Cups versus Foam Cups - Term Paper Example

Paper Cups versus Foam Cups, which is better Paper Cups versus Foam Cups, which is better There have been increases in environmental consciousness in the consumers in the choice of the products for their daily use. This understanding has led to a change in product development and packaging, as a measure of ensuring the needs of the consumers are met (Stevens, April 10, 2014). The debate on form and paper cups has been ongoing for some time without a clear demonstration on the better cup for environmental conservation efforts. Paper Cups are cups made of thin cardboard that are disposed after use and are mostly lined with wax or plastic for leakage prevention while foam Cups are a molded construction that offers more insulation and are better shaped than paper Cups. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the cup that relays more benefits to the environment conservation efforts among other benefits that can be derived by the users between paper and foam cups. The study will compare the environmental effects of the use of paper and foam cups through enumerating the different stages in the production of the cups to recycling and make a conclusion on the most suitable of the two cups for use. The most common name for foam cups is Styrofoam, which is the brand name for foam cups but for this essay, foam will be used. The path taken by this paper will be to emphasize on why foam cups are beneficial to the environment compared to paper cups. The paper will labor to emphasize that the emissions to the environment by foam cups are less compared to those of paper cups. The paper will use the different stages the two types of cups go through in the analysis of the environmental impacts. Production To begin with, paper cups results in the degradation of the environment from the trees that are cut down for the manufacture of paper cups from paper, which is not the case in the production of foam cups as trees are not cut down in their production (Stevens, April 10, 2014). However, foam cups production makes use of hydrocarbons including gas and oil that are non-renewable global energy sources. The impact is a reduction of non-renewable energy sources on earth but the goodness is that foam cups can be remade and reused, which cannot be done in paper cups (Hocking, 1994). The second reason why form cups are better to the environment is that the production of paper cups results in the pollution of water sources through release of water pollutants including chlorine dioxide in the production stage with the production of a ton of paper producing water pollutants amounting to 36 pounds. Hocking (Nov/Dec 1991) noted that the paper cups result from wood acquisition process that results in negative landscape effects arising from clear cutting practices and construction of roads to allow access to forests. Occurrence of the clear-cut areas in watershed results in maximum flows and decreases minimum flows of streams. The effect is an increase in the possibility of floods and droughts in areas served by the streams showing the other negative environmental impacts of the production of paper cups. Suspension solids are present in the water effluent from the production of paper cups to the tune of between 4 and 16 kilograms resulting in a negative impact to the environment. Foam cups, on the other hand, have between 0.4 and 0.6 kilograms of suspended solids, which is minimal in comparison to suspended solids in waste effluent from paper cups production. Chlorofluorocarbons are not used in the manufacture of Form cups, which is used in the manufacture of paper cups. Chlorofluorocarbons have high carbon footprints in the environment showing the higher effects on the environment by paper cups compared to foam cups. The production of foam cups uses greenhouse gas emissions about 600 pounds, but paper cups use 700 pounds of greenhouse gasses showing the high carbon footprint on the environment in the for paper cups. The production of foam cups uses 95% air showing the less material used in the manufacturing process depicting a low environmental footprint by foam cups compared to paper cups (Hocking, 1994). Therefore, only 5% of solid materials are used in the manufacture of foam cups showing less use of natural resources (Stevens, April 10, 2014). With only five percent use of solid natural resources, foam cups have a much higher advantage in environmental conservation than paper cups that makes use of a lot of paper as evidence by the large amounts of trees that have to be cut down to provide pulp for the manufacture of paper. Apart from chlorofluorocarbons that are not used in foam cup manufacture, paper cups production makes use of other inorganic chemicals including sodium hydroxide used for pulping (The Polystyrene Packaging Council, 1993). A metric ton of pulp requires between 110 and 170 kilograms of sodium chlorate, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, chlorine, and other materials in the bleaching process. The result is the use of 1.4 grams of the inorganic chemicals for the production of one paper cup (Hocking, Nov/Dec 1991). Compared to the production of foam cups, paper cups use 85% more material in the production process reducing the carbon footprint in the use of foam cups compared to the paper cups. The chemicals in the production of foam cups are 33 kg per ton resulting in a foam cup comprising of only 0.05g organic chemicals. The calculations show that 4% of organic chemicals used in the production of a paper cup are enough to produce a foam cup. Comparing 1.4 g organic chemicals in paper cups to 0.05g in foam cups, it is evident that the negative impacts of organic chemicals is limited by manufacturer of foam cups compared to paper cups owing to limited use of inorganic chemicals (The Polystyrene Packaging Council, 1993). The manufacture of paper cups requires a long process resulting in energy consumption including harvesting of trees, manufacture of paper from tree, and paper cup production. The process of paper cup production uses 2.5 times more energy compared to the amount of energy used in the production of foam cups. The production of paper cups also needs a lot of water for cooling purposes increases the use of resources on earth. Paper cups production uses 30% more water than foam cups showing the high amount of raw materials in terms of water that go into the production of paper cups. The continued use of paper cups heralds the depletion of important natural resource, water that has continued to be scarce, evidenced by a high amount of desert and semi-desert places in the world. The depiction is that paper cups production uses more water than foam cups; therefore, foam cups are more environmental friendly and sustaining compared to paper cups. Comparing weight of the two types of cups, foam cups are far much lighter compared to paper cups. The result is the use of less fuel in the transportation of foam cups from the production centers through ship, air, vehicles, or any other mode of transport compared to paper cups. The use of more fuel in transporting paper cups generates greenhouse gasses from the combustion of fuel increasing the degradation of the environment by paper cups than foam cups. This adds another reason for the assertion of the beneficial nature of foam cups over paper cups in terms of the impact it has on the environment. To be specific, petroleum of 4.1 grams is used in the transportation of paper cups and increases when the paper cups have plastic or wax coating. On the other hand, 3.2 grams of petroleum are used in the transportation of one foam cup. Paper cups also have manufacturing wastes in the production process that is not inherent in the production of foam cups. The manufacturing waste comes about from paper discards and off cuts in the making of paper cups that is not present in the manufacture of foam cups showing that paper cups have more carbon footprint than foam cups. The other difference in the production process that makes foam cups better than paper cups is water quantity utilized in the production process. Research shows that 4,748 water gallons are used in the production of 10,000 foam cups while 8,095 water gallons get used in the production of 10,000 paper cups (Gehrman, April 02, 2014). Water used in the manufacture of paper cups is almost twice the amount of water utilized in the manufacture of foam cups. Water used is less in foam cups compared to paper cups showing a high carbon footprint in the use of paper cups. The manufacturing process of 10,000 foam cups requires 5.4 million BTUs equivalent to burning coal amounting to 450 pounds compared to 542 pounds of coal that go into the production of 10,000 paper cups (Gehrman, April 02, 2014). This depiction on the amount of energy that goes in the production of a similar amount of paper and foam cups show that paper cups have more carbon footprint than foam cups. Manufacture of paper cups requires double the amount used in the manufacture of foam cups. The result is a high cost of paper cups compared with foam cups with paper cups costing between $80 and $120 for 1000 paper cups while foam cups costing $25 for 1000 foam cups (Gehrman, April 02, 2014). The amount of money used in paper cups manufacture could be used in the manufacture of more foam cups that have fewer impacts on the environment or used in control of carbon emissions on the environment. The amount money for the manufacture of paper cups results from the need to use more money in transportation, harvesting of wood, paper manufacture, among other paper cup making processes. All the processes that use more money in the manufacture of paper cups produce carbon emissions and greenhouse gasses depicting the high carbon footprint of paper cups compared to foam cups. To add on the manufacturing costs for the paper cups, there are certain modifications that have to be made on the paper cups to meet the needs of the consumers using up more money. These modifications include the use of a cardboard sleeve that requires extra material, transportation, and energy increasing the cost of making a paper cup by 3 cents. The modification requirements for a foam cup costs about 1.4 cents showing the less energy used in the process and demonstrating the high carbon footprint by paper cups from the more expensive modifications. The paper cups manufacture also result in the emission of carbon monoxide (CO2) that is twice the amount produced in foam cups manufacture. The emission affects the environment and directly adds to the carbon footprint demonstrated in prior paragraphs by paper cups giving foam cups an advantage in terms of reduced carbon footprint. However, the study acknowledges foam cups makes use of benzene as one of the chemicals used in the manufacturing process affecting the uses and resulting in global warming and smog but this is a minimal problem in comparison to the amount of carbon emission from paper cups. A high carbon footprint between two products is evidenced by the amount of air pollution on the environment in terms of the course of their use of from the manufacturing stage. Foam cups and paper cups in the manufacture stage result in air pollution. However, the manufacturing of foam cups results in the production of air pollution that is 46% less compared to air pollution from paper cups manufacture. With air pollution in paper cups higher by 54%, the carbon footprint in the manufacture of paper cups is higher and results in the un-sustainability of planet earth adding to the need to use foam products to reduce air pollution. The other consideration in the study to make the conclusion of foam cups being environmental friendly is in the waterborne wastes that emanate from the manufacturing process. Manufacturing of both foam cups and paper cups result in the production of waterborne wastes that are harmful to the waterborne creatures and increase the toxicity of water levels. Marine animals and other living creatures underwater and using water for daily life are affected by the manufacturing of both paper and foam cups because of their effects on the water toxicity and cleanliness. Comparing the residue of the manufacturing process in terms of waterborne wastes, foam cups results in the production of waterborne wastes 42% less than that produced by the manufacture of paper cups (Gehrman, April 02, 2014). Therefore, despite the fact that both paper and foam cups results in the production of waterborne wastes, the amount produced by paper cups is 58% more showing that it leaves more carbon footprint than foam cups. This gives the decision to choose a lesser waste than a higher waste for environmental conservation purposes to cater for biodiversity. Pulping and bleaching processes in the production of paper cups results in the production of 300 time’s wastewater compared to the amount of polystyrene waste produced in foam cup production. Waste water from paper cup production consists of between 10 and 40 times residuals compared to the wastewater from the production of foam cups. These residuals are those that have been noted to affect the marine environment and show the high negative impacts of the environment and bio-system by paper cup production compared to paper cups. Both foam and paper cups results in emissions to the environment from the production process. On this front, foam leads in the emission to the environment with 46 kilograms per metric ton of polystyrene emitted to the environment. On the other hand, a metric ton of bleached pulp results in 14 kilograms of emissions. However, paper cups are heavier than foam cups resulting in the production of more foam cups per metric ton compared to the cups produced per metric ton of pulp. The result is an emission of between 1.3 and 1.8 times more emissions per paper cup compared to a foam cup. The effect is that paper cups result in the emission of almost twice the amount of emissions per foam cup depicting the high carbon footprint in the environment from the production of foam cups. Paper cups production makes use of a lot of labor and raw materials. This is depicted in the selling price of paper cups that is 2.5 times the price of foam cups. The impact of high raw materials usage, labor, and utilities is indirectly a high carbon footprint in the environment by paper cups production. The other reason for the high carbon footprint from paper cups is the requirement for paper cups to be doubled up and having a sleeve. The reason for the doubling and the sleeve is to ensure the augmented insulation for the paper cups, but the carbon footprint is increased in the process. The doubling and sleeve components of paper cups increasing the carbon fruit prints make them less likely a better alternative than foam cups. The manufacture of paper cups requires the use of 36 times of electricity to that used in the manufacture of foam cups. The use of 36 times of electricity shows the high amount of carbon footprint by paper cups compared to foam cups increasing the need to use foam cups more in an effort of reducing the global carbon footprint (The Polystyrene Packaging Council, November 1993). This depicts the benefits to the environment by reducing the use of paper cups, hence reducing the use of electricity in the manufacturing process. The production process of both foam and paper cups requires the use of steam power, which forms the other point of difference in the carbon footprint and environmental degradation from foam and paper cups. Paper cups have a more complex manufacturing process that calls for the use of more steam power. Steam power equivalent to 10 times more that used in foam cups manufacture is used in the production of paper cups (Hocking, Nov/Dec, 1991). The effect is the use of more scarce resources in the manufacture of paper cups than is the case foam cups. Steam power production and use results in the emission of greenhouse gasses; hence, since paper cups production makes use of a lot of steam power, it is more environmental harmful. Recyclability The recycling benefits of foam cups are the other reason for the assertion of the environmental benefits of foam cups compared to paper cups. Paper cups are not easy to recycle because of the use of many materials in the production stages including plastic coating to reduce the ability of paper cups to be recycled. On the other hand, foam cups are easy to recycle and are regenerable for use despite the requirement for huge funding for the development of styrene recycling plant. Hocking states in his article that polystyrene foam cups have a straightforward technical recyclability. The layer of wax that allows increased insulation in paper cups makes the recycling of paper cups a difficulty compared to form cups. The American Paper and Forest Association reports that only 11% of paper cups are recyclable in the United States with the reasons provided being the presence of beverage revenue residue and plastic coating on the paper cups. The other 89% of paper cups are left in the environment depicting the high carbon footprint of paper cups on the environment shifting the benefits for the use of foam cups owing to reduced carbon footprint. The difficulty in recycling paper cups is also because of the fact that paper cups are mainly composite materials containing plastic and paper. The effect is the inability to separate plastic and paper in the recycling process to allow for effective recycling of paper cups. The impact on the environment is a negative deterioration compared to the impact foam cups hat are easy to recycle and reused for other purposes after their initial purpose of carrying hot and cold beverages has been done. Another factor that limits the recycling abilities of paper cups is the non-water-soluble hot adhesive used in the manufacture of paper cups for fixing parts together. These adhesives make the recycling procedure for paper cups complicated reducing the possibility of recycling paper cups compared to foam cups; hence, have high carbon footprint on the environment. The other characteristics of paper cups that make it more carbon footprint emitting cups than foam cups are the presence of polyethylene. Paper cups have polyethylene in low density in the interior lining that is labeled as grade 4 and is not recyclable. The presence of non-recyclable polyethylene on the inside of paper cups show the other way in which paper cups have a more carbon footprint on the environment negating its use for everyday use and making foam cups a better alternative in terms of environmental conservation. A study of major American cities showed that recycling occurs in only 10% of paper cups compared to 16% recycling on foam cups. The revelation shows the other benefits of foam cups to the environment compared to paper cups showing the amount of solid waste created by foam cups in the environment is less than that created by foam cups (The Polystyrene Packaging Council, November 1993). The impact is that the paper cups have negative effects on the environment compared to foam cups adding more importance to their use in everyday use compared to paper cups. A primary user cannot be in a position to recycle a paper cup since the washing of the paper cup results in destruction. A foam cup has negligible intake of water and allows washeing and reuse by the primary user. After paper cups are used, there are possibilities of hot melt adhesives reducing the potential of recycling paper cups. On the other hand, foam cups remain in good condition after use and on recycling resin is used for other uses showing that foam cups are more beneficial than paper cups as they offer the user other users after the completion of their primary use. Landfill Decomposition Paper cups end up in landfills after use and the effect is the production of greenhouse gasses including methane and ethane. However, in cases where the landfills are Material Recovery Facilities, the methane, and other gasses are extracted for energy production purposes. Decomposition of paper cups takes 20 years. Compared to paper cups and foam cups, foam decomposition does not result in the production of greenhouse gasses but takes 300 years to decompose. However, the ability of paper cups to decompose is limited to environmental conditions with very little to no bio-decomposition and degradation occurring in arid and semiarid landfills. The other shortcoming of paper decomposition in landfills is the production of water-soluble substances that consumer oxygen and contributes to leachate resulting in pollution problems adding to the carbon footprint on the environment from the decomposition of paper cups (Franklin Associates Ltd, March 2006). The representation of foam and paper cups in the waste stream is the other differences in the environmental benefits between the two cup types. The United Sates Environmental Protection Agency noted that polystyrene packaging consisted 0.6% of Municipal solid wastes and foam cups will foam a fraction of the 0.6%. The amount is insignificant compared to the 31% composition by paper and paperboard products, which paper cups makes a high fraction because of the use of paper cups in everyday use and the use of a high percentage of solid natural resources in the manufacture of paper cups. Therefore, a high amount of paper cups is disposed of in landfills compared to foam cups as evidenced by their different percentages according to The United Sates Environmental Protection Agency. Large amounts in landfills represent large carbon footprint to the environment by paper cups adding to the trueness of the paper’s standing point on the benefits of foam cups in environmental conservation efforts (Franklin Associates Ltd, March 2006). The production of paper cups results in the creation of wastes in terms of wood barks and chips that affect the environment negatively as they waste the resources that despite being renewable could be used for other purposes. A total of 6 grams of food waste results in the production of one paper cup showing the extent of waste that result in the paper cup production affecting the environment negatively. The other effect of paper cups on the environment is the increased mass on landfill that is occupied by paper cups compared to foam cups. One paper cup occupies 10.1 g of landfill compared to 1.5 g occupied by a foam cup. Foam cups, therefore, use limited space on landfills thereby resulting in less environmental concerns compared to paper cups. In conclusion, foam cups have numerous environmental advantages compared to paper cups as demonstrated in the paper. Almost all the environmental effects analyzed in the paper caused by paper and foam cups have demonstrated the higher negative effects of paper cups to the environment compared to foam cups. The only benefits that paper cups have over foam cups is the ability to decompose earlier within 20 years compared to 300 years for form cups. However, this can be mitigated through ensuring foam cups are recycled as evidenced by the straightforward recycling potential compared to paper cups and they do not have to end up in landfills. Foam cups wins in the paper versus foam cups debate owing to low usage of raw materials, less water effluent, less solid in water effluent, less usage of electricity, no greenhouse gases, less emissions to the environment, and other factors as evidenced in the paper. The conclusion is despite the belief in the recyclability of paper cups that has led to the movement from foam cups to paper cups, foam cups are more beneficial to the environment and are easier to recycle compared to paper cups. References Franklin Associates Ltd. (March 2006). Final Peer Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleach Paperboard, and Corrugated Paperboard Foodservice Products (Prepared for the Polystyrene Packaging Council), pp. 2-7, 2-23, 2-43, and 2- 60. Gehrman, E. (April 02, 2014). Why paper cups just aren’t greener. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/04/02/why-paper-cups-just-aren- greener/W3TIBJ9dff8INlumPQvHSI/story.html Hocking M. (1994). Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation, Environmental Management Vol. 18, No. 6, pp. 889499, Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Hocking, M. (Nov/Dec 1991). Relative merits of polystyrene foam and paper in hot drink cups: Implications for packaging. Environmental Management. Vol. 15, (6), 1, p. 731-747. Stevens, L. (April 10, 2014). Hot Drink Debate: Paper or Plastic? WSJ Europe. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304732804579425493477617388 The Polystyrene Packaging Council. (November 1993). Polystyrene and Its Raw Material, Styrene: Manufacture and Use, p.1. Read More