The main report demonstrated the potential greenhouse gas (GHG) savings from implementing a reuse system for takeaway items compared to single-use alternatives.1 The aim of this Addendum is to build on the main report and apply the ‘per serving’ climate impact within the context of reuse schemes in two European cities: Aarhus (Denmark) and Berlin (Germany). [...] Building on the methodology and assumptions in the main report, a number of additions and updates were applied for this assessment: Scale and composition: For both Aarhus and Berlin, the total number of units of single-use packaging placed on the market (POM); the composition of packaging formats; and the material composition of each format is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. [...] Although the available evidence suggests that the assumptions used under the central scenario in the JRC report are achievable, the existence of some contrasting views also highlight the importance of developing reuse systems that are capable of delivering the performance that is required to achieve improved environmental outcomes when compared to single-use. [...] The grid intensity determines the impact of the washing and collection/redistribution stages of the reusable packaging system, which are the most energy-intensive processes in the system cycle. [...] The cause for this is that these types of packaging formats, and particularly ‘pizza boxes’, are the least efficient to wash and transport in comparison to the other packaging formats included in the scope of the study.
Authors
Related Organizations
- Pages
- 13
- Published in
- Belgium
Table of Contents
- Report For 2
- Project Team 2
- Editor 2
- Approved By 2
- Acknowledgements 2
- 1.0 Introduction 3
- 2.0 Methodology Additions and Updates to the Main Report 3
- Figure 1 Number of units of single-use packaging POM per year in each city split by packaging format 4
- Figure 2 Material composition of single-use packaging formats in each city 5
- Table 1 Assumptions comparison 6
- 3.0 Results 6
- Figure 3 Total GHG emissions per packaging format per year Aarhus 7
- Figure 4 Total GHG emissions per packaging format per year Berlin 7
- Figure 5 Average GHG savings per serving across all formats 8
- 4.0 Drivers and Sensitivities 9
- Average Material Composition of The Market 9
- Electricity Grid Intensities 10
- Forward Looking Decarbonisation of the Upstream Supply Chain 10
- Figure 7 Upstream grid mix decarbonisation comparison 11
- 5.0 Conclusion 12
