Has this website been useful?

We depend on your financial contributions to keep it running!
  Please help us out with a donation today.

June 11, 2001

Hidden costs of decline in can recycling rate

By Pat Franklin

Misleading reports by industry associations on aluminum can recycling rates mask a growing problem with serious energy, environmental and economic implications.

The Aluminum Association last month reported a 62.1 percent aluminum can recycling rate in 2000, the lowest in 12 years. The rate is much lower when one examines the data closely. The trade groups are inflating recycling rates by including imported cans in the domestic recycling rate. When the 7.8 billion imported scrap cans are deducted from the number recycled domestically, the rate drops to 54.5 percent.

The Container Recycling Institute expressed concern about calculating the aluminum can recycling rate in 1999 in letters to the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, urging them to deduct the imported cans because they were not sold in the U.S. The EPA said it agreed and delayed the release of its annual Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste report to revise the recycling data. Still, the trade groups persist in using a calculation method that the EPA has rejected.

Last year, 101 billion aluminum beverage cans were sold in the U.S. Of those, 45 billion, with a scrap of value of $800 million, were wasted. That is, they were sent to landfills and incinerators, or ended up as litter. From an environmental perspective, the adverse impact of wasting so many cans is measured in terms of energy needed to make new cans, pollution resulting from manufacturing aluminum from virgin resources, and habitat destruction.

Primary aluminum smelting uses large quantities of electricity. The energy required to smelt aluminum for one can would keep a 100-watt light bulb burning for two hours. The 45 billion cans not recycled last year wasted enough electricity and fossil fuel energy to power 3 million homes for a year.

About half of the aluminum smelted in the U.S. uses hydroelectric power. The damming of rivers to produce hydroelectricity damages habitats and fish populations and displaces hundreds of thousands of indigenous people from their homes around the world.

It takes four times as much energy to make new cans by mining bauxite, refining aluminum and smelting primary aluminum ingot than it does to make new cans from recycled cans. Making four cans from recycled scrap uses the same amount of energy it takes to make one can from virgin material.

Disposing of 45 billion cans instead of recycling them also has economic implications. Recycling supports more jobs than trash disposal, streng-thening local economies and reducing taxpayers´ burden of disposal and litter costs.

In states where refundable deposits are required, aluminum cans and most glass and plastic bottles are recycled at rates above 80 percent. The rate in non-bottle-bill states is less than 40 percent.

Financial incentives play a critical role in achieving high recycling rates. Aluminum's scrap value of 1 to 2 cents per can gives it an advantage over other materials in non-deposit states. The highest rates of aluminum recycling are in states with refundable deposits.

It is time to take a close look at aluminum can recycling, both to develop a more accurate picture of recycling rates and to address the growing waste problem. A collaborative approach involving industry, recycling professionals, government and environmental groups is needed to solve these problems and move the U.S. toward sustainable packaging practices.

Franklin is executive director of the Container Recycling Institute