Day 243 - 02 May 96 - Page 17

     
     1        since 1991, and a discipline of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
     2        has built up.  Nevertheless, there are objections even to
     3        this.  One of the main organisations involved in LCA is
     4        SETAC-Europe.  In their newsletter letter (LCA News Jan
     5        1995, page 4), there is an article 'is LTA losing its way'
     6        in which someone criticise over simplification in LCAs.
     7        The author says 'There is a danger that the current fashion
     8        for manipulating and presenting information from LCA
     9        studies, as if it was the result of objective and
    10        quantative scientific analysis, will lead to loss of
    11        credibility for the whole approach'.  With this debate at
    12        its heart, LCA cannot be regarded as an objective
    13        scientific tool, but merely an aid to decision making.
    14
    15        "15.  With very different systems such as disposables
    16        versus reusables, the end result is comparison of very
    17        different environmental impacts some of which, such as
    18        habitat destruction, cannot be quantified.
    19
    20        "16.  Another objection is that LCA does not include
         secondary impacts such as the effluents from factories
    22        making extra materials such as the coatings for paper.  It
    23        only includes the effluent from the central process.  An
    24        alternative system, EIO-LCA, measures the environmental
    25        effect of the extra economic activity required to supply,
    26        say, a $5,000 increase in plastic cup demand.  This is
    27        fairly easily assessed from economic statistics.  It can
    28        include the extra carbon dioxide produced by secondary
    29        company transport, for example, as well as toxic
    30        discharges.  It is good at assessing differences between
    31        very diverse systems whereas conventional LCA is poor,
    32        according to advocates of EIO-LCA.  (Volume 29, No. 9,
    33        1995; Environmental Science and Technology).
    34
    35        "17.  Hence the environmental assessment of impacts of
    36        different types of process, such as disposables versus
    37        reusables is still a matter of active debate.  Conclusions
    38        from studies do not provide final universal answers, and
    39        they may simply reflect the bias of the sponsor.  Very
    40        detailed and apparently scientific studies often obscure
         the issues, which can be simplified by taking a more local,
    42        low use approach.
    43
    44        "18.  In my opinion, using reusable containers is always
    45        preferable to throwaways.  Reusables can be almost
    46        unbreakable and last indefinitely.
    47
    48        "Proper control over them with a deposit system will ensure
    49        that when they do become unusable they are easily located
    50        for bulk recycling.  Recycling of one-use items is not 
    51        efficient enough to provide the genuine care and 
    52        conservation of materials that is necessary to move towards 
    53        the no waste society.  Washing is a process that can be
    54        controlled on the spot; it is obvious if too much water or
    55        energy is being used and this can be constantly improved by
    56        better techniques which are well understood.  By contrast,
    57        we do not know and cannot control the resource and
    58        pollution implications of diverse throwaway products made
    59        in distant places.
    60