1.

Both use about the same quantity of primary raw materials; however, tallow is a renewable
resource, whereas petrochemical stocks are not. Thus, an environmental advantage on this
dimension belongs to tallow. Water usage, though, offsets some of this advantage. Tallow
requires a much heavier usage of water (10 times the amount). Although water is
renewable, it is also a limited resource and has a number of competing uses. Energy usage is
in favor of tallow, but only slightly (120 total kilowatt-hours versus 135 for petrochemicals).
Emissions to the environment are more difficult to assess. Two are in favor of
petrochemicals and two in favor of tallow. There is insufficient information to evaluate the
relative damage caused by each type of contaminant. Thus, at this point, it is difficult to
determine which of the two is more environmentally friendly. One might try the tallow
approach and argue that it is more compatible with the concept of sustainable development.
Using tallow may preserve more petrochemical stocks for future generations—why use the
petrochemical stock approach when it is unnecessary and it contributes to the depletion of a
scarce resource?
2. Environmental impact cost:
Petrochemical Tallow
Raw materials:
$0.40 × 990 $ 396
$0.60 × 935 $ 561
Water:
$0.50 × 56 28
$0.50 × 560 280
Energy:
$1.20 × 135 162
$1.20 × 120 144
Contaminant:
Air:
$500 × 9* 4,500
$500 × 9* 4,500
Liquid:
$60 × 7** 420
$60 × 5 300
Solid:
$20 × 87 1,740
$20 × 176 3,520
Cost per 1,000 kg $ 7,246 $ 9,305

*45/5 =9
**If dumped, the cost doubles. The lowest cost is assumed.

The petrochemical approach has the lowest environmental cost per unit. Using cost as a
summary index, the petrochemical approach should be chosen. Cost is limited as a summary
measure because it often reflects only private costs. In this case, more than private costs
should be reflected. For example, there is no indication that societal costs are reflected in
the costs of contaminants. Further, there is a societal benefit from using tallow instead of
 petrochemical because it is a renewable resource. This also is not reflected in the summary
cost measure. Estimating these two effects and including them would strengthen the
measure.
3. Suppliers control production of the raw materials and the usage of water and energy in their
production. The producer controls the usage of the raw materials and packaging, energy
associated with processing and transportation, and the emission of the contaminants during
production. The producer also has the ability to influence the recyclability and disposability
of the product. There is no explicit information concerning packaging, product use and
maintenance, recycling, and disposal. These factors are also significant issues. The
biodegradability of the surfactants, for example, is something that ought to be explored.

17-9

1. Pounds demanded = 375,000,000/5 = 75,000,000.

Thus, the demand for paperboard is reduced 300,000,000 pounds. At $0.75 per pound, this
saves the company $225,000,000 per year.

Recycling saves 75,000,000 × 0.90 = 67,500,000 pounds. Thus, 67,500,000 pounds of landfill
are avoided per year. When the recycling pounds are added to the reduction in demand, the
total amount is 367,500,000 pounds. If one tree is equivalent to 300 pounds of paperboard,
then 367,500,000/300 = 1,225,000 trees are saved.
2. Savings from weight reduction:
In total: 0.5 × 250,000,000 = 125,000,000 ounces saved or 125,000,000/16 = 7,812,500
pounds of packaging materials saved
In dollars: At $0.025 per ounce, $3,125,000 per year is saved in packaging costs.

Seal reduction savings:

Per package: 0.05 × 2 = 0.1 ounces
In total: 0.10 × 250,000,000 = 25,000,000 ounces saved or
25,000,000/16 = 1,562,500 pounds
In dollars: $0.025 × 25,000,000 = $625,000 per year
3. Ultimate disposal can affect the usage of land, energy, and material resources and also has
the potential of contaminating land, water, and air. Disposal by recycling reduces the
demand for primary resources. Disposal by safe incineration (designed to avoid the release
of damaging contaminants) can reduce the demand for nonrenewable energy resources and
replace some of the Energy used to produce the packaging. Using landfills to dispose of the
product ties up the land and creates potential contamination (e.g., methane gas released
into the air by anaerobic decay of organic waste).
4. Possible reasons: (1) Rate of usage is greater than the rate of replacement, (2) Resources are
limited by alternative uses (e.g., national parks), and (3) Resources are freed up for
alternative uses.