cases out of 18). The studies comparing recycling and pyrolysis also conclude that recycling is better for this
indicator, with recycling being 80% to 110% better for study no2 and 26% better for study no 4.
Figure 14 compares the various alternatives to incineration with energy recovery. It highlights that incineration is
globally a worse option regarding climate change. For instance, landfill performs better than incineration in 67%
of the cases (10 cases out of 15). Indeed, the contribution to climate change is usually assessed over a 100-year
period, while plastic decomposes over a much longer time period. Degradation has thus not been taken into
account in most studies, resulting in a low contribution to climate change for the landfill scenarios. This is
confirmed by the results from study no 3. In this study, a hypothetical infinite time period is assumed and
incineration appears preferable to landfill. In addition, the superiority of pyrolysis compared to incineration shows
that the credits gained from the avoided production of petrochemical products are superior to the energy credits
obtained with incineration (credits based on the UK electricity mix for study no 2 and Italian mix for study no 4).
Table 27 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. recycling for climate change for plastics. A positive
value means that recycling is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that recycling causes more environmental impact
than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 1[PE] 1[PET] 2[MIX1] 2[MIX2] 2[MIX3] 2[MIX4] 3[PE] 3[PP] 3[PS] 3[PET] 3[PVC]
Incineration with energy recovery 310% 200% 390% 710% 390% 710% 990% 50% 100% 210% 0%
Landfill 100% 100% 130% 150% 130% 150% 1080% 60% 130% 220% 10%
Pyrolysis 100% 110% 90% 80%Recycling versus other alternativesN° case 4[MIX] 5[MIX] 6[HDPE] 6[LDPE] 6[PET] 7[PET] 7[PE] 7[PVC] 8[PS1] 8[PS2] 8[PS3]
Incineration with energy recovery 430% 40% 170% 150% 170% 10% 60% 100%
Landfill 290% 100% 100% 100% 130% 160% 110%
Pyrolysis 30%Recyclingversus other alternatives*
*
- Feedstock recycling scenario
Table 28 Relative difference between the impacts from the different end-of-life options vs. incineration with energy recovery for climate change
for plastics. A positive value means that incineration is preferable to the other end-of-life option. A negative value means that incineration causes
more environmental impact than the other end-of-life option.
N° case 1[PE] 1[PET] 2[MIX1] 2[MIX2] 2[MIX3] 2[MIX4] 3[PE] 3[PP] 3[PS] 3[PET] 3[PVC]
Recycling ‐150% ‐200% ‐130% ‐120% ‐130% ‐120% ‐90% ‐30% ‐50% ‐190% 0%
Landfill ‐100% ‐100% ‐90% ‐90% ‐90% ‐90% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10%
Pyrolysis ‐100% ‐100% ‐100% ‐100%Incineration with energy recoveryversus other alternativesN° case 4[MIX] 5[MIX] 6[HDPE] 6[LDPE] 6[PET] 8[PS1] 8[PS2] 8[PS3]
Recycling ‐80% ‐30% ‐250% ‐280% ‐240% ‐10% ‐40% ‐50%
Landfill ‐30% ‐100% ‐100% ‐100%
Pyrolysis ‐80%Incineration with energy recoveryversus other alternativesStudy n°7 does not include a comparison with incineration with energy recovery for this indicator and thus is not
included in this table*
*- Feedstock recycling scenario