Reusable v disposable nappies
It has always seemed like common sense - disposable nappies are far worse for the environment than their washable alternatives because they are, well, disposable.
In 2005, this argument was greatly diminished by an Environment Agency study that drew the opposite conclusions - that the environmental impact of laundering washables outweighed the impact of disposables. This led to a widespread review of the policy of promoting cotton nappies as part of a wider waste strategy and led to cuts in funding across the board, the most notable victim being the national Real Nappy Campaign.
A recent DEFRA-funded review, however, has confirmed what many in the sector have suspected for a while - that the environmental impact had been closely linked with how the cotton nappies were laundered. If laundered responsibly, this could reduce environmental impact of cotton nappies by around 40%.
These findings generated inconsistent conclusions in the media. On 19 October 2008, The Times described the results in a headline as "a blow to image of 'green' reusable nappy", and on 17 October the Daily Telegraph declared: "Nappies: terry cloth more environmentally-friendly than disposable".
This issue provides an opportunity for those of us in the sector to reflect on exactly how we should measure the environmental impact of different resource choices. The result of a life cycle analysis was used as a proxy for measuring environmental impact, but is this fair?
The study's authors accepted that their choice of measurement tool simply reflected comparative energy uses, and ignored impacts such as the fact that disposable nappies use non-renewable resources and will spend several hundred years in landfill.
At Waste Watch, we urge a common sense and more holistic view of the relative impact of resource choices. Although there is a trend currently to assess impacts in terms of energy and associated carbon, the example of the 2005 study shows this can be a somewhat narrow view. Often, simple adherence to the waste hierarchy - to reduce, reuse and recycle waste, in that order - and a more nuanced approach to findings would be a a more appropriate way to interpret the impact of resource choices.
We hope that the DEFRA review is accompanied by a resumption of nationwide promotion of reusable nappies, alongside advice on preferable laundering methods, to undo the damage of the 2005 report.
Read our view on other current issues
