Container Recycling Institute by Susan Collins
-
Upload
rise-above-plastics -
Category
Documents
-
view
230 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Container Recycling Institute by Susan Collins
Rise Above Plas-cs
Beverage Container Li.er and Recycling
Susan V. Collins Container Recycling Ins-tute
October 20, 2012
Container Recycling Ins1tute:
Striving to make North America a global model for the collec1on and quality recycling of packaging materials.
What is Li)er? Any waste product that has been disposed of improperly,
without consent or in an inappropriate loca1on
Who Li)ers?
• Mostly male • Urban • Younger (18-‐34) • Employed outside the home • Predominantly single
Encorp Pacific 2011
California Residents Cluster Into Four DisRnct Groups Which Vary In Their AWtudes Toward Recycling
Socially Responsible
Redemp-on Valuers
Backsliders
Personal Priori-es
41%
23%
15%
21%
Lieberman Research Worldwide 2006
Hispanic Speaking Residents Would Benefit Most from Increased Educa-on and
Engagement
• Types of containers to recycle • Container Deposit Program
• Methods of recycling available
Hki "40"Rgt"Ecr kvc"Dgxgtci g"Ucngu."Tge{enkpi "( "Y cuvkpi ."3; 92/4228
2
322
422
522
622
722
822
922
: 22
3;92
3;97
3;:2
3;:7
3;;2
3;;7
4222
4227
© Container Recycling Institute, 2008.
*Eqp
vckp
gtu"r
gt"r
gtuq
p"rg
t"{gc
t+ UqnfY cuvgfTge{engf
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
(tho
usan
d tons)
Sold Wasted
PET Bo)le Sales and WasRng in the U.S., 1991-‐2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
% o
f U.S
. Pop
ulat
ion
with
Cur
bsid
e A
cces
s
Rec
yclin
g R
ates
© Container Recycling Institute, 2006
U.S. Access to Curbside Recycling vs. Recycling Rates for 3 Container Types, 1990-‐2002
Aluminum can recycling rate
PET recycling rate
Glass recycling rate
U.S. Curbside Access
Container Recycling InsRtute © 2009 11
SoluRon: Place a mandatory deposit on beverage containers to provide an incenRve to recycle and a disincenRve to li)er.
Container Recycling InsRtute © 2009 12
Why Beverage Containers? • Consumed on the go! (Industry esRmates that one third of all soa drinks sold are consumed away from home!)
• Comprise significant volume in the waste stream.
• Consume large amounts of energy in the manufacturing process.
• Significant greenhouse gas emissions can be avoided by recycling beverage containers rather than manufacturing new ones.
GHG Emissions from the Manufacture of Selected Materials (lbs of CO2e per unit)
ALUMINUM CANS (based on 68,2420 cans/ton)
GHG Emissions from the Manufacture of Selected Materials (lbs of CO2e per unit)
ALUMINUM CANS (based on 68,420 cans/ton)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
41% 51% 61% 71%
Recycled-Content Levels
Lbs
of C
O2e
per
uni
t
§ Requires distributors and retailers to collect a minimum refundable deposit, usually 5-‐10 cents on certain beverage containers
§ Creates a privately-‐funded collecRon infrastructure for beverage containers
§ Makes producers and consumers responsible for their packaging waste
Container Recycling InsRtute © 2009 14
What is a “Bo)le Bill”?
Container Recycling InsRtute © 2010 15
U.S. States with Container Deposit Laws
50% of all beverage containers
recycled in the U.S. come
from these 10 states
Container Recycling Institute © 2010 16
Quebec
British Columbia
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
Ontario
Alberta
New Brunswick
Saskatchewan
Prince Edward Island
Yukon
Canadian Provinces with CDL
Worldwide Trend Toward New and Expanded Beverage Container Deposit Laws (Since 2000) § Total of 45 programs worldwide § NEW! Germany, Hawaii, the Northern Territory of Australia, Guam, Estonia, CroaRa, Fiji and Turks and Caicos
§ Now 6 states have expanded laws (CA, OR, HI, CT, NY and ME)
§ OR, NY and CT Expanded in 2009 (water) § Ontario expanded in 2007 (wine, liquor); Alberta added milk in 2009
Container Recycling Institute © 2009 18
Container Deposit Return Programs Result in Higher Beverage Container Recycling Rates
Average Beverage Container Recycling Rates (By Weight)
Source: CRI’s 2008 Beverage Market Data Analysis (using 2006 data)
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
11 deposit states 39 non-‐deposit states
Aluminum cans
PET plasRc bo)les
Glass bo)les
Total, 3 materials
Recovery Rates
§ California: 82% (includes curbside) § OR: 84% for deposit containers; 37% for non-‐deposit containers (2005)
§ HI: 76% for 2010/11 § Range from 67% in NY (2007) to 97% in MI (10 cent deposit)
Container Recycling InsRtute © 2009 20
Bo)le Bills Reduce Li)er State Beverage Container
Litter Reduced Total Litter Reduced
NY 70 - 80% 30% OR 83% 47% VT 76% 35% ME 69 - 77% 35 - 56% MI 80% 38% IA 77% 38%
Source: “Trade-offs Involved in Beverage Container Deposit Legislation”, US GAO, 1990.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2005: Hawaii’s CDL program introduced
Pe
rcen
tage
Source: Ocean Conservancy InternaRonal Coastal Cleanup, 2003 -‐ 2010
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2008: 60% reducRon three years aaer implementaRon!
Percentage
Source: Ocean Conservancy InternaRonal Coastal Cleanup, 2003 -‐ 2010
ALUMINUM ALLIES
Aluminum AssociaRon: Goal of 75% by 2015 “Container deposit programs are a proven,
sustainable method of capturing beverage
cans for recycling. States that have deposit
programs have the highest can recycling
rates, on average at 74% or higher, while the
recycling rate in non-‐deposit states is around
38%.” (November, 2008)
Can Do!
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-‐consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. There are two related features of EPR policy: (1) the shiaing of responsibility (physically and/or economically; fully or parRally) upstream toward the producer and away from municipaliRes, and (2) to provide incenRves to producers to incorporate environmental consideraRons in the design of their products. While other policy instruments tend to target a single point in the chain, EPR seeks to integrate signals related to the environmental characterisRcs of products and producRon processes throughout the product chain.
OECD EPR Definition
PlasRc (and/or Paper) Bag Laws
§ Form: ban, fees, taxes § Worldwide – trend of rapid expansion § 45-‐50 CiRes in California have passed bans or fees
§ Bans and fees result in dramaRc reducRon in bag use
EPR for Packaging Laws
§ Total of 40+ programs worldwide § European laws address packaging § 4 laws in Canadian provinces address packaging and printed paper
• BriRsh Columbia law pending implementaRon • 1 bill was introduced in U.S., in Vermont, but did not pass
Canada’s EPR System
see inset
© StewardEdge, July 2010
white-‐washed symbols mean program proposed or under consideraRon
full-‐colour symbols mean program in-‐place or pending
Funded by a grant from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
North American Product Stewardship Councils (9/10)
Texas
Utah
Montana
California
Arizona
Idaho
Nevada
Oregon
Iowa
Colorado Kansas
Wyoming
New Mexico
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Washington
Arkansas
North Dakota
Louisiana Hawaii
Illinois Ohio
Florida
Georgia Alabama
Virginia Indiana
Mississippi
Kentucky Tennessee
Pennsylvania
North Carolina
South Carolina
West Virginia
New Jersey
Maine
New York
Maryland
New Hampshire Connecticut
Delaware
Massachusetts Rhode Island
British Columbia
Northwest
California
New York
Nova Sco-a
Bri-sh Columbia
Midwest
Texas
Minnesota Wisconsin
Michigan
© 2009 by the Product Policy InsRtute
Vermont
Permission for use of illustraRon granted by Product Policy InsRtute
Connec-cut
Product Waste Skyrockets
0
50
100
150
200
250
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Million To
ns Per Year
TOTAL
Products
Mineral
Food & Yard
EPA data from a report by the Product Policy InsRtute (PPI), Unintended Consequences: Municipal Solid Waste and the Throwaway Society. Permission for use of illustraRon granted by PPI.
Funded by a grant from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Defined*
“Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), otherwise known as Product Stewardship, is the extension of the responsibility of producers, and all enRRes involved in the product chain, to reduce the cradle-‐to-‐cradle impacts of a product and its packaging; the primary responsibility lies with the producer, or brand owner, who makes design and markeRng decisions.” * Source: CalRecycle
Funded by a grant from the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
• In a private residence, kitchen separaRon • NoRce yellow is color coordinated to match recyclables at point of collecRon
• This is outside a small collecRon of private residences • Yellow bags are from yellow kitchen container • Yellow bags are piled full of recyclables (see next picture) • Following pictures show close up of each of the container types in this picture
MulR-‐Family Complex
• Following pictures are from a large high-‐rise MulR-‐Family Complex
• LocaRon: East Berlin • January 2009
• Sign in front of bin area • “Proper throwing away saves money” • Six different source separated containers • Paper, recyclables, white glass, green/brown glass, bio/organic waste,
disposed garbage
• View inside of bin area. • In larger MulR-‐Family complexes, use of yellow bins
instead of plasRc bags like in previous picture at the smaller residence in Rendsburg
• This is inside a private residence near the kitchen • Furniture to hold crates with bo)les inside • Kept unRl “bulk trip” made to the buyback center to receive back
deposit on both the bo)les and crates