Economic and Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State of...
-
Upload
walter-albro -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Economic and Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State of...
Economic and Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System for Beverage Containers in the State
of Washington
Dr. Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Mgt.
Rick Hlavka, Green Solutions
Bill Smith, City of Tacoma
Background
• City of Tacoma planned to transition to a fully automated curbside recycling system
• Decision required to add glass to recycling or not collect it curbside anymore– Glass is currently collected separately– Glass is a contaminant to the other
commodities– Pierce County recently dropped curbside
glass collection
History of Container Deposits in Washington
• Prior to 1970 deposit glass bottles were the norm
• Phased out by aluminum cans and “no deposit no return” bottles
• 1970 Citizen initiative to establish nation’s first container deposit system
• Industry responded with the “Model Litter Control Act” that established a litter tax
• Both initiatives were on the ballot in 1971• Deposit system defeated 51%-49%
Economic Benefits of a Deposit System
• More Jobs– Recycling Creates jobs at a 7:1 ratio over
disposal
• Increased Revenues– More Recycling Revenues from increased
container recovery• Collectors• Residents• Businesses
• Decreased collection and disposal costs
Environmental Benefits of a Deposit System
• Reduced GHG Emissions
• Increased Public Health
• Reduced emissions of chemical substances into the air, water and land
• Retention of natural open spaces not needed for energy or resource production
• Reduced Litter
$ Economic Benefits for WA
• Unredeemed Deposits $ 36.4 million• Increased Material Sales $ 28.1 million• Decreased Collection Costs $ 1.8 million• Decreased Disposal Costs $ 3.5 million• Decreased Recycling Costs $ 4.0 million• Decreased Litter Costs $ 1.1 million• Increased Jobs $ Net Benefit• Total Economic Benefits $72.36 million
System Costs
Retail Stores Redemption Centers
Third Party Organization
Millions of Containers
3,643 3,643 3,643
Cost Per Container
$.0407 $.0162 $.0221
Total Cost (Millions)
$148.27 $59.02 $80.51
System Costs
• Costs at Retailers are the highest due to wages paid to store personnel.
• TPO costs based on small data samples due to difficulty obtaining cost data from the few that exist. – RBRC, Carpet Alliance
• Redemption Centers the least expensive due to some automation from reverse vending machines
$ Environmental Benefits
• Reduced GHG Emissions $11.3 million• Avoided Acidification $ 1.2 million• Avoided Eutrophication $ < $500• Reduced DALY $ 3.6 million• Reduced Human Toxicity$ 600,000• Reduced Ecological Toxicity $ 2.5 million• Reduced Disposal Impacts $ 300,000• Reduced Litter ↑ Health $ 1.4 million• Total Env. Benefits $20.9 million
Life Cycle Impact Categories & Estimated Costs of Releases
• Global warming: CO2 equivalents @ $36/ton• Human toxicity: lead equivalents @ $4,293/ton • Ecological Toxicity: 2,4-D equivalents @
$3,280/ton • Criteria air pollutants: DALYs (disability-adjusted
life years) @ $45,771 per year• Acidification: SO2 equivalents @ $260/ton• Eutrophication: N equivalents @ $4/ton
Total Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Recycling LifeCycle Energy
Usage
Total RecyclingLife Cycle
Energy Usage
Total TrashyLife Cycle
Energy Usage
Net Trashy LifeCycle Energy
Usage
Mill
ion
Btu
s P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
.
Net EnergyImpact
LFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
VirginContentMfg.RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
Garbage Landfillingwith LFG EnergyRecovery
Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Mill
ion
Btu
s P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
.
Net EnergyImpact
LFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-7500.0
-5000.0
-2500.0
0.0
2500.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Gre
en
ho
use G
as E
mis
sio
ns P
er
To
n C
olle
cte
d
.
Net Green-house GasImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recycling
with ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
Garbage
Landfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
Pounds of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
Net Acidification: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-50.0
-25.0
0.0
25.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Aci
dif
yin
g E
mis
sio
ns
Per
To
n C
olle
cted
.
NetAcidifica-tion ImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
Pounds of Hydrochloric Acid Equivalents
Net Eutrophication: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-0.150
-0.075
0.000
0.075
0.150
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Nu
trif
yin
g E
mis
sio
ns
Per
To
n C
olle
cted
.
NetNutrifica-tion ImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
Pounds of Phosphate Equivalents
Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-400.0
-200.0
0.0
200.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Mic
roD
AL
Y L
oss
es P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
.
Net Micro-DALYs Lost
LFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
DALY=Disability Adjusted Life Year (losses from criteria air pollutants)
Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-1500.0
-1000.0
-500.0
0.0
500.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Hu
man
To
xic
ity P
ote
ntial P
er
To
n C
olle
cte
d
. Net Human
ToxicityImpactLFG EnergyRecoveryOffsetLandfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recycling
with ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
Garbage
Landfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
Pounds of Toluene Equivalents
Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Eco
log
ical
To
xici
ty P
ote
nti
al P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
. Net
EcoToxi-city ImpactLFG EnergyRecovery
Landfilling
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageLandfillingwith LFGEnergyRecovery
Pounds of 2,4-D Equivalents
Net Energy Usage: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Mill
ion
Btu
s P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
.
Net EnergyImpact
EnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery
Net Greenhouse Gas: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-7500.0
-5000.0
-2500.0
0.0
2500.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Gre
en
ho
use G
as E
mis
sio
ns P
er
To
n C
ollecte
d .
Net Green-house GasImpactEnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery
Pounds of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
Net DALYs: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-400.0
-200.0
0.0
200.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Mic
roD
AL
Y L
oss
es P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
.
Net Micro-DALYs Lost
EnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery
DALY=Disability Adjusted Life Year (losses from criteria air pollutants)
Net Human Toxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-1500.0
-1000.0
-500.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Hu
man
To
xici
ty P
ote
nti
al P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
.
Net HumanToxicityImpactEnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery
Pounds of Toluene Equivalents
Net Ecotoxicity: SLO RLC vs. TLC
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
RecyclingImpacts
Net RecyclingImpact
GarbageImpacts
Net GarbageImpact
Eco
log
ical
To
xici
ty P
ote
nti
al P
er T
on
Co
llect
ed
. Net
EcoToxi-city ImpactEnergyRecoveryOffsetIncineration
Virgin Mfg.Offset
RecycledContentMfg.Shipping
Processing
Collection
Recyclingwith ClosedLoop Recycled-ContentManufacturing
GarbageIncinerationwith EnergyRecovery
Pounds of 2,4-D Equivalents
Why Now?
• We are experiencing the “perfect storm” of economic forces– Plastic recyclers are begging for materials
Most is now going to China, especially from the West Coast and even from the Midwest
– Rising Oil prices are making recycling products made from oil more important
• Plastic recycling is now a national and economic security issue
Why Now?
• Aluminum production uses a tremendous amount of energy– Recycling one can takes only 5% of the
energy that it would take to make the can from scratch
– 71% of the electricity produced in the US still comes from the burning of fossil fuels.
What’s Happening Now
• Beverage Producer Environmental Council– NRC and beverage producers have been
meeting since 2003 to come up with ways to reverse the declining recovery rate
– Announcement expected at national conference in early August
• Beverage Product Stewardship Team– 5 State governments working with the Product
Stewardship Institute to come up with creative solutions
What’s Happening Now
• Northwest Product Stewardship Council encouraging the formation of a task force in the State to address the issues brought forward in the report– Currently not much interest due to most of the
parties benefiting from the status quo• Litter Tax generates $6 million per year which
funds many environmental cleanup programs• Tax rate on the industry has not increased since
1971
What Can You Do?
• If your State has a container deposit, work with the environmental community to increase the deposit and expand the type of containers subject to the deposit.
• If your State does not have an existing container deposit system, work with the environmental community to adopt one.
• Assist your local product stewardship organization with economic studies and reports.
Contact Information
• Northwest Product Stewardship Council– www.productstewardship.net
• Product Stewardship Institute– www.productstewardship.us
• Dr. Jeffrey Morris– www.zerowaste.com