UK 2026: Lifecycle carbon‑footprint comparison — refillable e‑cigarettes vs tobacco cigarettes (analysis of GOV.UK disposable‑vapes impact assessment)

Introduction

The environmental debate around vaping has intensified in the UK. The GOV.UK disposable‑vapes impact assessment highlights a rapidly rising waste problem from single‑use devices, with projections showing hundreds of millions — and in some scenarios up to ~1.34 billion — disposable items in future years. At the same time, vaping has become more prevalent than smoking in Great Britain: 10.0% of adults used e‑cigarettes compared with 9.1% who smoked in 2024. With such scale, understanding the full lifecycle carbon footprint of refillable e‑cigarettes versus combustible cigarettes is a pressing policy and consumer question.

Key concepts: what a lifecycle carbon footprint should cover

When comparing products, a credible lifecycle assessment (LCA) measures greenhouse gas emissions and related environmental impacts from cradle to grave. For nicotine products this should include:

• Materials and manufacturing — raw materials (plastics, metal, batteries), energy used in manufacturing devices, filters and packaging.
• Distribution and transport — shipping components and finished products to wholesalers, retailers and consumers.
• Use‑phase — fuel and energy consumed during use (for vapes, production and transport of e‑liquid; for cigarettes, tobacco farming, curing and burning).
• End‑of‑life and waste — disposal, persistence of pollutants (plastic cigarette filters, electronic waste), landfill and incineration emissions, and recycling rates.

Only a full LCA captures trade‑offs: for example, a refillable kit may require a battery and more durable hardware (higher initial manufacturing emissions), but a longer service life and lower per‑puff materials waste.

What the evidence says (and what it doesn’t)

Recent analyses show both a growing awareness and important gaps:

• The GOV.UK disposable‑vapes impact assessment raises alarm about mounting waste streams from single‑use vapes, using projections that in some scenarios reach around 1.34 billion disposable items. This highlights a material waste challenge for policy makers.
• A 2026 scoping review of e‑cigarette environmental impacts concluded that evidence remains limited and emphasised that no formal lifecycle assessments exist that comprehensively compare e‑cigarettes with conventional cigarettes. It calls for rigorous, independent lifecycle studies.
• Industry and retailer updates in 2026 commonly claim that refillable e‑cigarettes produce less waste and fewer persistent pollutants than combustible cigarettes and single‑use disposables. These statements are useful but typically are not formal LCAs and therefore have methodological limits.
• Across environmental literature and industry commentary, cigarette butts — many with plastic filters — are repeatedly cited as a major and persistent source of plastic pollution, contributing substantially to the environmental burden of smoking.

Government analysts and academic commentators stress an important caution: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, the fact that strong LCA evidence is scarce does not prove that vaping is more or less climate‑friendly than smoking — it simply shows we need better data.

Comparing lifecycle stages: likely trade‑offs

Based on the available information and common sense LCA principles, here are the areas where refillable e‑cigarettes and combustible cigarettes differ materially:

• Materials and manufacturing: Cigarettes require continuous production of paper, tobacco and plastic filters. Filters are frequently plasticised, creating persistent litter. Refillable devices typically need more robust hardware, including batteries and circuitry. The initial embodied emissions per device may be higher for a refillable vape than for a single cigarette, but that cost is amortised over many uses.
• Use‑phase emissions: Combustion of tobacco releases CO2 and other pollutants every time a cigarette is smoked. Vaping does not involve combustion, so per‑use combustion emissions are absent — however, the production and transport of e‑liquid and electricity for charging contribute to the footprint.
• Waste and persistence: Single‑use disposables create a package‑plus‑device waste item per vaping user session; GOV.UK projections show this becoming a very large stream. Cigarette butts are the most commonly collected litter item worldwide and contain persistent plastics. Refillable systems reduce the frequency of device disposal and instead rely on refill liquids such as shortfill bottles. Examples of refill supplies commonly used in the UK include Fantasi 100ml shortfill e‑liquid and Bar Liq 120ml shortfill.
• Single‑use vapes and cartridges: Devices like Ifresh 10000 puffs disposable pod or refill‑cartridge systems such as Ezee 1050‑puff cartridges contribute to the rapid accumulation of waste if not recovered and recycled.

Policy and market implications

The UK vaping market is economically significant — estimated turnover was around £1.325 billion in 2021 — so material choices and regulation will meaningfully affect waste volumes and emissions. Key policy levers include:

• Regulating disposables: Restrictions, taxes or product standards could reduce single‑use device production and encourage longer‑lived, refillable designs.
• Extended producer responsibility (EPR): Requiring manufacturers to fund collection and recycling of devices and batteries can reduce landfill and persistent pollutants.
• Incentives for refill and reuse: Promoting refill e‑liquids and durable kits over disposables may lower per‑puff material waste; retailers and consumers can support this by choosing refillable systems and responsibly disposing of batteries and e‑waste.
• Independent lifecycle research: Commissioning formal LCAs that compare refillable vapes, disposable vapes and combustible cigarettes is essential to inform policy and consumer guidance.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that refillable e‑cigarettes have the potential to produce less waste and fewer persistent pollutants than single‑use disposables and possibly fewer lifecycle emissions than combustible cigarettes — but that potential is not yet proven by comprehensive, independent lifecycle assessments. The GOV.UK impact assessment underlines the scale of the waste challenge from disposables, while the 2026 scoping review and government commentators stress that rigorous LCAs are still missing.

For consumers and retailers, practical steps today include favouring refillable systems and refill liquids, using reputable recycling schemes for batteries and devices, and reducing reliance on single‑use disposables. For policy makers and researchers, the priority is clear: fund and produce formal, transparent LCAs that compare realistic product lifetimes, consumer behaviours and end‑of‑life scenarios. Only then can we move from informed speculation to evidence‑based policy on the carbon and waste impacts of nicotine products in the UK.