Summer/Fall 2004
Apathy And Foreign Demand Hit Markets
Download the Summer/
Fall 2004
Newsletter
Overseas sales of recovered post-consumer products have risen dramatically during the past year. In fact, according to Resource Recycling, the success of recycling in this country may be dependent on export markets.
China’s booming economy has resulted in demand for imported recovered paper that could exceed 10 million metric tons in 2004 (compare this to less than I million metric tons in 1995). The major supplier is the United States, which now sends 48% of it’s pulp and paper exports to China.
While the demand for product from places like China is increasing, the domestic supply is dwindling. This is partially due to an American public that is losing it’s passion for recycling. Even in hard core recycling strongholds such as Oregon, recycling recovery rates have flattened out or dropped over the past decade. Without an ongoing educational effort people tend to forget the issues involved in resource conservation and recycling. In municipalities and states dealing with financial deficits those recycling education efforts, as well as curbside collection programs, lose to other budgeting concerns.
Couple the international drain on the commodities market with less supply and the end result is a struggle for domestic processors to obtain sufficient product to stay operational. The domestic paper and paperboard industry has been greatly effected, with a number of producers either closing or idling recycled paper mills in 2003.
Worst hit is the U.S. steel industry. At the time of this publication, nearly three dozen steel makers are in bankruptcy court proceedings. And, according to a June 21st Article in Plastics News, Amcor PET Packaging is closing its pioneering recycling facility in Novi, MI…a possible sign of deep trouble for PET recyclers in North America due to a lack of materials.
Plastic By The Number
You may find one of these numbers inside a triangle on the bottom of a container. The # identifies the type of plastic used, but does not necessarily mean it is locally recyclable.
- Polyehtelyn Terephthalate (PETE or PET). Used for soda & water bottles, some cooking oil and other products.
- High Density Polyethelene (HDPE). Detergent bottles, milk containers, shampoos and other.
- Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC). A controversial plastic used in pipes, shrink wrap & a few food or detergent containers. (See article on page 2)
- Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) Container lids, dry cleaning bags, produce bags.
- Polypropylene. Some food containers and straws.
- Polystyrene. Styrofoam cups, packing peanuts, “to go” items.
- OTHER : primarily food containers.
Plastic Usage And Waste On The Increase
In 2002, only 21% of the plastic beverage containers produced in the U. S. were actually recycled, compared to 37% in 1995! Several factors have added to this decline, including:
- Mass production of single serve beverage containers
- Increased use of beverage containers away from home (and therefore away from convenient collection options)
- Lack of emphasis on collection at large public events.
- Corporate promotion of plastic containers as “recyclable” with no effort on their part to promote recycling or recovery of used containers. (Major bottling companies lobby heavily against Bottle Bills)
- Commingling of materials in the collection process, resulting in an increasing number of plastic bottles remaining in the paper that goes to paper mills or disposed of as residue at recycling facilities.
When purchasing food or beverages in plastic containers, remember that the recycling triangle on the bottom is there to draw your attention to the number. It is the number inside the triangle that identifies the plastic composition of the container. Markets determine whether or not it is recyclable.
Even those plastic containers that are being recycled are not necessarily made into more plastic containers. Most plastic food and beverage container producers utilize no recycled plastic content whatsoever! Recovered plastics are being used primarily to produce secondary products (such as clothing, carpeting and lumber) which are themselves not recyclable.
A large quantity of mixed plastic is being marketed overseas. It is estimated that 30-35% of the PET (#1) plastic collected in the U.S. in 2003 went to China.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
PVC’s (#3 Plastics): A public health hazard?
PVC’s (Labeled as #3 Plastic), often have a clean, clear look that strongly resembles #1 (PET). But PVC’s may be a dangerous contaminant to the recycling process in even very small quantities.
A report issued in June of this year by GRRN (GrassRoots Recycling Network in Madison, Wis.) argues that PVC’s can never be effectively recycled and should be phased out of the marketplace.
You may want to avoid PVC plastics because:
- Production requires cancer-causing chemicals that contaminate the air, land and water surrounding factories which produce them.
- The production of thousands of PVC products ranging from carpeting and wall covering to toys and medical products at hundreds of formulation facilities around the U.S. exposes thousands of workers and residents to these additives and byproducts.
- PVC’s require more toxic additives than any other plastic. Many of these toxic additives can be released from PVC products when they are used or handled by consumers.
- PVC waste is one of the largest sources of dioxin release during incineration. This effect can be created in open burning of trash in rural areas and in landfill fires. (source CHEC)
Recycling rates for aluminum down
Aluminum can recycling has long been a popular method of acquiring extra spending money. However, the recycling rate for aluminum cans has declined continually during the past five years and, at 50%, is much lower than the 65 % rate achieved in 1992. In those states where deposit laws do not exist the financial incentive to recycle has diminished along with the relative value of a single can. The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) estimates that more than 1 trillion cans have been disposed of in the U.S. since 1972, with an annual waste of $500 million worth of aluminum. In addition, aluminum smelters are being built primarily “…outside North America, in the Brazilian rainforests, on fertile lands in Mozambigue and in the heart of Europe’s last remaining wildernesses.; the Vatnakoejull Glacier in Iceland.” (Recycling Today, Aug 2004) These smelters exert a significant toll on the environment.
Ignoring decreasing national recycling rates and decades of progress in reducing the environmental impact of container production by making them lighter, Pittsburgh Brewing Co is introducing an aluminum beer can that weighs three times more than the current aluminum can! Anheuser-Busche Cos Inc. is considering following suit.
Pros and Cons of Single Stream Collection
People new to the City sometimes ask why we do not have “single stream” recycling. Single stream collection allows residents to mix all materials together in the same containers.
Single Stream collection simplifies the process for the participant and can increase both participation rates and the volume of material collected. There are, however, several disadvantages inherent in these programs. Swapping quality for quantity can come with a huge price tag in terms of collection and processing costs. Mixed materials must be sorted into marketable product, and recent studies have shown that between 16-26% of materials collected single stream, are then trashed, adding to staffing and equipment expenditures as well as disposal costs.
Glass which is broken and mixed in collection is no longer suitable for domestic glass container production and can then only be marketed either overseas or for use domestically in alternative products (such as road base). Faced with product contaminated by glass shards and other debris, paper mills must either turn down loads from single stream communities or absorb the additional costs of de-contamination.
A recent study by Resource Recycling indicates that in some areas single stream may prove its worth, but cost effectiveness depends on many factors, including public involvement and the availabilility of enough financial resources to address the issues presented.
Grand Junction’s curbside recycling program is growing in response to public interest and commitment. It is gradually moving in the direction of accommodating more mixed material to make it easier for residents, but must always keep in mind the economic viability of the program. We are grateful to all participants, who, by their efforts, make this a self-supporting program.
In the news
Missouri: Although Missourians are diverting more waste from landfills, they are generating more trash than ever. The Missouri Dept of Natural Resources has completed a study that ties increased waste generation to economics. Says Steve Mahfood, DNR director “If people have more money to spend, there’s more trash.” (Waste News)
Washington DC: The Architect of the Capitol, which oversees the Capitol’s grounds, has instituted a more comprehensive and aggressive voluntary recycling program, asking both House and Senate members and their staffs to separate papers for recycling.
A new purchasing program adopted by the EPA requires that agency employees buy green products. The hope is that other government agencies will adopt similar purchasing programs.
Phoenix, AZ: At an annual processing cost of $3.9 million (not including collection or administrative costs) Phoenix Recycles has developed a large-scale, cost effective, single stream recycling program. Reasons for the success of its program include: City ownership of its own facility, proximity to both domestic and foreign export markets, and a high volume and steady stream of materials collected, allowing for steady revenue.
Bottle Bill update
Currently the National Container Producer Responsibility Act of 2003, S1867 (See our Winter 2003-04 edition), introduced by Sen. James Jeffords is under consideration by the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Co-sponsors of the bill are Senators Daniel Akaka, John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, Tom Harkin and Patrick Leahy.
A comprehensive container deposit measure has been introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives. The measure would go into effect in 2006 and require ten-cent container deposits on beer, soft drinks, tea and water. The state would capture unredeemed deposits, with a portion of the funds to be used for financial assistance for college students.
Testimony given to the Colorado State Legislature by the Container Recycling Institute (CRI) in February of this year outlined the potential environmental, economic, and aesthetic benefits for the state. At least 1.6 billion beverage containers were not recycled in Colorado last year. Achieving a 70% recovery would save the energy equivalent of the total annual residential energy consumption of over 12,000 average Colorado households.