-
Despite their innocent appearance, toys are not innocuous, they also leave a mark on the planet
In 2021 and with part of Reyes’ purchases still pending, Spanish households they will have spent 240 euros on average on Christmas gifts, according to a Deloitte study. The same report highlights that among the preferred gifts for children and adolescents are toys and material related to their hobbies. But, What impact do these gifts have on the environment?
“The greater or lesser impact depends on the processes necessary for its manufacture, transport from the production site to the sales site, its use and how they are managed once they are no longer useful for their owner “, he explains Òscar Saladié, Professor of Geography at the Rovira i Virgili University (URV) and member of the Research Group for Territorial Analysis and Tourism Studies (Gratet). “To determine it, the most widely accepted methodology is life cycle analysis “, aim Marc Delgado-Aguilar, Chemical engineer in the Sustainable Materials and Product Design Laboratory at the University of Girona (UdG).
The life cycle
The life cycle analysis takes into account all the impacts generated by a product, from the extraction of raw materials for its production to the end of its life, through its manufacture, transport and use. Among other data, marks the carbon footprint and, therefore, its effect on pollution, but environmental damage goes beyond this aspect: “The equivalent CO2 is a part of the impacts that any product has. It is the first layer,” he says. Antonio de la Torre, URV environmental management technician.
There are impacts, such as social justice, deforestation and the impact on biodiversity, that cannot be quantified
Each life cycle analysis studies certain categories of impact, such as the potential for acidification, eutrophication, resource depletion …, but leaves others out. What’s more, “There are many things that cannot be quantified at the moment, such as social justice, deforestation, the impact on biodiversity, etc. “, says the expert. So” you have to be careful when comparing, “he says.
In order to be able to take into account the environmental criteria of production when choosing the articles, there are eco-labels, that certify certain guarantees. “It is not necessary to know which ones, but if one doll has the label and another does not, it means that the first has taken environmental criteria into account,” he explains. Marta Escamilla, Head of the Sustainability Area of the Leitat Technological Center.
104 hours of TV
However, not all labels certify the same. In type I, an independent body officially endorses that the product has a lower environmental impact. This is the case, for example, of the environmental quality guarantee label of the Generalitat de Catalunya and the EU eco-label. In type II -also known as self-declaration-, it is the manufacturer himself who carries out the environmental indication. On the other hand, the type III ones show an inventory of environmental data similar to that of the energy efficiency labels of household appliances. The EU advocates that national stamps be harmonized with the European one, something with which Escamilla agrees: “It is not necessary to invent new labels, it is enough to enhance the ones that exist so that we all know them.”
Note: the ecological footprint that accompanies the gifts that appear on this page is measured in kgCO2eq (equivalent to 1 kilo of CO2, an impact similar to a 9-kilometer journey by plane or 104 hours of TV).
Locally manufactured soft toy (1.1 kgCO2eq)
A study published in the journal ‘Sustainibility ‘evaluated the environmental impact of a stuffed toy made of wool, cotton, rice and fibers manufactured and marketed in Slovenia. The article estimated the carbon footprint at 1.1 kgCO2eq and concluded that the main greenhouse gas emissions came from wool production, while transport was only responsible for 3% of the total, as it was locally produced.
“If it has been made from raw materials from Slovenia and has been manufactured there, it is very difficult that there are situations of destruction of biodiversity associated with the production of this toy & rdquor;” says De la Torre. But this situation does not reflect reality, since most toys are manufactured in China, a country that accounts for more than three-quarters of global exports of these products. This multiplies the carbon footprint, since 85% of the country’s energy comes from fossil sources and, once manufactured, the products must be transported between 16,500 and 20,000 kilometers to Europe.
The study did not take into account the environmental impact of the end of the life of the product, which must be thrown into the clothing container, but of whose recycling there are no guarantees.
Locally produced book (2.1 kgCO2eq)
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions generated in the life of a book are produced in the process of obtaining paper. This is the conclusion of a study that places the environmental impact of a hardcover novel produced and read in Sweden at 2.1 kgCO2eq per kilo of book.
The authors also compared the impact of buying the work in a traditional bookstore or acquiring it through the internet. The result was slightly better for the virtual option given that, in addition to saving energy costs in the physical store, purchases made ‘online’ registered a lower number of returns than those made in person.
The same research group studied, in another article, the convenience of replacing traditional books with electronic books to improve their environmental impact. In this case, again, the answer depends on the use that is given to the digital option: if 30 works or more are read with the electronic book, this option is a better environmental alternative to the traditional one, since most of Emissions are generated in the production of the apparatus that allows the reading.
Soccer ball (3.5 kgCO2eq)
More than 40 million soccer balls made primarily of plastic, cotton, and rubber are sold worldwide each year. A study by the French Ecological Transition Agency found that the production process of the balls, from obtaining raw materials (in Thailand, the United States and China) to the manufacture of the ball (in China), constitutes 65% of their carbon footprint, which is approximately 3.5 kgCO2eq per unit.
The rest of the greenhouse gas emissions come essentially from the distribution of the product, that is, from the path it takes from leaving the factory to reaching the buyer; and their management as waste, since, being composed of a mixture of materials that are difficult to separate, they cannot be recycled and end their life in the landfill or incinerator.
In line with this study, and beyond the emission of greenhouse gases, a report by FIFA (International Federation of Association Football) highlights that the obtaining of raw materials and the end of the life of the balls are the two categories with a greater environmental impact, because “they consume a lot of energy and fresh water, and can cause the depletion of resources and the pollution of air, soil and water & rdquor ;.
Related news
Battery operated plush made in China (19 kgCO2eq)
The greenhouse gas emissions of a toy with electronic components depends on its use, if this is continued the emissions can be multiplied by three, especially if it works with batteries that must be replaced. Thus, the use that is given to it can represent from 1% to 60% of the emissions of its entire life cycle.
A study published in 2009 investigated the impact of a battery-powered plush toy made in China. Greenhouse gases generated in the production of electrical and mechanical parts represented a third of the total emissions associated with their manufacture; a figure similar to that generated by its transport, from the factory to the importing country. The carbon footprint of the plush before reaching the buyer’s hands is 7.5 kgCO2eq, notably higher than the locally manufactured plush. In an optimistic usage scenario (one hour a day for two years), the figure shoots up to 19 kgCO2eq.
Their destruction has a reduced impact compared to the previous phases, despite the fact that the study authors only considered landfill and incineration as final destinations.
‘Smartphone’ (55 kgCO2eq)
On average, smartphones have a carbon footprint of 55 kgCO2eq that resides mainly in the manufacturing phases (collection of raw materials and production of the device) that, on average, represents 70% of the emissions of the complete life cycle of the phone, according to a review of studies published in 2020, although it can exceed 80%.
Most of these emissions are invested in the creation of the integrated circuit whose production “uses a substantial amount of energy and resources, representing one of the greatest environmental impacts per unit mass that exists today for mass-produced products”, according to the authors of a study published in the framework of the conference ‘ICT on Sustainability’.
In addition, ‘smartphones’ “can contain up to two thirds of the elements present in the periodic table & rdquor;” says research from the University of Birmingham. And its extraction can cause water pollution, erosion and deforestation, and impacts on the health of people, animals and plants.
Finally, its end of life is not very circular. 27% have a second chance, only 12% are recycled and 40% end up in a drawer.
Reference-www.elperiodico.com