|
The report concluded that traditional deposit systems yield the highest
overall recovery rates, followed by curbside collection programs and
residential drop-off programs. Overall recovery rates in the 10 states
with deposit systems in place were 71.6%, compared to 27.9% in non-deposit
states.
Traditional deposit systems had the highest overall recovery rate (61.6%)
and the highest gross costs (3.61 cents per container). Handling fees
and wages were the largest factors affecting cost. For example, labor
costs made up 82% of total costs for redemption centers, while container
distributors paid 69% of their total processing costs in handling fees
to collection facilities. Distributors also incurred labor, operating,
and rental expenses that totaled 0.84 cents, after deducting revenues
from scrap materials and unredeemed deposits. Deposit systems also generated
the highest quality materials with the highest market values.
The report also found that reverse vending machines (RVMs) reduced
the gross cost of traditional "manual" deposit systems by 30% (to 2.53
cents per container) and net costs by over 50% (to 1.13 cents per container)
by reducing labor costs. By 1999, approximately 30% of containers
redeemed in the nine deposit system states were estimated to be through
the use of un-attended RVMs. When revenues from unclaimed deposits were
deducted from net costs, RVMs generated net revenues of 0.28 cents
per container ($69 per ton), equivalent to 10% of original gross costs.
Curbside recovery programs had the second highest overall recovery
rates (18.5% in non-deposit states and 9.5% in deposit states) as well
as the second highest gross costs (2.48 cents per container). Residential
drop-off programs had the lowest overall recovery rate (5.4% in non-deposit
states and 1.6% in deposit states) and gross costs (1.1 cents per container).
The assessment also closely analyzed the California redemption system
and found the system operating costs were among the lowest identified.
They attributed these lower costs to lower collection and processing
costs made possible by delivering containers to centers already sorted,
eliminating the need for brand sorting. Other reductions included
lower retailer costs as well as cost savings due to the predominance
of "old-line recyclers" with existing infrastructure. Overall recovery
rate in CA was 54.5%, while gross and net costs were 1.62 and 0.55 cents
per container, respectively.
The final chapter of the report documented the environmental and economic
benefits of beverage container recycling. They calculated that recycling
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 4,108,960 metric tons of carbon
equivalent; over 84% reduction was due to aluminum recycling, with the
balance equally divided between glass and plastic recycling. Additionally,
recycling reduced national energy consumption by 32 million barrels
of oil, and saved 20 million cubic yards of landfill space. Economic
benefits included increases in manufacturing jobs and preserving manufacturing
employment in the U.S. by improving American industry competitiveness.
The report was initiated by the coalition of Businesses and Environmentalists
Allied for Recycling (BEAR) as Stage One of the Multi-Stakeholder Recovery
Project (MSRP), a three-stage initiative to evaluate options for moving
towards the coalition's 80% beverage container recycling goal. Stage
Two and Stage Three involved gathering consensus for national recovery
programs and implementation of these programs respectively.
Regrettably, Coca-Cola withdrew in February from participating in
a follow-up process to this report that would have sought to achieve
consensus on a recovery program. We believe this unfortunate step backwards
calls into question Coca-Cola's commitment to setting container recovery
goals.
For Full Report, visit the Global Green U.S.A. website at www.globalgreen.org.
For press release, click here.
|
