NOTE: This is a truncated version of an original article published by Micup, to be released with our official launch. For further details on the coffee cup problem please feel free to contact us.
The Problem: Storm in a coffee cup:
Although there is a mainstream awareness of ethical and environmental issues in coffee production, such as the fair-trade coffee and rainforest alliance movements, one of the more difficult challenges has been to reduce the excessive landfill waste created by that staple of coffee culture, the paper cup. A common misconception is that paper cups are indeed recyclable (why else would they be called ‘paper’ cups?) however they are unable to be composted or recycled on account that most cups are lined with polyethylene so that hot liquids don’t melt the cups, and so you can hold them in your hands without feeling a burning sensation. The paper cup problem is not simply a matter of solid waste, but one of increased oil consumption as the coffee industry grows and more paper cups are consumed to meet demand, as well as other environmental impacts. These are a few of the issues which the paper cup problem proposes.
How Many Cups does a Woodchuck Chuck?
According to recent figures, more than 16 billion paper cups are consumed annually in the U.S. alone [1]. Worldwide figures would be difficult to ascertain considering the size and scope of the coffee industry, although it would be fair to assume that the global amount of solid waste produced as a result of disposable paper cups would be significant.
The Impact: Paper Cup = Landfill Up
Along with the widespread use of coffee cups come the overwhelming figures for paper cup related landfill waste. One study estimates that paper cup waste resulted in 114.5 million kilograms (252 million pounds) of garbage in landfills in 2006. This translates to roughly 951,000 tonnes of wood, 4 billion gallons of water (enough to fill 5,980 Olympic pools) and 4,880 BTU’s of energy which is enough to power 53,900 homes [2]. Clearly, by any standards this is a problem that needs to be addressed, and with advances in
technology and research into alternative materials for consumer goods such as cups and other food packaging, many options have been labeled as ‘alternatives’ to disposable cups, but are they truly any better? At the heart of the solution to the paper cup problem lies the requirement that the product satisfies a number of criteria, among them: the environmental needs for a sustainable future, and the comfort, style, safety, portability and reliability for eco-aware consumers.
The Solutions: Choosing the best one
In response to the paper cup problem, most of the alternatives developed have revolved around ‘bring your own mug’ initiatives, steel or plastic thermos’ and flasks, and recent developments in eco-friendly materials research have resulted in solutions which include the most probable future for the reusable coffee cup, corn-based plastics (CPLA) which use minimal oil inputs in creation, are renewable, and as durable as polyethylene based plastics.
As an alternative which had the potential to be implemented in a quick, widespread manner with minimal effect on business operations, many cafés including Starbucks and Hortons provided customer incentives for bringing their own mugs (a discount on coffee, giveaways of free coffee grinds etc), an incentive which would work both ways as cafés were increasing brand equity by being environmentally aware. However, the bring-your-own mug movement is still not having any significant impact on the amount of paper cups being consumed. This can be attributed to a number of issues with mugs including the fact that they are often bulky if made from ceramics, and cannot be carried around if there isn’t a lid adequate enough to avoid spillage. In most large cities, coffees are consumed ‘on-the-go’ before going to the office, during work or on the way home, and the mug is not favourable to this mode of take-away coffee consumption.
Manufacturing thermos, flasks and other reusable cups generally have a larger environmental impact than paper cups. In addition, their production often includes polyethelyne or oil based inputs, thus reducing their eco-friendly credentials. However, upon repetitive use of these flasks the overall environmental impact is reduced when compared to paper cups. Various types of reusable cups have a ‘break-even’ point at which stage of use they use less manufacturing energy than their paper counterparts. The data below is derived from a classic life-cycle energy analysis study conducted by University of Victoria professor Martin B. Hocking [3].
Table 1: Each number shows the uses necessary before the reusable cup listed on the left column, becomes equal in energy efficiency to the cup listed on the top row.
A 2003 Starbucks study found customers use reusable cups approximately 13.5 million times, and estimated that 586,800 pounds of garbage were kept out of landfills as a result. An increase was recorded in 2006, to an estimated 674,000 pounds of avoided waste [4]. Reusable cups also have the function of potentially saving cup costs for café businesses, as well as offering cheaper coffee to customers if cafés pass on the discount. The University of Washington provided half-priced coffee during their ‘bring-your-own-mug’ initiative [5].
Polycarbonate based cups were also developed as a lightweight, easily moldable yet tough alternative to traditional thermos’ and mugs. In addition polycarbonate cups were found to be more environmentally responsible as researchers found a polyester degrading strain (Amycolatopsis) that could breakdown polycarbonate [6]. An organic compound also used in polycarbonate production, BPA (Bisphenol A) was used in creating baby bottles and general food packaging, seen as a safe and lightweight option for customers. However further research showed that young children were at high risk of direct exposure to Bisphenol A if they drink from BPA bottles. Organisations in the U.S. and Canada, where BPA bottles were gaining popularity, have subsequently ceased the production of BPA based bottles and drink containers [7].
Despite the reduction in landfill waste from the use of reusable flasks and mugs, these options also demand a large consumption of natural resources (if they are made of conventional plastics, glass, ceramics etc) and also emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Subsequently, many of these reusable mugs are not compostable, or renewable, and do not fit into any closed loop recycling programs. In essence, they are only moderately better than plastic cups in reducing solid waste, and are not likely to create environmental change on a large scale. However, with the advancement of materials research a new player has emerged to tackle the many facets we’ve seen of the environmental impacts of paper cups, while pleasing eco-conscious coffee drinkers who wish to make an impact, but fit it in their busy lives. This is the challenge Micup steps up to.
Micup harnesses cutting edge developments in sustainable materials to create a reusable coffee cup which satisfies all of your basic needs, while harnessing the latest in eco-friendly materials. Micup is the current solution to the paper cup problem.
References
[1] Report of the Starbucks Coffee Company/Alliance for Environmental Innovation Joint Task Force. April 15th, 2000. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/523_starbucks.pdf
[2] Figures from papercalculator.org
[3] Hocking, Martin B. “Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation” Environmental Management 18 (6), 1994, pp. 889-899.
[4] Starbucks Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Fiscal Year 2006.
[5] University of Washington campaign: http://dailyuw.com/2007/2/28/new-project-campaigns-for-reusable-coffee-cups/
[6] Pranamuda, H., Chollakup, R., Tokiwa, Y. “Degradation of Polycarbonate by a Polyester-Degrading Strain, Amycolatopsis sp. Strain HT-6” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65(9), 1999, pp. 4220-4222
[7] WebMed, BPA publication March 6, 2009: http://children.webmd.com/news/20090306/baby-bottle-makers-ditch-bpa
[8] Natureworks LLC: http://www.natureworksllc.com/
[9] Dotpoint Coffee Report (2004):