Facts about EPS and Environmental Impact of Alternatives: Weighing Opportunity Costs
Chresten Heide-Anderson
Representing EPS, Expanded Polystyrene, as the material of choice within packaging and construction on issues such as circular economy, sustainability and safety.
This article addresses the environmental impact of substituting Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) with alternative materials in packaging applications. In environmental discussions, it’s common to hear calls for replacing EPS with “greener” options like cardboard or other biodegradable materials. However, as this article will show, the opportunity costs of such decisions are often overlooked. By examining the life cycle impacts of alternative materials, we can make more informed choices based on data.
This article is part of a fact-based series intended to support the upcoming exploration of cognitive biases and logical fallacies in public discourse. By understanding these foundational facts, readers will be better equipped to critically explore how biases and fallacies shape perceptions in environmental debates, particularly with EPS as a case study.
Environmental Impact of Alternatives
A crucial aspect of informed environmental decision-making lies in understanding opportunity costs—a concept borrowed from economics that refers to the trade-offs or sacrifices made when choosing one option over another. In environmental contexts, this means evaluating not just the direct impacts of a chosen material but also the indirect consequences of not selecting an alternative.
For example:
The benefits of appropriate packaging also extend beyond the materials themselves. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates:
Using packaging that fails to protect products effectively can increase food waste, amplifying environmental impacts significantly.
Adverse Selection and Hidden Trade-Offs
Another key concept from economics, adverse selection, occurs when decisions are made based on incomplete or biased information, leading to unintended and suboptimal outcomes. In the context of materials, this happens when visible attributes—such as "biodegradable" labeling—are prioritized, while hidden trade-offs like emissions, resource use, or durability are ignored.
For instance:
By framing environmental decisions around opportunity costs and avoiding adverse selection, we can ensure that the full spectrum of impacts is considered.
Conclusion
In sum, choosing materials for packaging or other applications without considering the opportunity costs can have unintended, often negative environmental effects. Discussions around substituting EPS with alternatives must account for life cycle impacts and avoid adverse selection by focusing only on visible impacts.
Grounding environmental policy debates in a broader understanding of trade-offs ensures decisions are genuinely sustainable—rather than simply appearing so on the surface.
Ceramics at Prime Ceramics
9moHallo sir
Solutions built on passion & experience.
9moYes, it has long been debunked the notion plastic’s comparative lightweight properties somehow deliver a better environmental outcome. It is a simplistic ploy. Clearly if there was an truth to the claim, then we wouldn’t have all the plastic harm at such scale & the resulting non-truncated LCA adverse GHG & Carbon impact that dwarfs all other plastic-alternate packaging & product solutions. And that is, after all. plastic’s intent with this ambit claim & consumer deception. Specifically, it is the very same lightweight properties that lays at the heart of plastic’s ubiquitous presence & harmful impact. It is the difference between the M2 area of plastic product envelopment, not mass. It is the non-reuse & non-recycling of plastic & its wrapping of everything it touches. The idea plastic water bottles have it all other glass or metal bottles is a furphy of gigantic dimensions. Give it up already, Plastic! We see you! We, The Consumers!