A Clear, Complete Look at the

Carbon Footprint of Glass Packaging

Agenda
• The Carbon Footprint Challenge
• O-I’s Complete Solution
• Key Findings from O-I’s LCA
• Other Benefits of Glass
• O-I’s Sustainability Goals

2
The Carbon Footprint
Challenge

3
What is a Carbon Footprint?

• Measures global warming potential (GWP), one common indicator of the

environmental impact of a product
• Other common environmental impacts of products include:

WATER QUALITY BIODIVERSITY CHEMICAL, TOXICS,

CLIMATE CHANGE ENERGY & QUANTITY & LAND USE METALS

AIR POLLUTION WASTE MANAGEMENT OZONE LAYER OCEANS & FISHERIES DEFORESTATION
DEPLETION

4
How is a Carbon Footprint Measured?

Carbon footprint = amount of CO2e

released into the environment during g some,,
or all, stages of a product’s life cycle
– Typical metric: 1 kg of CO2e
– CO2e (carbon
(carbon-dioxide
dioxide equivalent) = gases
believed to be associated with global warming 1 kg of CO2e = amount
released driving 2.3
miles (3.7 km) in an
average car

A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) can be used to analyze and calculate

carbon footprints and other key environmental indicators

5
What Goes into an LCA?

• There are many stages of the product life cycle,

each of which has its own carbon footprint
• For
F simplicity,
i li it there
th are 5 steps:
t
1. Raw material extraction & processing
2. Raw material transport
3. Production process
4. Transport of finished goods
5. End-of-life management

Each stage generates carbon emissions that

contribute
t ib t to
t the
th total
t t l carbon
b footprint
f t i t
6
Many Approaches to the LCA

Common LCA Methodologies:

• Gate-to-gate
Only includes one step
step,
such as production

7
Many Approaches to the LCA

Common LCA Methodologies:

• Gate-to-gate
Only includes one step
step,
such as production
• Cradle-to-gate
O l includes
Only i l d steps
t up tto
production or delivery

8
Many Approaches to the LCA

Common LCA Methodologies:

• Gate-to-gate
Only includes one step
step,
such as production
• Cradle-to-gate
O l includes
Only i l d steps
t up tto
production or delivery
• Cradle
Cradle-to-grave
to grave
All stages except impact of
recycling/reuse

9
Many Approaches to the LCA

Common LCA Methodologies:

• Gate-to-gate
Only includes one step
step,
such as production
• Cradle-to-gate
O l includes
Only i l d steps
t up tto
production or delivery
• Cradle
Cradle-to-grave
to grave
All stages except impact of
recycling/reuse
• Cradle
Cradle-to-cradle
to cradle
All stages including
impact of recycling/reuse

10
The LCA Challenge: A Need for Consistency

• There is no set standard for LCA

methodologies
• Diff
Differentt approaches
h yield
i ld vastly
tl diff
differentt
carbon footprint figures
- Gives companies ability to release selective data

• These LCA inconsistencies Æ difficult to

make comparisons
• Further exacerbated by industry factors
- Recycling, electrical grids, raw materials

11
A Growing Call for Change

Need an LCA Solution

• Consensus on how carbon footprints are measured
• Will enable
bl comparisons
i across materials
t i l & products
d t
• Becoming a major discussion among retailers

Wal-Mart Sustainability Consortium

“…the company is helping create a consortium of

universities
i iti that
th t will
ill collaborate
ll b t withith suppliers,
li
retailers, NGOs and government to develop a global
database of information on the lifecycle of products –
disposal.”
from raw materials to disposal

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

News Release
July 16, 2009
12
O-I’s Complete Solution

13
Introducing the Complete LCA

• A detailed study of the complete

supply chain
• Based on cradle-to-cradle
approach, includes every stage
• Includes impact of recycled
materials
• Ensures complete,
p comparable
p
carbon footprint data
• Enables apples-to-apples
comparisons

14
The Clarity of a Complete LCA

Total

p yA=
Company p yA=
Company p yA=
Company p yA=
Company p yA=
Company Company A =
6 units 3 units 1 units 3 units 4 units 17 units
it

Company B = Company B = Company B = Company B = Company B =

Company B =
1 units 4 units 4 units 4 units 1 units
14 units

Chain 1 Chain 2 Chain 3 Chain 4 Chain 5

Raw material Raw Production process Transport of finished End-of-life
extraction & material transport goods management
processing

CO2e CO2e CO2e CO2e CO2e

1 2 3 4 5

15
Approach and Data Third Party Validated

• O-I’s complete LCA model was

validated by
y AMR Research
• Ensures integrity and accuracy of
data run through this modelling
tool
• O-I used the model to run a
global analysis comparing glass,
aluminum, and PET

16
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Raw Materials – Incorporation into LCAs

• Raw material extraction and processing is sometimes omitted because it
h
happens off-site
ff it
• The treatment of raw materials can have a significant carbon footprint
• This step should always be included

17
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Raw Materials – Location

• Aluminum materials (bauxite) mined in Africa, South America

Guinea – 20%
5084 miles
Jamaica – 45%
1176 miles Guyana – 9%
2617 miles
Sierra Leone – 9%
5143 miles

Brazil – 14%
3021 miles

Weighted average distance = 2651 miles (4266 km)

18
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Raw Materials – Location

• Aluminum materials (bauxite) mined in Africa, South America
• Glass is typically close to raw material sources (example: Europe)
Europe). Materials
travel shorter distances

19
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting

• Closed-Loop Recycling Company A

- Example: Company A uses its
recycled material as an input
for production of the same
product (i.e. glass cullet
becomes glass bottle)
- Maintains unbroken product
p
life cycle

20
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting

• Down-Cycling
y g Co. B Co. C
- Recycled materials from one product are used
as inputs in manufacture of a different product ????
- In this case,, the life cycle
y circle is broken
- For example, Company B can’t use its end-of-
life materials, so it sends them to Company C
who uses the materials as inputs in their own life
cycle.
- In this case, both companies are likely to claim
the carbon offset credits from the same
materials,
t i l resulting
lti in
i double
d bl countingti
- Does a company at the end of the series
eventually dispose of part or all of the
material?

21
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Closed-Loop Recycling and the Risk of Double Counting

• Double Counting
- Several governmental and standard setting organizations
tell us credit should only be claimed by Company A and
Company
p yC

Co. A Co. B Co. C

=
22
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Contributing Factors

Variations in Electrical Grids

G
Factor of 10,000x
city Generation (kg CO2 / kWh)
ons from Electric
GHG emissio

Source: AMR Research Report (www.carma.org data)

23
The
e Case for
o tthe
e Co
Complete
p ete LCA
C
Avoid Comparing Apples to Oranges

Critical Questions to Ask

• Has a complete analysis been done on all links in
the carbon footprint chain?
• Is the extraction and processing of raw materials
included in the analysis?
• What standard,
standard if any,
any does the work follow?
• Has the work been validated or endorsed?

Verify baseline assumptions so you are comparing

like with like:
- Energy mix
- Life
e cyc
cyclee stage
- Raw material transportation distances
- End-of-life scenarios
- Recycling
y g rates
- Has there been double counting?
24
Key Findings from O-I’s LCA

25
Composition
p of Carbon Footprint
p
By Life Cycle Stage for Glass

GLASS
• Shows breakdown of carbon
emissions by stage
• Transport of finished goods
is actually small contributor to
footprint
• Impact of recycled glass is
reflected in raw material
extraction
t ti & processingi
section

26
Composition
p of Carbon Footprint
p
By Life Cycle Stage for Aluminum

ALUMINUM
• Raw material extraction
& processing stage has a
bigger impact on aluminum

27
Composition
p of Carbon Footprint
p
By Life Cycle Stage for PET

PET
• Raw material extraction POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE
& processing stage has
the biggest impact on
PET

28
Composition
p of Carbon Footprint
p
Transport of Finished Containers

• Data shows transport is Carbon Emissions

by Days of Refrigeration
relatively small contributor
0 12
0.12
to carbon footprint
CO2e to Manufacture 6 days
• In fact, transport generates 0.10
less carbon than activities 5 days
like refrigeration 0.08

• The CO2e caused by 0.06

4 days

j t5d
just days spentt iin store
t
3 days
refrigeration greatly 0.04
exceeds CO2e caused 2 days
y
by transport 0.02
CO2e to Transport 1 day
0.00
Source: Version 1.03z O-I Internal LCA Model, 505 miles RM transport, 35% Post Consumer Content

29
Comparing Carbon Footprints – North America
Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Total CO2e per Container

Assumptions:
North America
• 355 ml container weights
• North American post-consumer
content:
ainer

• Glass: 25%
kg CO2e / conta

• Aluminum: 43%
• PET: 2%
• Typical US grid: Michigan area

Complete cradle-to-cradle comparisons with other packaging materials highlight glass’s

advantage in carbon footprint
footprint.

30
Comparing Carbon Footprints – Europe
Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Total CO2e per Container Assumptions:

Europe
• 355 ml container weights
• European post-consumer content:
•Glass: 47%
ainer
kg CO2e / conta

•Aluminum: 52%
•PET: 2%
• Typical EU grid: Puglia, Italy area

Refillables hold over 35% of the market in Europe. Because they are used an average
of 30 times,
times they have a significantly reduced carbon footprint
footprint.

31
Comparing Carbon Footprints – South America
Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Total CO2e per Container

Assumptions:
South America
• 355 ml container weights
• South American post-consumer
content:
ainer

•Glass: 32%
kg CO2e / conta

•Aluminum: 60%
•PET: 2%
• Typical SA grid: Rio Grande do Sul
Sul,
Brazil area

Refillables hold over 60% of the market in some parts of South America, again
causing a significantly reduced carbon footprint
footprint.

32
Comparing Carbon Footprints – Asia-Pacific
Asia Pacific
Typical 355ml Carbonated Beverage Container

Total CO2e per Container

Asia-Pacific Assumptions:
• 355 ml container weights
• Asia-Pacific post-consumer content:
•Glass: 25%
ainer
kg CO2e / conta

•Aluminum: 57%
•PET: 2%
• Typical AP grid: New South Wales area

Glass is the clear winner in the Asia-Pacific region.

33
Carbon Footprint of Refillable Bottles

• Refillable glass bottles are reused an average of 20-30 times

• As seen in South America and Europe, each reuse results in a
dramatic reduction in the carbon footprint of those bottles
Carbon Footprint Relative
to Number of Refills

34
Other Benefits of Glass

35
Other Benefits of Glass
Looking Beyond the LCA

• The sustainable benefits of

glass go far beyond those that
are measured by the LCA
• Social benefits: health and
safety
- Protects content from
contaminants
- Heat stable
- Infinitely recyclable
- Refillable bottles are reused
20 30 times
20-30 ti

36
Other Benefits of Glass
Resource Efficiency

• Lightweighting technology reduces glass needed for containers

• Has one-for-one impact on carbon footprint, with the primary benefit from
less raw material processed

Carbon Footprint Relative

to % Weight of Bottle

37
 Other Benefits of Glass
Effective Recycling Trips

Trip 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ∞

Glass1

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Carton2
(paper)

100% 88% 75% 63% 50% 38% 25% 13% 0%

PET3

1: http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/petbottles_2.html 38
100% 66% 33% 0% 2: Tumut Shire Council – Fact Sheet 2007 – Paper Recycling
3: http://www.designboom.com/contemporary/petbottles_2.html
Other Benefits of Glass
Ability to be recycled

• Glass containers can be reused in

their original form more than any
other ppackaging
g g material
• Use of recycled glass in batch O-I is the world leader in
materials has significant benefits: the reuse of recycled
glass
- E
Every 1 kkg cullet
ll t used
d as raw material
t i l
= 1.2 kg virgin materials saved 5.2 million tonnes used in
- Every 10% cullet used = 5% savings 2008
in carbon emissions and 3% energy
savings
- Melting cullet requires only 70% of the
energy needed to melt raw materials

39
Sustainability Goals

40
O I’s
O-I s Sustainability Goals

• The complete LCA is just a first step in the

larger sustainability initiative
• D
Data
t from
f the
th LCA informed
i f d ttangible,
ibl
actionable targets in 4 key areas:
- Energy reduction
- Emissions reduction
- Cullet usage
- Workplace safety

• All goals set on 10-year basis, using 2007

as a baseline

41
O I’s
O-I s Sustainability Goals

ENERGY CULLET EMISSIONS SAFETY

Achieve
60%

50% 65% Zero

Reduction Reduction accidents

BY 2017 BY 2017 BY 2017 BY 2017

Total energy/ Post consumer Total CO2e emitted Eliminate
packed tonne cullet/ accidents
packed tonne

Baseline Year 2007

42
Thank You and Questions

43
Transportation
Finished Goods

A typical
t i l semi-truck
i t k getst 6.5
6 5 MPG (36.2
(36 2 L/100k
L/100km)) carrying
i
filled product (34,800 containers, 190 g each, 355 ml
volume)

Glass
34,800 filled containers
A 400 mile (644 km) trip would result in 212 kg CO2e
6.5 MPG (36.2 L/100km) attributed to the glass containers
212 kg
g CO2e
0.0061 kg CO2e / container
0.171 kg CO2e LCA 212 / 34,800 = 0.0061 kg CO2e per container
3.6% of carbon footprint

Remember our LCA shows 0.171 kg CO2e per container for

a representative North American situation

Therefore 0.0061 / 0.171 = 3.6% of the complete carbon

footprint for which finished goods transportation accounts

(uses the EPA number of 22.2 lbs CO2e / gallon diesel fuel)
(2.7 kg CO2e / L) 44
Contact Details

For more information please contact to:

Sílvia Casallachs
C
Communications
i i
scasallachs@ulled.com

or

Yvan Agniel
Director of Energy, Environment & Risk Management, Europe – O-I
yvan.agniel@eu.o-i.com

45