Milieu Centraal

Utrecht, 22April 2008

NAPPIES

This is a source document from Milieu Centraal [a Dutch NGO]. Information about this subject is published on our website (www.milieu central.nl). Copyright rules apply for all information supplied by Milieu Centraal, including this source document. In principle, citations cannot be made from this source document. Only in special cases can this be deviated from following permission from Milieu Centraal. Our copyright rules for use of web texts are on our website under “Over Milieu Centraal”.

Notes for users of this source document

In this source document we distinguish between ‘washable’ and ‘disposable’ nappies. We use this terminology, and not ‘cotton’ and ‘paper’ nappies, because washable nappies can be made from materials other than cotton, and paper comprises barely half of disposable nappies. We did not think that these terms covered the field.

In October 2007, Knowaste, the firm in Arnhem that recycled nappies, ceased. This option is therefore not considered in this source document in assessing the environmental impact of disposable nappies.

Summary

Every year in the Netherlands more than 600,000 children wear nappies. This creates a 0.164 million tonne mountain of nappy waste each year. More than 5000 nappies are needed until a child is toilet trained, on average at an age of 3 years and 2 months. Some 40 years ago children were toilet trained a half year earlier. This is explained in part by the fact that they then all wore washable nappies, and these days mostly disposables, but other contributory factors are the age of toilet training, day care and family size.

Parents have the choice between disposable and washable nappies. Irrespective of the chosen nappy system, the case is: the fewer nappies are used, the better for the environment and financially. Amongst other factors, this is can be achieved by getting children toilet trained and not changing unnecessarily.

To determine which nappy system (washable or disposable) is least taxing to the environment, the whole life cycle of the nappy must be determined: the production of the nappy and packaging, the use (nappy washing and possible drying, washing powder, etc) and the waste that eventually is created and how that is disposed. The most important environmental aspects of importance in a comparative analysis are the greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use and pesticide use in the case of cotton washable nappies.

Greenhouse gas emissions

If nappy systems are compared on greenhouse gas emissions, washable nappies (irrespective of textile material) are 1.5 times more environmentally friendly than disposables, and even 2.5 times better if a [tumble] drier is not used. Research even shows that children are toilet trained sooner in washable nappies than in disposable nappies. In this case, the environmental burden for washable nappies is even lower than for disposable nappies.

Water use

Water use is of importance in both nappy systems. The water usage is high in the case of washable nappies made from traditional cotton: growing cotton demands much water. Alongside this, it is not rare that inefficient irrigation in cotton cultivation results in severe draught in dry and vulnerable regions. Washable nappies can be made of traditional cotton, but also from synthetic materials, organic cotton or bamboo. For the most part, growing organic cotton does not entail using irrigation water, but rainwater. The water usage in growing bamboo is not known. Alongside this, water is needed for nearly an extra wash per week when using washable nappies. Water is also needed in the production of disposable nappies. An estimate by Milieu Centraal for this water use indicates that the water use for disposable nappies is also high.

Pesticide and chemical use

Pesticides have a particular role as an environmental parameter with washable nappies. Pesticide use in traditional cotton cultivation is absolutely and relatively high (compared with other crops). Washable nappies of organic cotton, synthetic materials and bamboo score better on this point than traditional cotton. Whether bamboo nappies are therefore more environmentally friendly than nappies made of traditional cotton cannot be said, because the manufacture of bamboo fibre into bamboo thread can bring with it environmental problems (high energy and chemical use), which reduce the environmental benefit of cultivating bamboo. Also, chemical use can give rise to environmental problems in the production of synthetic materials for washable and disposable nappies.

Land use

Land use is of importance in both nappy systems. Cotton cultivation scores worse on the aspect of land use concerning residual nature value and production per hectare than the production of wood for disposable nappies. Nevertheless, the nature damage through land use for disposable nappies is 7x higher than for cotton for washable nappies. In the calculation of nature damage both quantitative (land take) and qualitative (loss of biodiversity and the quality of the landscape and soil) aspects of land use are included. Washable nappies of synthetic materials will score better on this aspect than washable cotton nappies.

Milieu Centraal has the following tips to reduce the environmental impact of the chosen nappy system to the minimum possible:

Tips for washable nappies

Tips for disposal nappies

[Not translated, these are mainly common sense issues aimed at parents]

Most disposable nappies are incinerated with household waste. Until 2007, some 10% of Dutch baby nappies and incontinence materials were source separated and the materials recycled, but the company doing this has gone bankrupt. A very small proportion of the baby nappies (from two communities) are collected and anaerobically digested with garden waste, through which energy is recovered. Fuel pellets and compost are made from the digestate residues. Research shows that, compared on the basis of greenhouse gas emissions, nappy digestion has the best environmental credentials. A number of communities that first collected nappies for recycling continue to source separate nappies for anaerobic digestion. There is enough capacity for this.

NB The Conclusions (page 29 onwards) mirror the Summary, adding a few numbers. In particular, on page 30 the following table is given on greenhouse gas emissions:

Table 10: Environmental comparison washable nappies and disposable nappies over 3.2 year and 2.5 years for washable nappies (traditional cotton). Figures for 2005 and 2007.

	Greenhouse gas emissions (in kg CO2)^a
Washable^b nappies, without drier	345 ± 100
Washable^b nappies, with drier	575 ± 115
Toilet trained after2.5 years (with drier)	275 (455)
Disposable nappies	900 ± 150

a) Figures are rounded to 5 kg. For the exact figures see Tables 4 and 6. The variation in the figures result from different figures in the literature for (see Appendix 6):

· the number of nappy changes per day (valid for both systems);

· weight of the washable nappies and wraps;

· total number of washable nappies needed;

· greenhouse gas emissions for the textile material of washable nappies;

· wash temperature.

b) Irrespective of material (cotton, bamboo, synthetic).

Milieu Centraal’s web site ( http://www.milieucentraal.nl/pagina?onderwerp=Luiers ) includes the following summary table.

Environmentally friendly in terms of:	Disposable	Washable
- Global warming (CO2)	-	+
- Water use	-	-
- Pesticides/chemicals	+/-	+/-
- Environmental pressure on land use	-	+

-: Relatively unfriendly to the environment

+: Relatively environmentally friendly