Why assessing environmental impact only through carbon is misleading?

With that complete focus on CO2; we might face a new problem: carbon tunnel vision. Let's see what it means, with the example of packaging systems.

We’ve lost the other dimensions of sustainability under the flood of news about the importance of going “carbon neutral” and “reducing our carbon footprints.”

With that complete focus on CO2; we might face a new problem: carbon tunnel vision.

How can we embrace the complexity of the sustainability transition, without getting stuck in carbon tunnel vision?

Don't get us wrong, we need accessible entry points to get into sustainable thinking. In that sense, the carbon approach is necessary.

Sustainability should not be so complex that it is off-putting. BUT.

Recycling, carbon offsets, tree-planting, those are just snowflakes that will only matter if they roll bigger to become a giant fat snowman. (ok, weird metaphor, but you follow us).


In other terms, having a CO2 obsession with approaching sustainability is like focusing only on GDP to assess happiness.


If we achieve net-zero emissions yet overlook resource scarcity, or fail to protect biodiversity, what will this mean for the wellbeing of people and the planet? A bit limited, right?

The graphic below signed Jan Konietzko seems to say it all when it comes to dealing with complex environmental crises through carbon emissions only. 

Untitled (22)


We need a good balance between “Every baby step is positive and should be encouraged,” and we have to be careful with sustainability shaming.

On the other hand, we should avoid becoming vain because of our “CO2 focus only” while neglecting the different dimensions, or worse, thinking that they matter less when evaluating impact.


The example of carbon tunnel vision in packaging

In reusable models, the packaging, produced once, will travel between our hubs, brands, consumers and back to hubs again.

To operate a reusable system is not carbon neutral. Traveling means vehicles, energy consumption, carbon emissions. Right. It’s true.

Reusable packaging is not carbon neutral, but its system makes it much, much better for the environment than linear, single-use packaging systems. 

Copy of 5th Planetary boundary broken


Let’s compare RePack to single-use plastic mailers, carbon-wise only.

If you compare reusable RePack and single-use plastic mailers in terms of CO2, single-use might score better!!

Does it mean it’s better for the environment? Heck. No. No one will recycle this.

This plastic mailer will probably burn or end up in water streams after being transported by boat all across the globe.

It might use less carbon in manufacturing but the environmental impact does not stop there.

This plastic, in addition to exposing soil and water to ecotoxicity risks, will affect ocean acidification, biodiversity and push dangerously the “novel entity” planet boundary

By looking at it holistically, that’s why reusable packaging is much, much better for the planet!


What about cardboard?

In terms of carbon, cardboard is not performing very well as it’s heavier than single-use plastic or a RePack, and it usually leads to a lot of space; therefore, more trucks are used to deliver orders.

In a sense, carbon-wise, it's better to choose single-use plastic. 

But it is agreed that cardboard is less harmful to the environment That’s true. It’s recyclable, we do have the technology to recycle it. It's also less damaging on soils, uses renewable resources, etc. 

But it's still a single-use product with huge drawbacks.

Cutting trees to produce single-use cardboard or kraft packaging is a very inefficient use of resources.It leads to deforestation and resource scarcity by using land to "grow cardboard" (instead of food crops for example).Growing industrially trees for cardboard leads to deforestation and/or resource scarcity, preventing the cultivation of necessary crops (for food per instance), uses large amounts of water resources.

The entire process has a destructive impact on biodiversity.


To conclude, let's give the stage to two brilliant scientists from the Stockholm Resilience Centre:


"The pace that societies are producing and releasing new chemicals and other novel entities into the environment is not consistent with staying within a safe operating space for humanity."
Patricia Villarubia-Gómez


“Shifting to a circular economy is really important. That means changing materials and products so they can be reused not wasted, designing chemicals and products for recycling, and much better screening of chemicals for their safety and sustainability along their whole impact pathway in the Earth system”
Sarah Cornell 


Reusable packaging systems allow to reduce waste drastically, has a minimal impact on the environment and the difference with single-use is that the system can be improved, more and more, in order to reduce our existing impact, carbon-wise per instance. 

A concrete example of what we do to reduce the impact is our decentralization of the system with the French post, where we reduce distances therefore carbon emissions. More on that, just here! 

Similar posts

Receive RePack insights and the latest features in your inbox - no spam!

Be the first to know about our latest shenanigans: case studies, stories and insights in the world of sustainable packaging.