01The factors we use
| Activity | kg CO₂e per pallet | Confidence | Main driver |
|---|---|---|---|
| Build new, virgin softwood | 11–15 | Moderate | Harvest, mill, dry, assemble, distribute |
| Build new, hardwood | 13–18 | Moderate | Higher mass, more processing energy |
| Recover and reuse as-is | 0.4–0.8 | Good | Collection transport and handling |
| Recover and repair | 0.9–1.6 | Good | Above, plus replacement boards |
| Grind to fibre | 1.1–2.0 | Good | Processing energy |
| Landfill | 9–14 | Low | Anaerobic decomposition, methane |
| Manufacture virgin HDPE pallet | 45–90 | Moderate | Resin production dominates |
Notice that the landfill figure has the lowest confidence and one of the largest magnitudes. That is uncomfortable and it is honest: methane generation from landfilled wood depends heavily on the site, its gas capture, moisture and the decomposition timeframe assumed.
02Three ways these numbers get inflated
1. Counting sequestered carbon as a reduction
A 48x40 pallet contains roughly 18 to 22 kg of carbon drawn from the atmosphere while the tree grew. It is tempting to present that as a benefit. It is not an emissions reduction — it is carbon that was already sequestered and continues to be. Counting it as a saving double-counts the forest.
2. Comparing against the worst alternative
Comparing recovery against landfill produces a large number. Comparing it against a new pallet produces a large number. Comparing it against landfill plus a new pallet produces a very large number and is the comparison most often quoted, without stating that both effects are being combined.
3. Ignoring transport
Recovery emissions are dominated by transport. A pallet collected from twelve miles away and one hauled three hundred are not the same product. Anyone quoting a single recovery factor without reference to distance has not looked closely.
03What we actually claim
Two statements, both defensible.
- Recovering a pallet emits roughly an order of magnitude less than building a new one. 0.4–1.6 kg against 11–18. That gap is large enough to survive any reasonable challenge to the individual factors.
- Diverting a pallet from landfill avoids 9–14 kg of methane-driven CO₂e. Stated with the confidence caveat attached.
We report those separately rather than adding them, because whether both apply depends on the counterfactual — what would actually have happened to that pallet. If it would have been landfilled and replaced with a new one, both apply. If it would have been sold to another recycler, neither does.
04Building a defensible internal figure
- Establish the counterfactual. What would genuinely have happened without the intervention? This is the step most analyses skip and it determines everything downstream.
- Use ranges, not points. Report 'between X and Y', and say which end you consider likely.
- Separate measured from estimated. Tonnage is measured. Emissions factors are estimated. An auditor wants to see that boundary drawn.
- Cite your factors. Whether from a published database or a supplier, say where they came from.
- Re-run annually. Grid intensity, transport efficiency and landfill gas capture all change.
Our impact calculator shows the arithmetic on screen rather than returning a single figure, precisely so you can see which assumptions are driving the result and substitute your own. The reporting we issue with a recycling programme follows the same structure.
05The number that is bigger than all of this
Reuse. Not recycling — reuse. Seventy-five percent of what enters our yard leaves as a working pallet, either untouched or repaired. That avoids the manufacturing emissions of a replacement entirely, which is a far larger effect than anything that happens downstream of the grinder.
If you are assessing a recycler, ask what proportion of their intake is reused versus ground. Two operations can report the same diversion rate and be doing environmentally quite different things.
