IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i5p2149-d1351419.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Plastic Bottle Blow Mold Based on Product Life Cycle for Managing the Mold Industry’s Carbon Emission

Author

Listed:
  • Abdurrahman Yavuzdeğer

    (Department of Energy Systems Engineering, Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University, 01250 Adana, Türkiye)

  • Burak Esenboğa

    (Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Adana Alparslan Türkeş Science and Technology University, 01250 Adana, Türkiye)

  • Kübra Tümay Ateş

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, Çukurova University, 01330 Adana, Türkiye)

  • Özge Demirdelen

    (Department of Law, Çağ University, 33800 Mersin, Türkiye)

  • Mehmet Yüksel

    (Petka Mold Industry, 01100 Adana, Türkiye)

Abstract

Calculating the carbon footprint (CF) holds paramount importance in today’s world as it provides a tangible measure of our impact on the environment. In the corporate realm, businesses armed with CF data can optimize operations, reduce waste, and adopt greener technologies, leading to both environmental and economic benefits. In this study, carbon emissions—a significant global issue—are investigated through the lens of the ISO 14067-ISO Product Based Carbon Footprint (CF) standard, focusing on the operations of a mold company. The primary innovation lies in meticulously tracing every stage of plastic bottle blow mold production, the most prevalent product in the mold industry, from its raw material input to its final form as a mold in the factory. Subsequently, detailed calculations and analysis are conducted to quantify the carbon footprint associated with this process and its impact on the environment. The calculated CF for one ton of PBBM produced by Petka Mold Industry is presented. This study fills a critical gap in the literature by providing a holistic understanding of the carbon footprint of plastic bottle blow mold (PBBM) production, thereby offering valuable insights for managing carbon emissions and promoting sustainability within the mold industry. By integrating a life cycle product carbon footprint thinking into industrial practices, a greener, more sustainable future can be paved, mitigating the ecological footprint of the PBBM.

Suggested Citation

  • Abdurrahman Yavuzdeğer & Burak Esenboğa & Kübra Tümay Ateş & Özge Demirdelen & Mehmet Yüksel, 2024. "Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Plastic Bottle Blow Mold Based on Product Life Cycle for Managing the Mold Industry’s Carbon Emission," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2149-:d:1351419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2149/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/5/2149/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Böhringer, Christoph, 2003. "The Kyoto Protocol: A Review and Perspectives," ZEW Discussion Papers 03-61, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chasia, Stanley & Olang, Luke O. & Sitoki, Lewis, 2023. "Modelling of land-use/cover change trajectories in a transboundary catchment of the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Region in East Africa using the CLUE-s model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    2. Adam G. Bumpus & Diana M. Liverman, 2008. "Accumulation by Decarbonization and the Governance of Carbon Offsets," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 84(2), pages 127-155, April.
    3. Ralph Winkler, 2008. "Optimal compliance with emission constraints: dynamic characteristics and the choice of technique," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 411-432, April.
    4. Sadegheih, A., 2010. "A novel formulation of carbon emissions costs for optimal design configuration of system transmission planning," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 1091-1097.
    5. Victor I. Espinosa & José Antonio Peña-Ramos & Fátima Recuero-López, 2021. "The Political Economy of Rent-Seeking: Evidence from Spain’s Support Policies for Renewable Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    6. Kai A. Konrad & Marcel Thum, 2018. "Does a Clean Development Mechanism Facilitate International Environmental Agreements?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(4), pages 837-851, April.
    7. Qing Wang & Hanbing Xiong & Tingzhen Ming, 2022. "Methods of Large-Scale Capture and Removal of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-5, September.
    8. Tino Vidović & Ivan Tolj & Gojmir Radica & Natalia Bodrožić Ćoko, 2022. "Proton-Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Balance of Plant and Performance Simulation for Vehicle Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-14, October.
    9. Vu, Khuong & Hartley, Kris, 2022. "Effects of digital transformation on electricity sector growth and productivity: A study of thirteen industrialized economies," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    10. Fulton, Murray E. & Mihal, Daniela, 2005. "The Economic Impact of Non-Compliance in the Carbon-Offset Market," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19179, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Frank Jotzo & John C. V. Pezzey, 2005. "Optimal intensity targets for emissions trading under uncertainty (now replaced by EEN0605)," Economics and Environment Network Working Papers 0504, Australian National University, Economics and Environment Network.
    12. Maria Ravani & Konstantinos Georgiou & Stefania Tselempi & Nikolaos Monokrousos & Georgios K. Ntinas, 2023. "Carbon Footprint of Greenhouse Production in EU—How Close Are We to Green Deal Goals?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-39, December.
    13. César O. Peralta P. & Giovani T. T. Vieira & Simon Meunier & Rodrigo J. Vale & Mauricio B. C. Salles & Bruno S. Carmo, 2019. "Evaluation of the CO 2 Emissions Reduction Potential of Li-ion Batteries in Ship Power Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, January.
    14. Winston W. Chang, 2017. "World Trade and the Environment: Issues and Policies," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 435-479, August.
    15. Ren, Zhijun & Li, Huajie & Yan, Wenyi & Lv, Weiguang & Zhang, Guangming & Lv, Longyi & Sun, Li & Sun, Zhi & Gao, Wenfang, 2023. "Comprehensive evaluation on production and recycling of lithium-ion batteries: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    16. Valentina Boamah & Decai Tang & Qian Zhang & Jianqun Zhang, 2023. "Do FDI Inflows into African Countries Impact Their CO 2 Emission Levels?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.
    17. Romano, Bernardino & Zullo, Francesco & Saganeiti, Lucia & Montaldi, Cristina, 2023. "Evaluation of cut-off values in the control of land take in Italy towards the SDGs 2030," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    18. Sadegheih, A., 2011. "Optimal design methodologies under the carbon emission trading program using MIP, GA, SA, and TS," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 504-513, January.
    19. Ujjal Kumar Mukherjee & Benjamin E. Bagozzi & Snigdhansu Chatterjee, 2023. "A Bayesian framework for studying climate anomalies and social conflicts," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), March.
    20. Winkler, Ralph, 2006. "Does 'better' discounting lead to 'worse' outcomes in long-run decisions? The dilemma of hyperbolic discounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 573-582, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:5:p:2149-:d:1351419. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.