Research on the Carbon Footprint Impact of Using Individual Plastic Bottles in Orienteering Events in China
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/mr0vkg39Keywords:
carbon footprint, bottled water, global warmingAbstract
Global warming is nowadays seriously affecting people’s production and life and causing great harm to the natural environment. The main cause of global warming is the greenhouse effect, which is due to the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As a measure of an activity’s contribution to global warming, the calculation of carbon footprint is essential. In China orienteering events, single-use bottled water is widely used as post-race supplies, which generates a large amount of carbon emissions and carbon footprint. However, although bottled water is convenient, this consumption is still unnecessary, since there are other efficient alternatives. In this paper, the author discusses the possibility of changing the water supply strategy and method for orienteering events in China. Comparing the basic information and carbon footprint results produced by bottled water, barrel water and tap water, the author concludes that plastic materials required for barrel water are much less than bottled water since bottles own larger surface area than barrels when containing same amount of water. The author also summarizes that single-use bottled water system produces much more carbon footprints than municipal tap water system does due to the former one’s more complex and energy consuming process. In conclusion, the author considers that replacing single-use bottled water with barrel water and recycled cups or tap water is promising and has great benefits for the environment.References
[1] Yavuzdeğer, A., Esenboğa, B., Tümay Ateş, K., et al. Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Plastic Bottle Blow Mold Based on Product Life Cycle for Managing the Mold Industry’s Carbon Emission. Sustainability, 2024, 16(5): 2149.
[2] Lee, H., Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., et al. IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2023.
[3] Aslani, H., Pashmtab, P., Shaghaghi, A., et al. Tendencies towards bottled drinking water consumption: Challenges ahead of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) waste management. Health Promotion Perspectives, 2021, 11(1): 60.
[4] Hubacek, M. Environmental Issues of 10Mila, 2019.
[5] Misopoulos, F., Argyropoulou, R., Manthou, V., et al. Carbon emissions of bottled water sector supply chains: a multiple casestudy approach. International journal of logistics research and applications, 2020, 23(2): 178-194.
[6] Dettore, C. Comparative Life-Cycle Assessment of Bottled Versus Tap Water Systems (Doctoral dissertation), University of Michigan, 2009.
[7] Wiedmann, T., & Minx, J. A definition of ‘carbon footprint’. Ecological economics research trends, 2008, 1-11.
[8] Dormer, A., Finn, D. P., Ward, P., et al. Carbon footprint analysis in plastics manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013, 51: 133-141.
[9] Department of the Environmental and Energy, Australian. Synthetic Greenhouse Gases. Retrieved on August 30, retrieved from https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/ozone/ publications/synthetic-greenhouse-gases-factsheet
[10] Botto, S. Tap water vs. bottled water in a footprint integrated approach. Nature precedings, 2009, 1-1.
[11] Fantin, V., Scalbi, S., Ottaviano, G., et al. A method for improving reliability and relevance of LCA reviews: the case of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of tap and bottled water. Science of the Total Environment, 2014, 476: 228-241.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 by the authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
