Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: From a cradle-to-gate perspective the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of PLA is confirmed to be only 500 gram CO2 /kg of PLA” says François de Bie, Senior Marketing Director at TotalEnergies Corbion,
Executive summary
The claim that PLA’s cradle-to-gate Global Warming Potential (GWP) is “only 500 gram CO2/kg of PLA” is broadly supported by existing life‑cycle studies but not universally fixed: peer‑reviewed LCAs report values in the same general band, while newer analyses show lower results under specific feedstock and process conditions. Recent work (2019 and 2025) places cradle‑to‑gate PLA emissions roughly between ~406–500 g CO2e/kg, with differences driven by feedstock, energy sources, system boundaries, and LCA methods [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the 500 g figure circulates—and who benefits from it
TotalEnergies Corbion’s marketing citation aligns with a 2019 peer‑reviewed cradle‑to‑gate LCA that reported approximately 500 g CO2e/kg of PLA produced from sugarcane in Thailand, a figure often used in industry communications to position PLA as a lower‑carbon plastic alternative [1]. Corporate communications naturally emphasize favorable datapoints when promoting products; marketing goal alignment can shape which LCA results are highlighted. Independent reviews also acknowledge PLA’s potential as a lower‑carbon polymer compared with petrochemical plastics, but they stress that claims depend on chosen scenarios such as renewable energy use or feedstock sourcing [4] [5].
2. Newer studies show meaningful variability—here’s where 406 g/kg comes from
A recent 2025 case study found a cradle‑to‑gate GWP of about 406 kg CO2e per tonne PLA (≈406 g/kg) for cane‑sugar‑based PLA, a materially lower number than 500 g/kg under the study’s process assumptions and regional dataset [2]. That study attributes reductions to feedstock choice and optimized processing, notably energy efficiency improvements and agricultural practices. This demonstrates that PLA’s GWP is sensitive to technological and geographic variables, and improved manufacturing or cleaner electricity mixes can reduce emissions below the 500 g/kg benchmark.
3. Important technical reasons numbers diverge across LCAs
Differences across LCAs stem from system boundaries (cradle‑to‑gate vs cradle‑to‑grave), allocation methods for co‑products, feedstock origin, land‑use change accounting, and regional electricity grids. Some assessments exclude indirect land‑use change or use average grid intensities, while others model best‑practice plants. These methodological choices can swing results by tens of percent, explaining why studies report 406 g/kg in one case and about 500 g/kg in others [4] [3]. Standardization and transparency in LCA reporting are crucial to make apples‑to‑apples comparisons.
4. What the peer‑reviewed literature and reviews conclude collectively
Systematic reviews and LCAs consistently find that PLA can offer substantial GWP reductions relative to conventional fossil plastics under realistic conditions, but they stop short of a single definitive value because of heterogeneity in methods and contexts [4] [2]. The 2019 peer‑reviewed study that reported ~500 g/kg remains a commonly cited benchmark in industry and some academic work [1]. Multiple sources together suggest a plausible cradle‑to‑gate band of roughly 400–500 g CO2e/kg, rather than an exact universal number.
5. What’s omitted when only cradle‑to‑gate figures are quoted
Cradle‑to‑gate GWP omits downstream stages such as product use, collection, recycling, composting, or landfill impacts, which materially affect the overall climate footprint and circularity benefits. Stakeholders quoting cradle‑to‑gate numbers may underplay end‑of‑life emissions or the energy and infrastructure requirements for composting/recycling. Decision makers should insist on full supply‑chain transparency and comparable end‑of‑life scenarios to assess real climate benefits [5] [4].
6. Possible agendas and how to interpret industry claims
Industry statements, like that from TotalEnergies Corbion, serve commercial objectives and often cite favorable LCAs; this does not invalidate the numbers but calls for scrutiny of assumptions and independent verification. Academic and third‑party LCAs provide counterbalancing perspectives and updated analyses (2019 vs 2025 studies) that can confirm, refine, or undercut marketing claims [1] [2]. Treat both corporate and academic sources as informative but partial, and compare the underlying LCA datasets and assumptions.
7. Bottom line and what to ask next if you need certainty
The 500 g CO2e/kg claim is credible as a representative cradle‑to‑gate benchmark, supported by peer‑reviewed studies, but it is not definitive: a recent 2025 LCA found ~406 g/kg for cane‑sugar PLA under optimized conditions, showing achievable variation [2] [1]. For procurement or policy decisions, request the full LCA report with explicit boundaries, allocation rules, electricity grid assumptions, and sensitivity analyses, and compare multiple LCAs to determine where a given PLA supply chain falls within the ~400–500 g CO2e/kg range [3] [4].