Sustainable Systems: Shopping Bags Life Cycle Assessment Report

This report presents a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) comparing paper and plastic shopping bags, utilizing GaBi software to evaluate their environmental impacts throughout their lifecycles, from raw material acquisition to disposal. The study highlights that paper bags, particularly those made from recycled materials, have a lower environmental footprint compared to plastic bags, which contribute significantly to pollution and waste. The assessment considers factors such as material usage, manufacturing processes, and end-of-life scenarios. The findings emphasize that the production of plastic bags releases more carbon emissions and that plastic waste does not biodegrade, leading to soil and environmental degradation. The report concludes by recommending the use of paper shopping bags as a more sustainable choice, supporting the 'going green' initiative, and promoting environmentally friendly practices. The second part of the report addresses energy efficiency analysis.

A Report on Sustainable Systems
Institution:
Student:
Date of Submission:

Contents
1. SHOPPING BAGS LIFE CYLCLE ASSEMENT REPORT.............................................................3
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................3
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4
Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi.........................................................................................................6
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................11
References...........................................................................................................................................12
2. A REPORT ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS..................................................................14
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................14
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................15
Cost Benefit Analysis..........................................................................................................................15
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................16
References...........................................................................................................................................17

1. SHOPPING BAGS LIFE CYLCLE ASSEMENT REPORT
Executive Summary
Life cycle assessment is described as a way of compiling and evaluating the inputs, the
outputs and the possible impacts of a product’s system throughout its life cycle. This implies
that conducting a life cycle assessment could mean developing and improving a product,
strategic planning, public policy making as well as marketing related activities (Xiliang, et
al., 2010). For this report, the analysis has been done using the GaBi software, a program that
is ISO certified.
We use GaBI for Life cycle assessment by looking at the product life by closely analysing the
aspects such as the input materials and output materials (Ban Marko & Krajacic, 2012). The
inputs consists of the raw material materials and the energy used in the production process of
a product (Christensen, 2010). On the other hand, the output include atmospheric emissions,
waterborne wastes, solid wastes, co- products and many other releases (Christensen, 2010). In
a nutshell, the specific areas which are looked at in the life cycle assessment include raw
materials, material processing, manufacturing and assembly and retirement and recovery
(Chau, et al., 2015).
In a nutshell, this study revealed that it requires a relatively little amount of materials to
manufacture a paper shopping bag than it is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the
manufacturing process of a plastic paper bag leads release of toxic carbon gases into the
atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve the problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping
bag, it is recommended to use the paper one. Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from
a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a plastic bag may also be recycle, recycling a paper
shopping bag is more eco- friendly than recycling a plastic bag.
Furthermore, plastic shopping bags causes a great amount of pollution when disposed of as
solid wastes (Connolly, et al., 2014). This implies that they lead to much environmental

population and degradation (De, et al., 2013). A product that causes environmental
degradation does not support the concept of environment sustainability. This again confirms
that given the two alternatives, it is better to choose a paper shopping bag over a plastic one
(Meyers, 2012).
Solid wastes from plastic shopping bags are not biodegradable. This means that they can
result into serious environment degradation (De, et al., 2013). They can cause degradation to
the soil. Plastic solid wastes can also cause soil pollution by causing eutrophication (Das, et
al., 2011). Therefore, when soil is polluted, the plant life is destroyed (Battarbee & Binney,
2008). This eventually causes the backward steps into the going green initiative. Plastic
wastes does not decompose. This implies that they cause ugly scenes in the surrounding
(Chau, et al., 2015). Hence, it is generally acceptable that a paper shopping bag is more
environmentally sustainable than a plastic shopping bag.
Introduction
The aim of this report is to give a relationship between two shopping bags made from
different raw materials. The two alternative materials are the plastic shopping bags and the
paper shopping bags. The assessment is based on the social, economic and environmental
impact of the life- cycle of the product, hat is from the point of manufacturing to the time of
retirement of disposal (Christensen, 2010). We look at the cycle right from the raw materials
to the disposal stage of these two alternative products.
Service required in this scenario is a suitable shopping bag that is economically affordable,
socially eco- friendly and environmentally friendly (Christensen, 2010). The sustainability of
the bags is sassed in terms of the its suitability towards being environmentally friendly bio-
degradable, recyclable, ozone friendly and contribution towards global warming (Veronica, et
al., 2011).

Two Alternatives of shopping bags that are considered in this report are paper and plastic
shopping bags. The life- cycle of these two products will be assessed using a GaBi software.
The assessment involve acquisition of raw material, processing of material, manufacturing
and assembly, the uses and services of the products and the retirement and retirement (Das, et
al., 2011) The assessment also involves the investigation of the possible materials that are re-
used, recycled or remanufactured (Lopez, et al., 2014)
GaBi software will be used for the life cycle assessment process. GaBi software is a program
for conducting life assessment modelling (Connolly, et al., 2014). The assessment is made up
of goal and scope definition, analysis of inventory, assessment of the impact and
interpretation of the results (Connolly, et al., 2014). The goal and scope definition involves
the analysis off the purpose of the life cycle analysis and the target audience of the
assessment (Litvinova & Kosulina, 2009). Inventory analysis involves very important units of
the assessment, the assessment boundaries and analysis of data assumptions considered and
likewise assessment limitations (Eleazer, et al., 2012). Impact assessment of the effects of the
products life cycle on the environment (De, et al., 2013). These effects are either atmospheric
effects on the social aspect as well as economic effect (Eleazer, et al., 2012).
Recommended procedure International Organization for Standardization have to be followed
in order to successfully assess the cycle in a clear specified manner (Eleazer, et al., 2012).
This procedure can be represented in a flow chart as shown in the diagram below. The flow
chart is a brief display of the steps proposed and supported by ISO for conducting a life cycle
assessment

Life Cycle Assessment in GaBi
The analysis in GaBi software defines the scope and the goal, analysis of inventory as well as
analysis of the possible or potential impact to the environment. Impact analysis and
interpretation (De, et al., 2013). This is a demonstration that the assessment is actually an
iterative process repeating again and again in order to achieve the desired outcome (Eleazer,
et al., 2012).
Goal definition provides another of aspects. These aspects include the aim of this assessment,
the potential groups, assessment decisions and degree of the decisions at hand (Dehnen,
2011). In our scenario, our objective is to deciding on whether to use a plastic shopping bag
or a paper shopping. The decision is based on impact of these two alternative products on the
environment and their contribution towards the going green initiative. The decision also
involves the sustainability in terms of the environmental effects, economic effects as well as
social effects.

Scope definition of the other hand tells much about the product scope of the product to be
assessed, the services that the product is capable of offering (the alternative products as well),
the portion of the product that should be included and finally the environmental exchanges
that are involved. The solution to base on this case is the effects that the two products (paper
and plastic shopping bags) have on the environment.
Environmental effects of a plastic water bottle is that the product is made from products that
are not bio- degradable. Impact assessment section on the other hand outlines the
consumption of resources and the potential impacts of the product use to the environment, to
the economy and the social aspect (Christensen, 2010). The assessment outlines important
impacts as well as those impacts that are considered as the most important. Similarly, we also
assess the possible data gaps that exists in the product manufacturing process.
The raw materials needed to manufacture the two different alternative products are shown in
the table below.
Type of shopping Bag Material Name Quantity
Plastic Shopping Bag 1. HDPE Plastic
2. Water
3. Fluorides
1. 405grams
2. 200milllitres
3. 250millitres
Paper shopping Bag 1. Recycled paper
2. Resins
1. 123grams
2. 125 grams
Impact analysis of the life cycle assessment is based on the GaBi output. GaBi analysis
reveals that it requires a relatively little amount of materials to manufacture a paper shopping
bag than it is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the manufacturing process of a plastic
paper bag leads release of toxic carbon gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve

the problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping bag, it is recommended to use the paper one.
Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a
plastic bag may also be recycled, recycling a paper shopping bag is more eco- friendly than
recycling a plastic bag.
The following output was obtained from the step by step analysis using GaBi.

Conclusion
It requires a relatively little amount of materials to manufacture a paper shopping bag than it
is required to make a plastic one. Similarly, the manufacturing process of a plastic paper bag
leads release of toxic carbon gases into the atmosphere. Therefore, in order to solve the
problem of getting an eco- friendly shopping bag, it is recommended to use the paper one.
Moreover, the paper shopping bag is made from a recycled paper or tissue paper. While a
plastic bag may also be recycle, recycling a paper shopping bag is more eco- friendly than
recycling a plastic bag. (Battarbee & Binney, 2008)
Furthermore, plastic shopping bags causes a great amount of pollution when disposed of as
solid wastes (Connolly, et al., 2014). This implies that they lead to much environmental
population and degradation (De, et al., 2013). A product that causes environmental
degradation does not support the concept of environment sustainability. This again confirms
that given the two alternatives, it is better to choose a paper shopping bag over a plastic one
(Meyers, 2012).

Solid wastes from plastic shopping bags are not biodegradable. This means that they can
result into serious environment degradation (De, et al., 2013). They can cause degradation to
the soil. Plastic solid wastes can also cause soil pollution by causing eutrophication (Das, et
al., 2011). Therefore, when soil is polluted, the plant life is destroyed (Battarbee & Binney,
2008). This eventually causes the backward steps into the going green initiative. Plastic
wastes does not decompose. This implies that they cause ugly scenes in the surrounding
(Chau, et al., 2015). Hence, it is generally acceptable that a paper shopping bag is more
environmentally sustainable than a plastic shopping bag.
References
Ban Marko & Krajacic, G., 2012. The role of cool thermal energy storage (CTES) in the integration of
renewable energy sources (RES) and peak load reduction. Journal of Energy, Volume 48, p. 10.
Battarbee, R. W. & Binney, H. A., 2008. Natural Climate Variability and Global Warming || Holocene
Climate Variability and Global Warming. Volume 10, p. 6.
Bulakho, V. L. & Gasso, V. Y., 2008. Role of Amphibians and Reptiles in Creation of an Ecologiccal
Buffer Against Technogenic Pollution. Volume 02, p. 4.
Chau, C. K., Leung, T. M., NG & W, Y., 2015. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy
Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Journal of Appied Energy,
Volume 143, p. 19.
Christensen, T. T., 2010. Solid Waste Technology & Management (Christensen/Solid Waste
Technology & Management) || Introduction to Waste Management. Volume 10, p. 16.
Connolly, D., Mathiesen, B. V. & Ridjan, I., 2014. A comparison between renewable transport fuels
that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system. Journal of Energy,
73(016), p. 16.
Curran & Marry, A., 2012. Life Cycle Assessment Handbook (A Guide for Environmentally Sustainable
Products) || Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Food Waste Reduction and Packaging Optimization -
Packaging Innovation and Optimization in a Life Cycle Perspective. Volume 02, p. 23.