Container Recycling Institute by Susan Collins by Rise Above Plastics

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

How Stuﬀ Becomes Li)er •  Wind •  Full receptacles •  Carelessness

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

21% 41% 15%

Socially Responsible Redemp-on Valuers Backsliders Personal Priori-es

23%

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

Beverage Li)er is Preventable!

Hki "40"Rgt"Ecr kvc"Dgxgtci g"Ucngu."Tge{enkpi "( " Y cuvkpi ."3; 92/ 4228 : 22 922

Uqnf Y cuvgf Tge{engf

822 722 622 522 422 322

4227

4222

3; ; 7

3; ; 2

3; : 7

3; : 2

3; 97

3; 92

*Eqpvckpgtu"r gt"r gtuqp"r gt"{gct+

PET Bo)le Sales and WasRng in the U.S., 1991-‐2009

3000

(thousand tons)

2500

2000

1500 1000 500 0

Sold

Wasted

U.S. Access to Curbside Recycling vs. Recycling Rates for 3 Container Types, 1990-‐2002 100%

100%

PET recycling rate

80%

Glass recycling rate

70%

U.S. Curbside Access

2002

10% 2001

10% 2000

20%

1999

20%

1998

30%

1997

30%

1996

40%

1995

40%

1994

50%

1993

50%

1992

60%

1991

60%

1990

Recycling Rates

90%

Aluminum can recycling rate

% of U.S. Population with Curbside Access

90%

SoluRon: Place a mandatory deposit on beverage containers to provide an incenRve to recycle and a disincenRve to li)er.

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 GHG Emissions from the Manufacture of Selected Materials (lbs of CO2e per unit) Selected M aterials (lbs of CO2e per unit) ALUMINUM CANS (based on 68,420 cans/ton)

ALUMINUM CANS (based on 68,2420 cans/ton) 0.45 0.40

Lbs of CO2e per unit

0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 41%

51%

61%

Recycled-Content Levels

71%

What is a “Bo)le Bill”?

§  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

U.S. States with Container Deposit Laws 50% of all beverage containers recycled in the U.S. come from these 10 states

Canadian Provinces with CDL Quebec British Columbia Newfoundland Nova Scotia Ontario Alberta New Brunswick Saskatchewan Prince Edward Island Yukon Container Recycling Institute ÂŠ 2010

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 Deposit Return Programs Result in Higher Beverage Container Recycling Rates Average Beverage Container Recycling Rates (By Weight)

80.0% 70.0%

Aluminum cans PET plasRc bo)les

60.0%

Glass bo)les Total, 3 materials

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% 11 deposit states

39 non-‐deposit states

Source: CRI’s 2008 Beverage Market Data Analysis (using 2006 data)

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)

Bo)le Bills Reduce Li)er State NY OR VT ME MI IA

Beverage Container Litter Reduced 70 - 80% 83% 76% 69 - 77% 80% 77%

Total Litter Reduced 30% 47% 35% 35 - 56% 38% 38%

2005: Hawaii’s CDL program introduced

16 14

Percentage

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: Ocean Conservancy InternaRonal Coastal Cleanup, 2003 -‐ 2010

2010

2008: 60% reducRon three years aaer implementaRon!

16 14

Percentage

10 8 6 4 2 0 2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: Ocean Conservancy InternaRonal Coastal Cleanup, 2003 -‐ 2010

ALUMINUM ALLIES

Aluminum AssociaRon: Goal of 75% by 2015

“Container deposit programs are a proven,

Can Do!

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)

OECD EPR Definition

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.

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

full-‐colour symbols mean program in-‐ place or pending white-‐washed symbols mean program proposed or under consideraRon

North American Product Stewardship Councils (9/10)

British Columbia

Bri-sh Columbia

Nova Sco-a Northwest

Midwest

Washington

Oregon

Montana

North Dakota

New York

Minnesota

Vermont

Maine

New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut

Iowa Pennsylvania New Jersey Nebraska Nevada Ohio Connec-cut Delaware Illinois Indiana California Utah Maryland Virginia Colorado California Kansas Missouri Kentucky Tennessee Oklahoma Arkansas Arizona New Mexico Alabama Georgia Hawaii Texas Louisiana Texas Idaho

Wyoming

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Michigan

New York

West Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Mississippi

Florida

Product Waste Skyrockets 250

TOTAL 200

Products

Million Tons Per Year

150

100

Food & Yard Mineral

1960 1960 1970 1970 11980 980 11990 990 22000 000 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)

Packaging Recycling Collection System (Photos from Germany)

•  •

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

•  Yellow bags contain recyclables •  Large mulR-‐family complexes use yellow bins

•  “Only paper”

•  Bio and organic waste only

•  Disposed garbage

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

•  Birds eye view of MFD bin area

•  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

Beverage Buy Back Center •  Rendsburg, Germany

•  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

•  Buyback center where crates are delivered and bo)les redeemed at RVM’s

•  More crates at buyback center

•  Igloos for collecRon of color-‐sorted glass

Thank you! Susan V. Collins

scollins@container-‐recycling.org 310-‐559-‐7451

Just type in: Container Recycling Institute! Visit us at…

www. container-‐recycling.org www.bottlebill.org (310) 559-‐7451