waste management is also used in order to break down the materials being disposed of.

During waste management and recycling, a majority of the energy during this process is being manipulated towards waste management. However, during recycling, because of how plastics are mostly single-use or only used during a short period of time due to their costs, this leads to the recycling of the products. However, this also factors into the element that recycling is a base for the circular economy. From this, the economy can also play an important role as recycling being implemented is also a factor of profit, leading from waste management, but still needs implemented of improved advanced technologies to be more successful (Klemes, 2020). Thermoplastics are both flexible and rigid forms of uses due to their ability to reprocess the plastics and be easily molded into their desired shape. Fossil fuel plastics are very persistent when placed into the environment. This means that when they are put to be discarded, it takes many years —  a very long time for it to finish degrading. Because of this, there are increasing environmental concerns on the usage of plastics because of the constant high source and high amounts of waste. In fact, many of the solutions for these issues are using alternate renewables.  The method of breaking down plastic waste is through catalysts. Catalysts are used for aiding pyrolysis of waste products in order to convert plastic waste into fuel oils. The catalyst makes the pyrolysis occur at lower temperatures, with quicker reaction times, and as less energy consuming as possible, in addition to shorter occurrence times. Different catalysts used include: zeolites, mesoporous materials, carbon and clay. During catalyst pyrolysis, various types of carbon gas get deposited on the catalyst (Sakthipriya, 2022).

The energy required to produce disposable PET plastic cups is significantly affected by the manufacturing and transportation processes. However, although this is the case energy usage is also influenced by factors such as raw materials, maintenance, recycling, and waste management, PET plastic cups are not made from PET alone. Additional materials combined during production. Although the transportation of PET may not be highly energy intended, recycling the product material requires a more excessive amount of energy. During waste management and recycling, most of the energy is directed towards managing the waste. Since plastics are often single-usage products, or low usage due to the cost of production, the result is the implementation of frequent recycling.

Bibliography:

30, Andy Brunning, April, et al. “A Guide to Common Household Plastics.” Compound 

Interest, 1 May 2015, www.compoundchem.com/2015/04/30/plastics/. 

Birat, Jean-Pierre. “Chapter 8 materials, secondary raw materials and the circular economy.” 

Sustainable Materials Science - Environmental Metallurgy, 4 Nov. 2020, pp. 349–390, https://doi.org/10.1051/978-2-7598-2443-4.c010. 

Dreier, Hannah. “As Migrant Children Were Put to Work, U.S. Ignored Warnings.” The New 

York Times, The New York Times, 17 Apr. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/04/17/us/politics/migrant-child-labor-biden.html. 

Dormer, A., Finn, D. P., Ward, P., & Cullen, J. (2013). Carbon footprint analysis in plastics 

manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 133–141. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.

Foteinis, S. (2020). How small daily choices play a huge role in climate change: the disposable 

paper cup environmental bane. Journal of Cleaner Production, 120294. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120294.

Klemeš, Jiří Jaromír, et al. “Plastics: Friends or foes? the circularity and plastic waste footprint.” 

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, vol. 43, no. 

13, 5 Aug. 2020, pp. 1549–1565, https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1801906. 

Lerner, Sharon. “How the Plastics Industry Is Fighting to Keep Polluting the World.” The 

Intercept, 31 July 2023, theintercept.com/2019/07/20/plastics-industry-plastic-recycling/. 

Liu, Chao, et al. “Biodegradable, hygienic, and compostable tableware from hybrid sugarcane 

and bamboo fibers as plastic alternative.” Matter, vol. 3, no. 6, Dec. 2020, pp. 2066–2079, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2020.10.004. 

Liu, Xinyi, et al. Economic and Environmental Comparison of Emerging Plastic Waste 

Management Technologies, 2023, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4673831. 

Mitchell, J., Vandeperre, L., Dvorak, R., Kosior, E., Tarverdi, K., & Cheeseman, C. (2014). 

Recycling disposable cups into paper plastic composites. Waste Management, 34(11), 2113–2119. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.

Ncube, Lindani Koketso, et al. “Environmental impact of Food Packaging Materials: A review of 

contemporary development from conventional plastics to polylactic acid based 

materials.” Materials, vol. 13, no. 21, 6 Nov. 2020, p. 4994, 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13214994. 

Nicholson, Scott R., et al. “Manufacturing Energy and greenhouse gas emissions associated with 

plastics consumption.” Joule, vol. 5, no. 3, Mar. 2021, pp. 673–686, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.027. 

Nowell, Cecilia. “The Disposable Cup Crisis: What’s the Environmental Impact of A to-Go 

Coffee?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 22 Jan. 2024, 

www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/22/disposable-coffee-cups-environmental-i

mpact. 

N., Sakthipriya. “Plastic waste management: A road map to achieve circular economy and recent 

innovations in pyrolysis.” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 809, Feb. 2022, p. 

151160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151160. 

Radin Mohamed, R., Gazala Sanusi Misbah, Wurochekke, A. et al. Energy Recovery 

from Polyethylene Terephthalate(PET) Recycling Process. GSTF J Eng Technol 

2, 12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.7603/s40707-013-0012-9

Shere, Jeremy. Renewable the World-Changing Power of Alternative Energy. St. Martin’s Press, 

2013, https://books.google.com/books?id=aUy4AQAAQBAJ&dq=hefty+cups+raw+material+a

cquisition+energy&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s, Accessed 1 May 2024. 

Van der Harst, Eugenie, and José Potting. “A critical comparison of ten disposable cup lcas.” 

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 43, Nov. 2013, pp. 86–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.06.006. 

Welle, Frank. (2018). Migration of Acetaldehyde From PET Bottles Into Natural Mineral Water. 

10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.22436-0.

Lindsey, Jorja

Daisy Lu and Javier Casimiro

DES 40A

Professor Cogdell

Disposable Plastic Cups: Waste and Emissions

Buying a sleeve of disposable cups is common practice when hosting an event, the single-use bright red plastic holding promises of a good time. But the purchase and inevitably quick disposal of these products has an impact on the environment that is anything but lighthearted. The “convenience” of these products results in massive amounts of waste that will be around for centuries to come. A lesser-known impact of disposable plastic cups is the complex, energy-intensive process it takes to produce them. Disposable plastic cups are not sustainable and are harmful to the environment during nearly every part of their life cycle. The waste created during this life cycle is most extensive during the raw materials acquisition and end-of-life, but there are also considerable environmental impacts during transportation, production, and recycling. 

The life cycle of a disposable plastic cup begins with the extraction of fossil fuels. Even in this early stage of raw material acquisition there is an extreme environmental toll. Most plastic cups are made of polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or polystyrene (PS). These  are made from oil, gas, and coal, which must be extracted from the earth through fracking. This involves drilling into the ground and injecting a substance until rock breaks and oil is released (Bauman). Around 8% of annual global oil consumption is attributed to plastic production, and this is expected to rise to 20% by the year 2050 if heavy reliance on plastic continues (“The Global Plastics Crisis”). The drilling in itself is a high-energy process, but also greatly disturbs the land it takes place on. A short-term effect of the drilling is that excess soil and rocks are often dumped into nearby valleys or water sources, disrupting ecosystems. The land that is buried takes on severe damage and is slow to rebound. There are over 500 mountaintop drilling sites in the Appalachian region, an area that is home to some of the most biologically diverse streams in the country. As of 2010, almost 2,000 miles of precious Appalachian streams had been buried as a result of the drilling process (Union of Concerned Scientists). In the US, around 19.2 million acres of land have been cleared for oil and gas extraction. Much of this land is forested, meaning that all the carbon in the trees and soil is released into the atmosphere when the land is cleared (Bauman). Not only this, but fracking essentially renders the land uninhabitable, leading to loss of wildlife and migratory disruptions (Lin-Schweitzer). 

After the raw materials for plastic have been extracted, next in the life cycle is the transportation of oil to factories. Tankers used for oil transportation accounted for 13% of maritime carbon emissions in 2015, which added up to 101 million metric tons (Ankathi et. al.). Many of these oil tankers head to refineries, where the oil is converted to pellets, a process which will be discussed more in the next paragraph. These are then distributed to plastic production plants, this time in trucks that run on petroleum-derived fuels. When the plastic cups are fully formed and packaged, the same type of trucks distribute them even more widely to stores. Both the oil tankers and distribution trucks run on fuels extracted using exactly the same harmful methods used to harvest oil for plastic. These vehicles also release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as they travel. Before plastic cups even reach the consumer, they are the cause of extreme environmental detriment. 

The process of converting oil into plastic further increases the already high greenhouse gas emissions of the cups’ life cycle. The general process begins with oil being refined into ethane and propane. Ethane and propane undergo a process called “cracking,” in which they are treated with high heat. This converts them into the monomers commonly used in plastics, like ethylene and propylene. Then, the monomers are combined with a catalyst to create a fluff-like polymer, which is then melted and fed into a pipe. The plastic cools into a tube shape, which is cut into small pellets, ready to be shipped to product-specific manufacturing plants (This is Plastics). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), plastics generated 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, which is 3.4% of global emissions. 90% of these emissions came from production and conversion from fossil fuels (OECD). At this point, the plastic is not even done undergoing manufacturing processes yet. The pellets have to be melted back down and blown into cups. The plastics manufacturing plants where this happens generate hundreds of millions of tons of toxic pollution each year, and are often located near marginalized communities (“Plastics”). Each step of oil refinement and plastic production requires extreme amounts of heat and energy, adding to the already extensive environmental toll created by a product that will only be used for a matter of minutes.

By the time a plastic cup reaches the consumer, it has already had a substantial environmental impact. The consumer will probably use it for a single drink, maybe two, and then toss it in the trash. The cup’s journey from the trash onwards is what creates the most pollution. Polystyrene is extremely difficult to recycle, but polypropylene and PET are recyclable in most places. However, much of this plastic does not actually end up being recycled and instead sits in landfills, makes its way to the ocean, or is incinerated. In fact, only 20% of plastic used on Earth is actually recycled (SOS FUTURE TEAM). The concept of recycling has been deceptively used by the plastic industry since the beginnings of concern about plastic pollution. Major petrochemical companies spent millions of dollars to place ads in major magazines promoting recycling and making it seem like plastic is a solution. The same companies, as members of the Society of Plastics Industry, adapted the chasing arrows symbol as a coding system for different types of plastics. The arrows came to be inaccurately known as a symbol of recycling in general, the majority of Americans harboring the belief that any plastic with the symbol can be recycled. In 2020, a report by NPR revealed that fossil fuel companies have had doubts about the true recyclability of plastic since the 1970s. Documents revealed executive statements warning that recycling is an infeasible solution and that there was never strong belief that recycling could be a long-term solution (“Plastics”).  The OECD states that, “Plastic pollution has now been documented in all the major ocean basins, beaches, rivers, lakes, terrestrial environments and even in remote locations such as the Arctic and Antarctic.” The majority of this pollution is macroplastics like cups and bottles, and most of it ends up in natural environments due to inadequate collection and disposal practices (OECD). Plastics make their way to the ocean through rivers in a slow process that can take years or even decades. The entire time they are sitting in water, UV rays break them down into smaller pieces through a process called “photo-degredation” (SOS FUTURE TEAM). This makes them easier to be consumed by marine life, which is not only unhealthy for the marine life itself but also for humans eating seafood. Airborne plastics are another issue, and have been found in regions as remote as the arctic. They could be contributing to global warming by absorbing light and decreasing the surface albedo of snow (OECD). As far as the plastic that ends up in incineration facilities, its end-of-life is equally as detrimental as the plastic in the ocean. According to Greenpeace, “...for every tonne of dense plastic burned more than two tonnes of CO2 is released into the atmosphere” (Darlington et. al). Burning plastic does create energy that can be used as electricity, but the companies that profit from it try to market this energy as “green.” This is an example of greenwashing, because incineration is just another process that releases dangerous toxins and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere (Darlington et. al). At the end of a plastic cup’s life, these disastrous statistics are added on to an already excessive amount of waste produced by the product. 

There are companies making efforts to produce high quality cups using more environmentally friendly materials. It is important to distinguish between these and the greenwashing of major disposable cup producers like Hefty. Like many major plastic companies, Hefty has a “Sustainability” section on their website. They announce that they are “designing with the environment in mind,” and making products that create less waste. Although they offer several alternatives to their traditional plastic products, such as “ECOSAVE” party cups made with 97% plant based materials, they do nothing to address the true issue: the massive amounts of new plastic they continue to produce (“16 Oz Party Cups | Hefty”). The plastic crisis will continue to grow as long as single-use plastic is produced, and offering a few “eco-friendly,” single-use alternatives will do nothing to stop this. Eco-friendly cups and other alternatives tend to be more expensive, and are often overlooked by customers who are drawn to the familiarity of regular plastic products. The solution is stopping the production of plastic and using what already exists. Since plastic companies thrive off of the short-lived usage and quick disposal of their products, it is up to consumers to stop coming back for more. Serving drinks in reusable cups or glasses at events is a good place to start. As the life cycle analysis of disposable plastic cups illustrates, using these products is far more impactful than the quick and easy consumer-product interaction makes it seem. Disposable plastic cups create a long trail of environmental footprints from the very beginning of their life to the end. 

Works Cited

“16 Oz Party Cups | Hefty.” Www.hefty.com, www.hefty.com/products/cups/16-oz-party-cups.  Accessed 1 May 2024.

Ankathi, Sharath, et al. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Global Transportation of Crude Oil: Current Status and Mitigation Potential.” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 26, no. 6, Mar. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13262. 

Bauman, Brooke. “How Plastics Contribute to Climate Change.” Yale Climate Connections, Yale Climate Connections, 20 Aug. 2019, yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/08/how-plastics-contribute-to-climate-change/. 

Darlington, Maja, et al. “Why Burning Plastic Won’t Solve the Plastic Crisis.” Greenpeace UK, 28 July 2022, www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/incineration-burning-plastic-crisis/. 

Lee Tin Sin, and Bee Soo Tueen. Plastics and Sustainability. Elsevier, 2022.

Lin-Schweitzer, Anna. “Integrated Effort Needed to Mitigate Fracking While Protecting Both Humans and the Environment.” Ysph.yale.edu, 30 Mar. 2022, ysph.yale.edu/news-article/integrated-effort-needed-to-mitigate-fracking-while-protecting-both-humans-and-the-environment/#:~:text=The%20process%20creates%20vast%20amounts. 

Moretti, Christian, et al. “Cradle-To-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Single-Use Cups Made from PLA, PP and PET.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 169, June 2021, p. 105508, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105508. 

OECD. “Plastic Leakage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Are Increasing - OECD.” Oecd.org, 2019, www.oecd.org/environment/plastics/increased-plastic-leakage-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions.htm.

“Plastics.” State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General, 28 Apr. 2022, oag.ca.gov/plastics#:~:text=Plastics%20manufacturing%20plants%20and%20materials.  Accessed 1 May 2024.

SOS FUTURE TEAM. “What You Need to Know about Plastic Breakdown.” Sos Future, 18 July 2019, sosfuture.org/blogs/news/what-you-need-to-know-about-plastic-breakdown?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw0MexBhD3ARIsAEI3WHJpIisiSTIlT0cDKMLleSPBsXE4jTqdzZHFxGoeN_Nxh_2nHU-5qgEaAokZEALw_wcB. Accessed 1 May 2024.

“The Global Plastics Crisis.” Eco-Cycle, ecocycle.org/our-programs/reducing-plastics/global-plastics-crisis/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20World%20Economic. Accessed 2 June 2024.

This Is Plastics. “How Are Plastics Made?” This Is Plastics, 12 July 2017, thisisplastics.com/plastics-101/how-are-plastics-made/#:~:text=Plastics%20are%20made%20from%20raw. 

Union of Concerned Scientists. “The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels.” Union of Concerned Scientists, Union of Concerned Scientists, 30 Aug. 2016, www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-fossil-fuels. 

“What Is the Process for the Manufacture of PET Plastic?” Wkaiglobal.com, 26 Sept. 2023, wkaiglobal.com/blogs/what-is-the-process-for-the-manufacture-of-pet-plastic. 

Yamashita, Kyoko, et al. “Compositions of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted from Melted Virgin and Waste Plastic Pellets.” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, vol. 59, no. 3, Mar. 2009, pp. 273–78, https://doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.59.3.273.