Paper Cups vs Plastic Cups: An Analysis of Their Environmental Impacts
Paper cups are often seen as a more environmentally friendly alternative to disposable plastic cups. However, a closer look at the different stages of their life cycle shows that this perception needs to be qualified. This article draws on studies by Mountain Riders and Recyc-Québec, as well as ADEME’s “Bilan Produit” tool, to explore the actual environmental impacts of paper cups compared with other options such as plastic and reusable cups.
The life cycle of a paper cup: an underestimated complexity
A paper cup is made primarily of paper, but it also contains a thin layer of plastic, usually polyethylene or PLA, a plant-based plastic, to make it leak-proof. This combination of materials makes recycling more difficult, as current infrastructure does not always allow these components to be separated efficiently. As a result, a large proportion of paper cups are ultimately incinerated or sent to landfill, when handled by a waste collection organisation.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) shows that producing one paper cup requires 152 cl of water, compared with 0.5 cl for a disposable plastic cup (source: Mountain Riders). This difference is mainly due to the resources required to produce the raw materials and the plastic coating needed to make the cup leak-proof.
Comparison of environmental impacts
Here are some key figures from the studies mentioned above*:
Production: A paper cup weighs approximately 8g, including 7.2g of paper and 0.8g of plastic. By comparison, a 25 cl plastic cup weighs around 5g.
Transport: The average distance travelled to transport cups to their place of use is 600km for paper cups, compared with 500km for plastic cups.
End of life: According to the available data, around 50% of paper cups are sent to landfill, 34% are incinerated, and only 11% are recycled.
*Of course, cups are available in different sizes today, which can affect their weight.
Plastic cups can be made from PP (polypropylene) or PS (polystyrene). Fully recyclable, they have one major advantage: their light weight. A single pallet can hold up to 72,000 cups. PP cups can be recycled into products such as coat hangers, automotive parts or pipes. The main issue remains collection and sorting. A cup is still waste that needs to be processed... and, as we know, plastic is far from fantastic when it ends up in the environment.
Although paper may seem like a less harmful material for the environment, paper cups have a somewhat paradoxical footprint. Their production requires 13 times more electricity and up to twice as much water as plastic cups. Paper cups contain a thin plastic layer that protects the cup, gives it a smoother surface and makes it suitable for holding liquids by ensuring it is leak-proof. In terms of transport and carbon footprint, a pallet can carry around 46,000 paper cups.
The differences in weight and manufacturing processes therefore create significant differences between the two types of cups. Paper cups have a higher carbon footprint, measured in kg CO₂e, than plastic cups. Despite this, plastic cups have been banned under the AGEC Law. It is important to remember that this ban is primarily intended to move away from a society in which plastic is predominant. When not properly treated, plastic cups break down into microplastics, which are now found almost everywhere, including in water, soil and glaciers.
Reusable cups, mugs and glasses, such as those used with auum-S machines, offer a more environmentally friendly alternative when they are reused properly. Depending on reuse assumptions, a reusable cup becomes more environmentally beneficial after just 7 uses compared with disposable plastic cups and after 14 uses compared with paper cups (source: Mountain Riders).
Sources and calculation methodology
The figures used in this analysis come from studies carried out by Mountain Riders and Recyc-Québec*, which used ADEME’s “Bilan Produit” tool. This tool makes it possible to model material and energy consumption throughout every stage of a product’s life cycle, from raw material production to end of life, including transport and use. A more detailed version of the study is available here:*
Conclusion
Although paper cups are often perceived as a more environmentally friendly alternative, an analysis of the different stages of their life cycle shows that their environmental impact is far from negligible and can even be greater than that of plastic cups, despite the latter having been banned. Recycling difficulties, their greater weight, the significant consumption of natural resources and water during production, and their problematic end-of-life treatment all create challenges for their widespread adoption.
Reusable glasses provide an attractive alternative, particularly in environments where they can be used multiple times, helping to reduce the overall environmental footprint. For a sustainable transition, it is essential to consider the entire life cycle of products and choose solutions that minimise both resource consumption and waste generation.
