State Activity Page

 

Home > Policy Issues > Beverage Container Recycling > Fact Pack

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)

Sources:
(1) Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling (BEAR). “Understanding Beverage Container Recovery: A Value Chain Assessment prepared for the Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project.” 16 January 2002. Global Green USA 4 February 2004 <http://www.globalgreen.org/bear/Projects/>.
(2) “Litter.” Container Recycling Institute, Bottle Bill Resource Guide. 4 February 2004 <http://www.bottlebill.org/impacts/litter.htm>.
(3) California Departmant of Conservation, Division of Recycling. “California Beverage
Container Recycling: Calendar Year 2002 Biannual Report of Beverage Container Sales, Returns, Redemption, and Recycling Rates.” 10 May 2003. State of California. 4 February 2004 <http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DOR/Notices/Images/BiAnnual02Long.pdf>.
(4) Container and Packaging Recycling UPDATE 13.1 (Summer/Fall 2003). Container Recycling Institute. 4 February 2004. <http://www.bottlebill.org/resources/pubs.htm>.
(5) “Aluminum Can Wasting Facts.” Container Recycling Institute. 4 February 2004 <http://www.container-recycling.org/publications/trashedcans/TCFactSheet.pdf>.
This package was last updated on February 10, 2004.