Fact Pack
Environmental Benefits
Environmental benefits already realized from beverage container
recovery programs:
|
Glass |
Aluminum |
Plastic |
Total |
PET |
HDPE |
Baseline Recycling Statistics |
|
Recycled in 1999 (Thousands of Tons) |
2,000 |
840 |
330 |
220 |
3,393 |
Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions |
|
Avoided GHG Emissions (MTCE Per Ton) |
.16 |
4.09 |
.72 |
.44 |
|
Avoided GHG Emissions (Thousands of MTCE)
|
320 |
3,436 |
240 |
97 |
4,093 |
Energy Savings |
|
Avoided Energy per Ton (Million Btu) |
1.37 |
158 |
.19 |
26.25 |
15.17 |
Avoided Energy (Billion Btu) |
2,740 |
132,880 |
8,741 |
3,337 |
147,698 |
Equivalent (Thousands of Barrels of Oil) |
472 |
29,910 |
1,507 |
575 |
32,464 |
Avoided Litter |
|
Containers Per Ton |
4,581 |
66,225 |
26,702 |
26,702 |
|
Avoided Litter (Millions of Containers) |
91.6 |
556.3 |
88.9 |
58.7 |
795.5 |
Avoided Landfill Space |
|
Volume (Cubic Yard Per Ton) |
3.0 |
8.4 |
9.8 |
15.6 |
|
Avoided LF Space (Millions Cubic Yards) |
6.0 |
7.0 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
19.7 |
Source: Tellus Institute and Sound Resource Management
Group(1)
Recycling beverage containers yields significant environmental
benefits.
A 2002 BEAR (Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling)
report, “Understanding Beverage Container Recycling,”
includes a list of benefits that result when beverage container
recovery programs are implemented:
- Energy use is reduced and greenhouse gas emissions (which contribute
to global warming) are avoided. Other harmful emissions to air
and water are also avoided.
- Use of land for disposal of waste and for the extraction of
virgin materials is reduced.
- Litter is reduced, as shown in deposit states, leading to reduced
human injuries and avoided harm to farm machinery and animals.
These benefits are significant. For example, the energy saved is
equivalent to over 32 million barrels of oil per year. These environmental
benefits are currently dominated by those associated with aluminum
can recycling. However, there are also environmental benefits associated
with recycling plastic and glass. The reduced energy use and pollution
resulting from recycling accrues when recovered containers are recycled
in manufacturing new products. Recycling beverage containers also
results in avoided garbage collection and landfill costs. This report
did not attempt to quantify the costs and benefits associated with
these environmental externalities.(1)
Bottle bills have proven successful for litter prevention. Below
is a table of litter reduction by state:
State |
Beverage Container Litter Reduction |
Total Litter Reduction |
New York |
70 - 80% |
30% |
Oregon |
83% |
47% |
Vermont |
76% |
35% |
Maine |
69 - 77% |
34 - 64% |
Michigan |
84% |
41% |
Iowa |
76% |
39% |
Massachusetts |
N/A |
30 - 35% |
Source: Bottle Bill Resource Guide - Environmental
Impacts (2)
Effectiveness of Deposit Systems
Deposit systems result in the highest level of recovery.
In 1999, traditional deposit systems had an average redemption
rate of 78 percent (varying from a high of 95 percent in Michigan
to a low of 72 percent in Massachusetts) and targeted, on average,
79 percent of all container types, for an overall recovery rate
of 61.6 percent (422 containers per capita). About 30 percent of
these redemptions occurred through reverse vending machines.(1)
In the study year of 1999, California’s unique redemption
system achieved a redemption rate of 69 percent and targeted 79
percent of container types, for an overall recovery rate of 54.5
(373 containers per capita).(1) California’s
program was greatly expanded in 2000 and the percentage of containers
redeemed has initially declined. The overall beverage recycle rate
in California for the 2002 calendar year, however, was 58%(3)
indicating that the new system is functioning well. California is
now focusing on increased recycling of bottled water containers.
Deposit systems recover containers from all generators and have
little, if any, yield loss in the recovery stage. As a region, the
ten deposit states achieved, through all types of recovery programs,
an overall recovery rate of 71.6 percent, compared to 27.9 percent
in non-deposit states.(1)
Cost of Deposit Programs
Traditional deposit systems have the highest gross cost.
Traditional deposit systems have the highest overall recovery rate
at 61.6 percent. Gross costs for traditional deposit systems are
about 3.61 cents per container. Net costs including revenue from
material sales are about 2.21 cents per container. In this study,
70 percent of all redemptions in traditional deposit systems are
assumed to be through “manual” systems, with the remaining
30 percent through reverse vending machines. Manual deposit systems
that require handling and redeeming containers in retail stores,
and sorting containers by distributor and/or by brand are relatively
costly, with gross costs of 4.07 cents per container and net costs
including material sales of 2.67 cents. Using reverse vending machines
can reduce the gross cost of traditional deposit systems to 2.53
cents per container and the net cost, including material sales,
to 1.13 cents. Deposit systems yield the highest quality materials
with the highest market values.(1)
However, if unredeemed deposits are included as a revenue source,
the comparison of program costs changes drastically.
In seven of the nine traditional deposit systems, these funds are
allowed to remain with distributors to offset their costs of implementing
the program and, in the California system, they are distributed
to recyclers by the state administrating agency. Based on a comparison
of net costs that includes revenue from material sales and (for
deposit systems) revenue from unredeemed containers, curbside programs
are most costly (1.72 cents per container), followed by manual traditional
deposit systems (0.80 cents per container) and residential drop-off
programs (0.30 cents per container). On average, the California
redemption system and reverse vending machine based deposit systems
show a surplus when unredeemed deposits are included (0.42 and 0.28
cents per container, respectively).(1) |