 | Rita Schenck |
Location
Vashon Island, WA, United States
Role
Not-for-profitJob Title
Executive DirectorCompany
Institute for Environmental Research & EducationProfile
Rita Schenck is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Environmental Research and Education (IERE), home of the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment. The mission of IERE is to undertake and disseminate comprehensive, fact-based research for use in the development of responsible environmental policy, programs and decisions. Nearly everything that IERE does is related to Life Cycle Assessment: Rita represented the US in developing the international Standards on LCA.
Rita is a member of the steering committee for Walmart’s Packaging sustainable value network and IERE provides an ecolabel for food systems, including packaging through its Earthsure program. Approximately half of all packaging is used in food systems.
Rita earned her doctorate in Oceanography from the University of Rhode Island, with a focus on ecotoxicology and biogeochemistry (the study of how things cycle in the environmental and what happens when they get there).
Recent Blog Entries
This user does not have any blog posts available!
Comments
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Some preliminary comments on LCA software
I am currently doing a review of software resources, and have only a few preliminary comments: 1) Wal-mart’s score card, although it is based on lifecycle thinking is not really an LCA tool, and it only looks at climate change, as well as imbedding Wal-Mart’s value system, which the user may not share. 2) Sima-Pro and GaBi are the two leading LCA software resources globally, and are designed for LCA professionals they are flexible, comprehensive and transparent, but not something for the amateur. 3) Transparency is a big issue in all the specialized LCA software tools. Caveat emptor. 4) Data sources are also big issues… garbage in and garbage out.
Chet is right about supply chains
Indeed, Chet is really right. We need to look at the full system in order to figure out how to make more sustainable packaging. With a few exceptions (cosmetics and bottled wine spring to mind) the environmental impact of the contents of a package vastly outweigh the environmental impacts of the package itself. The implication is clear. Dematerilizing the package is only environmentally friendly as long as the primary function of the package (protecting and preserving its contents) is retained. In no place is this more clear than in food packaging (about half of all packaging sold). The environmental impact on the farm are very high, and the amount of food that is wasted is very high (about 40% in the USA). Any kind of packaging and processing that reduces food waste has a positive environmental impact. Even single-serve items, with their high packaging content, are better than the average food cooked at home, because all of the item is eaten, and manufacturing losses are low. Compared to the typical restaurant-prepared food, single serve items are hugely more environmentally friendly, because restaurants typically throw out more than half the food they buy (all those health laws). And Chet is right-- the product has to get to the consumer intact -- no matter the handling and climate it passes through. The packaging industry should be proud of the work it does to reduce losses in the products they protect. Now if we could only get the word out...
About packaging supply chain and travel...
As it happens, the many scenarios suggested above are all LCA issues. There is a common assumption that the global supply chain and packaging transport is the major issue in GHG emissions due to packaging. But think again. Transport by container ship is MUCH more efficient than transport via rail, which is again MUCH more efficient than transport via truck. And, the total fraction of the US GHG inventory due to commercial transport is only about 10% of the total. What does this mean? If you are shipping packaging materials across the Pacific it has little impact. On the other hand, if you are trucking goods across the nation it can matter-- especially if your packaging is designed to ship air. Where Walmart is making a difference in its packaging supply chain is in the design of packaging to permit more units to fit on a pallet and more pallets in a truck. It is all about cube utilization. Yes, plastic often has a better LCA than paper-- but the real opportunity is the development of packaging that makes the overall product LCA look better, including the product shipping. The package that fails in efficiency is the package that has the highest environmental impact.
LCA and bottle recycling
Many recycling studies have been done on bottles. The bottom line is that it depends on how far away you are from the reuse/recycling facilities. If the catchment area is small, you don't use much energy to get the bottle back. If it is large, you do. A study done by the government of Germany found that the reused bottle was better, but if the bottle was shipped in from farther away (e.g. Austria, not that far), disposal was more environmentally friendly.
Policy matters, too
It is interesting that here in the US, sustainability is viewed as voluntary, while in Europe and elsewhere is it is a matter of law. Consider the packaging take back regulations in Germany. When you buy something at a store there, you can remove the packaging and leave it at the checkout counter. There is a "zero waste" law there, too, where all landfills will shortly be closing down. Everything has to be recycled, and everything not recycled will go through a waste-to-energy facility. Variations on this theme exist all over Europe. Softdrinks must be sold in refillable bottles. Extended Producer Responsibility laws require the takeback not only of packaging but of the product itself at end of life. Laws like this are coming in to many states. Washington has an electronics takeback law-- where recycling is paid for by the CPGs. California is currently considering an even broader extended producer responsibility law. It is only a matter of time until these will make their way into federal law. Maybe when it does, we won't have any more complaints about whether it costs more, because the environmental costs will be internalized for everyone. The smart companies will be looking at their packaging systems now to make sure that they are ready for takeback.