LIBS 1910 - Environmental Impact: Disposable vs Reusable Cups

This essay examines the differences between reusable ceramic coffee cups and disposable plastic coffee cups, focusing on their environmental impact and contribution to a circular economy. It argues that while reusable cups aim for sustainability, factors like destruction and hygiene concerns can negate their benefits. The essay highlights the recyclability of disposable plastic cups and their potential for reuse in manufacturing other products, aligning with the principles of a circular economy. The comparison extends to energy consumption, resource utilization, and the potential for disease transmission, ultimately suggesting that disposable cups can be more environmentally friendly under certain conditions due to their ease of disposal and recycling, while also acknowledging the issues of overconsumption and consumerism.

Difference Between the Reusable Plastic Coffee Caps and the Disposable Ceramic
Coffee caps: How Disposable Coffee Cups contribute to a circular economy.
Student Name:
Student Number:
Tutor:
Affiliate Institution:

Abstract
This paper addresses the varied difference between the reusable and disposable coffee
caps and how this differences contribute to the overconsumption of resources. The differences in
terms of the waste of resources will support the assertion that disposable coffee caps minimize
the environmental impact during their creation or production as compared to the reusable coffee
cups. Reuse of the reusable coffee cups ensures sustainability and efficient use of environmental
resources. However, factors such as destruction of ceramic re-usable coffee cups make it difficult
for their use. In this way, disposable are environmentally friendly and contribute to the lowest
level of environmental pollution (Caniato, 2017)..
Introduction.
A circular economy is one which minimizes the use of resources through the process of
reuse, recycling and through the subsequent reduction of resources in the processes of
production. The input and output processes are efficiently managed to reduce the losses to the
environment in terms of energy and resources -both financial resources and those related to
energy and time (Kirchherr, Reike & Hekkert, 2017) .
Despite high interests in the environmental effects of reusable as compared to disposable
cups, very few guidelines in their use have been institutionalized to support the fact that reusable
or disposable coffee cups have very negating effects to the environment. Generalized and
narrow studies, that have been performed, tend to support the use of disposable cups without
giving thorough consideration to the environmental impact of these. The assessment of the varied
differences between the life cycle impact related to the use of reusable ceramic cups and the
subsequent use of single-use disposable cups is ,therefore, important (Padrino et al., 2017).

The end of life of disposable coffee cups is considerably easier as compared to the
ceramic coffee cups. Not only can the plastic disposable coffee cups be easily destroyed, but they
can also be effectively removed from the environment after they have been used. In complete
contrast, it is not very easy to deal with the ceramic cups. The footprint of the disposable
coffee cups is also lower as compared to that of the ceramic coffee cups whose destruction
through incineration and other methods is usually difficult in the first place (Papadopoulou et al.,
2018)
In addition to the environmental footprint that is left behind by the ceramic cups, it is
worth noting the differences that exist in recycling. It is much easier to recycle the disposable
plastic cups as compared to the reusable ceramic coffee cups. Not only is it not possible to
recycle the ceramic reusable coffee cups but the rate of recycling of glass is actually lower than
that of plastic disposable. It is estimated, in the United States for instance, that only fifteen
percent of the glass containers are recycled on an annual basis. Glass is specifically left for
landfills. However, the amount of space, destruction and pollution of the environment from glass
is very high as compared to that from plastic disposable cups which can be recycled. Disable
cups meet the aspect of a circular economy to a great extent (Santala, Weins, & da Silva, 2017).
The use of the disposable cups is highly effective in the conservation of the energy and
resources. While reusable coffee cups may require continuous cleaning and sterilization, the
plastic disposable cups are used only once and discarded. The profits in terms of time and effort
contribute significantly to the profitable use of the disposable cups. In complete contrast, there is
a waste of time and resources with the ceramic cups. Ceramic cups not only need detergent for
use but also have an hygiene factor connected to them. In the presence of communicable

diseases, it is possible for an infection to easily spread from one person to another through the
use of ceramic cups (Schmid, Harder, & Pešková, 2018).
Without water in an environment, disease such as cholera and typhoid may easily spread
from one person to another. The association of a disease burden with the type of cup used means
that the associated wastage of resources in terms of time and money are high in cases of ceramic
cups. The disposable cup, is thus highly beneficial to the when used as compared tot the reusable
cup ( Tibbett’s, (2015).
As opposed to the ceramic coffee cups that employ a linear approach to the use of
environmental resources and even during production, the disposable cups employ a circular
economy approach. It is clear from the above discussion, that the ceramic cups are not only
difficult to destroy once in the environmental, but also have a high environmental impact. On the
other hand, the disposable cups can be used once again as input products for the manufacture of
other products like chairs, other disposable cups, plastic drums for holding water, plastic buckets
among others hence promoting the open looped circular economy approach in their production
stages.
The ceramic coffee cups produce a linear based approach, which to some extent is not
profitable to the environment. Approaches that do not contribute to sufficient input and output do
not support the approaches of the circular economy and contribute to immense loses for the
environment and from the product in general. Production costs are seen to reach a stipend and
yet the profits are minimal due to lower levels of consumption. Environmental resources, on the
other hand, are consumed to heightened levels with the exception of profit from such use. For
instance, is clear to observe that ceramics need a lot of costs to both extract the raw material
from the environment so as to obtain the glass material that can be used. However, this glass

material ends up becoming a loss to the environment to an extent (Rustagi, a Pradhan & Singh,
(2011)..
Conclusion
It is better, therefore, to use disposable coffee cups since they contribute to the circular
economy and have a lower environmental impact as compared to the ceramic coffee cups.
Ceramic coffee cups contribute to the over consumption of environmental resources at the
expense of the people. The open looped approach of the disposable coffee cups, give them more
vitality and effectiveness as compared to the reusable ceramic coffee cups.

Diagram part.

How plastic caps (expansible polyester) contribute to the environmental issues of
overconsumption and consumerism.
Plastic or polyester can be effectively used as a means to deal with overconsumption through
recycling. Plastic cups can be effectively recycled such as shown in the diagram to increase the
raw material for forming of other products plastic products.
Why disposable cups are better than ceramic cups.
Disposable cups can be easily recycled and reused in the manufacture of other products.
However, it is not easy to recycle glass products. Most of the glass products make up eighty one
percent of the landfills. The products from landfills is in most cases from glass. This means that
the potential loss of environmental space, that could have been used to perform other activities is
necessary.
How the production process can be used to reduce degradation of the environment.
Proper recovery and reuse is necessary so as to protect the environment. It is necessary that
plastics are properly reused. Recovery and reuse reduces the carbon footprint of plastic and its
related products.

References
Caniato, M. (2017). Assessment and Design of Local Regulation in Solid Waste Management in
Low-and Middle-Income Countries. In The Political Economy of Local Regulation (pp.
277-286). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the circular economy: An
analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 127, 221-232.
Padrino, B., Lara-Serrano, M., Morales-delaRosa, S., Campos-Martín, J. M., Fierro, J. L. G.,
Martínez, F., ... & Puyol, D. (2018). Resource recovery potential from lignocellulosic
feedstock upon lysis with ionic liquids. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 6.
Papadopoulou, E., Vaitsas, K., Fallas, I., Tsipas, G., Chrissafis, K., Bikiaris, D., ... & Vorgias, K.
E. (2018). Bio-economy in Greece: Current trends and the road ahead. The EuroBiotech
Journal, 2(3), 137-145.
Rustagi, N., Pradhan, S. K., & Singh, R. (2011). Public health impact of plastics: An
overview. Indian journal of occupational and environmental medicine, 15(3), 100.
Santala, I., Weins, N. W., & da Silva, C. L. (2017, June). GLOBAL TENDENCIES IN WASTE
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERING CIRCULAR ECONOMY PRINCIPLES. In Forum
Internacional de Resíduos Sólidos-Anais (Vol. 8, No. 8).
Schmid, S., Harder, D., & Pešková, M. B. (2018). Nudges to Reduce Waste. In Nachhaltige
Unternehmensführung (pp. 421-441). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Tibbett’s, J. H. (2015). Managing marine plastic pollution: policy initiatives to address wayward
waste. Environmental Health Perspectives, 123(4), A90.