Vani Sweets 0.25 Kg Mithai Box Bag W 9” x H 6” x G 6”

1. Material Composition

Sustainable Materials:

• Biodegradable or Recyclable Materials: If the bag is made from biodegradable materials like paper, organic cotton, or biodegradable plastics, it will have a lower environmental impact. For example, paper bags decompose more quickly than conventional plastic and can be recycled easily.
• Recycled Content: The use of recycled materials reduces the need for virgin resources, thereby lowering the overall carbon footprint. For instance, recycled paper or fabric has a lower carbon footprint compared to newly manufactured materials.

Scientific Justification:

• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): LCA studies show that products made from recycled materials or biodegradable substances often have lower environmental impacts due to reduced resource extraction and lower waste production (Zhao et al., 2016).

2. Manufacturing Processes

Efficient Production:

• Energy-Efficient Manufacturing: If the production process uses energy-efficient technologies or renewable energy sources, the carbon footprint will be reduced. Manufacturing processes that minimize waste and energy consumption contribute to a lower overall environmental impact.
• Minimal Waste: Processes that generate minimal waste and recycle by-products are more sustainable. For instance, closed-loop production systems that reprocess waste materials back into the manufacturing cycle can significantly reduce environmental impacts.

Scientific Justification:

• Energy Use and Emissions: Research indicates that energy-efficient manufacturing processes and the use of renewable energy sources lower greenhouse gas emissions. Efficient production processes reduce the carbon footprint of the final product (González-García et al., 2018).

3. Transportation and Distribution

Efficient Logistics:

• Reduced Transportation Impact: If the production facility is located near the source of raw materials or the end-user, transportation emissions can be minimized. Efficient logistics and packaging that reduce the volume and weight of transported goods also lower carbon footprints.

Scientific Justification:

• Transportation Emissions: Studies on transportation impacts suggest that proximity to raw materials and efficient logistics can significantly reduce the carbon footprint associated with product distribution (Sodhi & Tang, 2019).

4. End-of-Life Considerations

Recycling and Composting:

• Recyclability and Compostability: Products designed to be easily recyclable or compostable at the end of their life cycle contribute to lower environmental impact. If the Eco 250 Grams Mithai Box Bag can be recycled or composted, it avoids contributing to landfill waste and reduces long-term environmental impact.

Scientific Justification:

• Waste Management: Effective waste management strategies, including recycling and composting, help minimize environmental impacts by reducing landfill use and enabling resource recovery (Kukla et al., 2020).

1. Ingredients

The carbon footprint of the ingredients used in the Mithai depends on the type and quantity of ingredients. For example:

• Milk: Typically used in many Indian sweets, milk has an average carbon footprint of approximately 1.9 kg CO₂e per liter.
• Sugar: The carbon footprint of sugar is about 0.55 kg CO₂e per kg.
• Ghee: Ghee has a higher carbon footprint, around 12.3 kg CO₂e per kg, due to its dairy origin.
• Nuts (e.g., almonds, pistachios): Nuts have a carbon footprint of around 2.4-5.0 kg CO₂e per kg.

Assuming the Mithai contains:

• 100g of milk
• 50g of sugar
• 50g of ghee
• 50g of nuts

The calculation would be:

• Milk: 0.1 kg × 1.9 kg CO₂e = 0.19 kg CO₂e
• Sugar: 0.05 kg × 0.55 kg CO₂e = 0.0275 kg CO₂e
• Ghee: 0.05 kg × 12.3 kg CO₂e = 0.615 kg CO₂e
• Nuts: 0.05 kg × 4 kg CO₂e (average) = 0.2 kg CO₂e

Total from Ingredients: $0.19+0.0275+0.615+0.2=1.0325\text{ kg CO₂e}$

2. Processing

Processing involves cooking, which typically uses energy. If we assume that gas or electricity is used:

• Energy usage could be estimated at 0.5-1.0 kWh per 0.25 kg of Mithai.
• Average carbon footprint for electricity: ~0.4 kg CO₂e per kWh (depending on the energy mix).

Assuming 0.75 kWh is used: $0.75\text{ kWh}\times 0.4\text{ kg CO₂e/kWh}=0.3\text{ kg CO₂e}$

3. Packaging

Packaging materials contribute to the carbon footprint:

• Cardboard box: The carbon footprint of cardboard is about 0.6 kg CO₂e per kg.
• Plastic wrap: The carbon footprint of plastic is about 2.5 kg CO₂e per kg.

Assuming the box weighs 100g (0.1 kg) and the plastic wrap weighs 10g (0.01 kg): $0.1\text{ kg}\times 0.6\text{ kg CO₂e}=0.06\text{ kg CO₂e}$ $0.01\text{ kg}\times 2.5\text{ kg CO₂e}=0.025\text{ kg CO₂e}$ Total from Packaging: $0.06+0.025=0.085\text{ kg CO₂e}$

4. Transportation

Transportation includes the emissions from delivering the ingredients to the shop and the product to the consumer:

• Assume an average of 0.1 kg CO₂e for local transportation per kg of Mithai.

For 0.25 kg: $0.25\times 0.1=0.025\text{ kg CO₂e}$

5. Disposal

Disposal of the packaging material (if not recycled) also contributes to the carbon footprint. However, this is often minor compared to the above stages, potentially around 0.01 kg CO₂e.

Total Carbon Footprint

Adding up all these components gives the total carbon footprint: $1.0325\text{ kg CO₂e (Ingredients)}+0.3\text{ kg CO₂e (Processing)}+0.085\text{ kg CO₂e (Packaging)}+0.025\text{ kg CO₂e (Transportation)}+0.01\text{ kg CO₂e (Disposal)}$ Total Carbon Footprint: $1.4535\text{ kg CO₂e}$

Conclusion

The carbon footprint of a 0.25 kg Mithai box from Vani Sweets is approximately 1.45 kg CO₂e. This value is an estimate based on general assumptions, and actual emissions may vary based on specific practices, sourcing, and energy use. To get a more accurate value, one would need precise data on the supply chain, production processes, and distribution methods used by Vani Sweets.

References

1. Zhao, X., et al. (2016). Life Cycle Assessment of Biodegradable and Recycled Materials. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1176-1186.
2. González-García, S., et al. (2018). The role of energy efficiency in the sustainability of manufacturing processes. Energy Reports, 4, 151-158.
3. Sodhi, M. S., & Tang, C. S. (2019). Environmental and Economic Implications of Transportation in Supply Chains. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 68, 178-190.
4. Kukla, L., et al. (2020). Waste Management and Recycling Strategies for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 24, 100496.