Plastic Bag Reduction Bill Veto Mesage

Home

Review of Plastic vs.Paper Bag LCA Studies Page 2 Environment and Energy Management. The first review was by Henri Lecouls, an independent lifecycle analysis expert assisted by Laura Degallaix, representative of the Federal Consumers' Union, Que Choisir, and Dominique Royet, World Wildlife Federation (WWF) representative. A second review was made by related parties: APME (European Plastics Manufacturers Association; CEPI (Confederation of European Paper Industries); and Novamont, manufacturer of the biodegradable plastic assessed in the study. 2. Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings, Environmental Series No. 250/1, Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), 1998. The study was critically reviewed by corporate and association members representing the paper, plastics, glass, aluminum and steel packaging industries. 3. Eco-Profiles of the European Plastics Industry, performed by I. Boustead for PlasticsEurope, 2005. This series was developed by LCA pioneer Boustead Consulting and conforms wherever possible to ISO standards 14040-14043. The data on polyethylene film are also referenced in the SAEFL study listed above. 4. Life Cycle Assessment for Three Types of Grocery Bags - Recyclable Plastic; Compostable, Biodegradable Plastic; and Recycled, Recyclable Paper, performed by Boustead Consulting Et Associates Ltd. for the Progressive Bag Alliance, 2007. The study compared traditional grocery bags made from polyethylene, bags made from compostable plastics, and paper bags made using at least 30% recycled fibers. The life cycle assessment factored in every step of the manufacturing, distribution, and disposal stages of these bags. The study was peer reviewed by Dr. Michael Overcash, Professor of Chemical Engineering, as well as a Professor of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, at North Carolina State University. III. STUDY LIMITATIONS 1. Findings, conclusions, and recommendations are based on data that have been obtained through publicly available channels or through the broad group of contacts that The ULS Report has developed. There may be other data available that refute, confirm, or extend the findings herein developed. 2. Results are based upon an analysis of quantitative data, especially in relation to materials consumption, energy and water usage, pollution, and greenhouse gas (GHG) production. Because of their qualitative and personal nature, issues that transcend a scientific approach, such as the social value of renewable vs. non-renewable resources and composting vs. landfilling, are best considered independently by the reader. 3. While the 2007 Boustead Consulting study was performed in the United States, the other studies originated in Europe. Because production processes are relatively similar globally, the data provide accurate assessments that can be used to draw valid conclusions in the United States. The similarity in results between the American and European studies further bears this out. 28 March 2008