Technologies that enable plastic circularity offer a path to reducing waste generation, improving environmental quality, and reducing reliance on fossil feedstocks. However, life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods commonly applied to these systems fall far short of capturing the full suite of advantages and tradeoffs. This perspective highlights inconsistencies in both the research questions and methodological choices across the growing body of LCA literature for plastics recycling. We assert that conducting LCAs on the basis of tonnes of waste managed vs. tonnes of recycled plastics yields results with fundamentally different conclusions; in most cases, analyses of recyclable plastics should focus on the unit of recycled product yielded. We also offer straightforward paths to better approach LCAs for recycling processes and plastics in a circular economy by rethinking study design (metrics, functional unit, system boundaries, counterfactual scenarios), upstream assumptions (waste feedstock variability, pre-processing requirements), and downstream assumptions (closed-loop vs. open-loop systems, material substitution). Specifically, we recommend expanding to metrics beyond greenhouse gases by including fossil carbon balances, net diversion of waste from landfill, and quantity of avoided plastic waste leakage to the environment. Furthermore, we highlight the role that plastic waste plays as a problematic contaminant in preventing greater diversion of all wastes to recycling, energy recovery, and composting, suggesting that plastics may hold a shared responsibility for the system-wide greenhouse gas emissions that occur when mixed wastes are landfilled.
BT - Chemical Science DA - 24/05/2024 DO - 10.1039/d4sc01340a IS - 25 N2 -Technologies that enable plastic circularity offer a path to reducing waste generation, improving environmental quality, and reducing reliance on fossil feedstocks. However, life-cycle assessment (LCA) methods commonly applied to these systems fall far short of capturing the full suite of advantages and tradeoffs. This perspective highlights inconsistencies in both the research questions and methodological choices across the growing body of LCA literature for plastics recycling. We assert that conducting LCAs on the basis of tonnes of waste managed vs. tonnes of recycled plastics yields results with fundamentally different conclusions; in most cases, analyses of recyclable plastics should focus on the unit of recycled product yielded. We also offer straightforward paths to better approach LCAs for recycling processes and plastics in a circular economy by rethinking study design (metrics, functional unit, system boundaries, counterfactual scenarios), upstream assumptions (waste feedstock variability, pre-processing requirements), and downstream assumptions (closed-loop vs. open-loop systems, material substitution). Specifically, we recommend expanding to metrics beyond greenhouse gases by including fossil carbon balances, net diversion of waste from landfill, and quantity of avoided plastic waste leakage to the environment. Furthermore, we highlight the role that plastic waste plays as a problematic contaminant in preventing greater diversion of all wastes to recycling, energy recovery, and composting, suggesting that plastics may hold a shared responsibility for the system-wide greenhouse gas emissions that occur when mixed wastes are landfilled.
PB - Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) PY - 2024 SP - 9397 EP - 9407 T2 - Chemical Science TI - Recommendations for life-cycle assessment of recyclable plastics in a circular economy UR - https://doi.org/10.1039/d4sc01340a VL - 15 SN - 2041-6520, 2041-6539 ER -