Create a sustainable human age where we really want to live. 

Join the ranks of thousands of researchers, policy makers, designers and educators who rely on the Anthropocene to understand the latest sustainable development science and innovation.

More about our newsletter>

Newsletter Newsletter Science Express (weekly) Carbon sequestration (twice a month)

Disposable straws and forks, plastic sandwich bags and wrapping paper, and disposable cups can all cause serious damage to the environment. Many consumers are switching from these products to reusable alternatives, assuming that these products have less impact on the environment.

A new study breaks this assumption. Although they are made of more environmentally friendly materials, reusable products are not always more environmentally friendly, because their impact depends on how they are used. The analysis published in the International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment revealed that some of these products may actually be worse for the environment than single-use plastic products.

Shelie Miller of the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan said: "This work eliminates the misunderstanding that reusable products are always better than disposable products anyway." "In fact, reusable products are always better." The products are usually better than disposable products, but they actually have to be reused, and often need to be reused multiple times to achieve their environmental benefits."

In recent years, bamboo straws and beeswax sandwich wrappers have become popular kitchen supplies. They are often advertised as fashion must-haves for responsible customers. However, Miller said, "Reusable items are more durable than disposable items. Therefore, reusable items require more materials and energy to make."

Therefore, she and her colleague Hannah Fetner set out to compare the environmental impact of disposable plastics and reusable kitchenware products commonly used today. They calculated the global warming potential, water consumption, and non-renewable energy consumption of four different types of products: straws, sandwich storage bags and wrapping paper, coffee cups, and forks. Researchers also considered different consumer cleaning and reuse behaviors, as well as local conditions, such as the carbon intensity of different grids. The goal is to evaluate the reusable environmental break-even point. That is, how many times a reusable product must be reused before the environmental footprint of each use matches the environmental footprint of a disposable product.

Researchers found that although the environmental impact of disposable products is related to their manufacture, the environmental impact of reusable products largely depends on their use and the frequency and method of cleaning. "It is not the product itself that is essentially good for the environment, but the way we choose to use it," Miller said.

Two reusable items—silicone sandwich bags and beeswax wrappers—never reached the break-even point with disposable products. The greater impact of these items on the environment stems from the water and energy used to clean them manually. Miller said, for example, the plastic content of plastic zipper bags is so low that the emissions during dishwashing tend to be greater.

However, 9 of the 12 reusable products break even with disposable products after multiple uses, even if they are washed after each use. For example, reusable forks made of bamboo, plastic, and metal will still break after 12 uses. On the other hand, ceramic coffee cups have the least impact and the shortest environmental payback period.

Miller and Fetner write that the key point is that consumer behavior and usage patterns affect the ultimate environmental impact of reusable kitchenware products.

Consumers who want to reduce the impact of kitchen products should try to find reusable products with the least impact, use the products for as long as possible and use the best washing method. "We don't want reusable products to be treated as semi-disposable products, because people buy new reusable travel glasses and water bottles every few months," Miller said. "You can also reduce the impact of reusable items by paying attention to washing emissions, or reduce the frequency of washing items under reasonable circumstances, to ensure that your dishwasher is always running at full capacity, or reduce the amount of water you use. If you wash by hand ."

Finally, it is also important to remember that kitchenware products are only a small part of a person's environmental footprint. They say that reducing emissions related to transportation, energy use, and food choices will have a greater impact over time.

Source: Hannah Fetner and Shelie A. Miller. The environmental payback period for the reusable substitutes of disposable plastic kitchenware products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021.

The syrupy manganese-based liquid can store energy for several months at a time, greatly reducing the cost of flow batteries

Nearly three years after the launch of an ambitious campaign to connect wildlife habitat from the Yukon Territory of northern Canada to Yellowstone National Park, researchers say that such ambitious ambitions and a lot of hype can pay off.

A well-designed carbon tax can reduce carbon emissions and poverty at the same time; a new study shows how.

Theme: Anthropocene Biodiversity City Decarbonized Food and Agricultural Health Daily Science

Sign up for Anthropocene's free newsletter

Newsletter Newsletter Science Express (weekly) Carbon sequestration (twice a month)

©2021 Anthropocene Magazine | All Rights Reserved

Send the latest sustainability science to your inbox every week

We will never share your email address unless you allow us to do so. Check our privacy policy. A simple unsubscribe link is provided in each email.

Smart, powerful environmental journalism is not cheap. Anthropocene is science-based, non-profit, and funded by readers.