November 14, 2004

Trashing the can

Decrease in recycling has activists, businesses concerned

Monday marks the seventh annual America Recycles Day.

But despite the rise of the environmental movement during the past four decades, Americans are recycling fewer aluminum cans and plastic bottles.

Can recycling, in particular, has continued to decline after reaching a high point 12 years ago, forcing big food and drink packagers like Broomfield-based Ball Corp. to take notice.

The trend affects the prices consumers pay and the energy resources used, and ultimately shortens the length of time it takes landfills to pile up trash.

In 1992, 62.7 billion cans, or 68 percent of the total cans in the country, landed in recycling bins, according to the Aluminum Association, a business trade group in Washington, D.C.

Last year, only 49.9 billion cans, or 50 percent, got recycled, the group says.

Plastic bottle recycling, particularly the polyethylene terephthalate, or PET, ones used for soft drinks, also has lagged.

The problem is big enough that Ball hired its first-ever recycling manager last year to coordinate programs and work with cities and groups. The company, with $5 billion in annual sales, produced 45 billion cans worldwide last year, more than 75 percent of them in North America. Its PET division, though smaller in terms of revenue, grows each year.

Ball says it wants to be a good steward of resources. And from a competitive vantage point, it also says recycled aluminum is cheaper to buy.

"In the long run, it affects us economically," says Jim Fisher, Ball's vice president of packaging. "From an image perspective, we want our packages to be looked at as environmentally friendly and as a good choice for the consumer because of that."

Observers point to a number of reasons for the drop in recycling activity.

Some say the recycling message has waned after a crescendo in the 1990s. Some say it's too cheap for trash haulers and residents to toss away items. Some think more "bottle bills," which would refund a few cents to consumers for each can or bottled returned, are needed around the country. Others suggest bigger recycling bins would help, too.

Everyone agrees more consumer education is needed.

"It's shocking," says Eric Lombardi, executive director of the Boulder-based Eco-Cycle, of the declines. "(Materials are) so valuable. If they end up in the landfill, it's an indication that something is seriously wrong with the way America handles its discards."

Dumping $500 million

Cans are capable of getting circulated over and over again, making them uniquely valuable.

Since 1972, 1 trillion cans — worth about $21 billion in today's prices — plopped into landfills, according to estimates from the Container Recycling Institute, an environmental advocacy group.

"Americans are trashing $500 million dollars worth of aluminum each year," says Robin King, vice president of public affairs for the Aluminum Association.

Here's why cans are worth so much: New aluminum requires mining bauxite ore deposits. Companies like Alcoa Inc. and Alcan Inc. take those deposits, refine them into alumina and apply electricity to create the can sheets sold to manufacturers.

Making cans from recycled materials eliminates mining. And the processes needed to turn used cans into new ones capitalizes on natural gas, which consumes 95 percent less energy than the electricity needed with new aluminum.

The reduced energy consumption equates to about 15 million barrels of crude oil annually, says Gerri Walsh, Ball's manager of recycling.

That means lower costs, particularly as energy prices continue to climb. And lower costs increase the chances for cheaper prices paid down the line by shoppers.

A 2002 American Plastics Council report created by R.W. Beck Inc. shows PET recycling fell from 38 percent in 1994 to 20 percent eight years later. Plastics are considered valuable, but on the street, aluminum commands a higher premium.

Eco-Cycle typically shells out $1,000 for every ton of aluminum. It pays $100 for each ton of paper. Glass, by comparison, runs $25 to $30 a ton.

"We all love aluminum cans," says Lombardi with the 28-year-old Eco-Cycle, which pays for a wide range of recyclable items. "We want to get our hands on as many as possible."

Turning the tide

So why do cans and bottles, supposedly worth so much, get thrown out?

Both industry and environmental advocates think they have answers. Most say the recycling bins used by haulers are too small. More shifts to single-stream recycling — which means consumers can put materials together, rather than having to figure out how to sort them — would help, too.

Ball, along with business partner Adolph Coors Co., also Cans movethrough the production line at Rocky Mountain Container at the Coors Brewery site in Golden.

This huge rollof sheet aluminum is used to make cans at Rocky Mountain Container at the Coors Brewery site in Golden.

for Colorado in the upcoming legislative session, although past attempts have died.

Ball says it's not convinced such bills really work. Any extra costs the manufacturers or beverage companies tack on to compensate for the deposit in the 11 states hasn't created a noticeable dent in sales, Ball says, but a stronger emphasis on education and curbside collection services would achieve bigger results.

While widespread recycling marketing efforts 10 or 15 years ago resonated with Baby Boomers, Ball's Walsh says there's been fewer publicity attempts to entice a new generation of recyclers. New ones are needed, she says.

Another big-scale approach: how trash gets handled. The strongest example involves city requirements on private collectors for making trash-throwing more expensive while also including free recycling services.

Collectors who own their own landfills — and who may stand to gain by the trips they make to those sites, rather than extra trips to alternate destinations — might not agree. The land for landfills in Colorado tends to run cheap, much more so than on the coasts.

Boulder-based Western Disposal, which doesn't own a landfill, says it favors some regulation. Rather than pay to dump at a landfill, the company says it prefers getting paid to drop off recycled materials gathered by residents and businesses.

In Boulder, the city makes haulers charge the same amount for each trash can set out by residents, also known as "volume-based rates," while requiring unlimited numbers of recycling bins be offered at no additional charge.

Western Disposal's basic service in the city, including one trash can, costs $17 a month, and additional cans cost $9 each.

Before Boulder's rule, more than 50 percent of Western Disposal's 17,000 customers in the city set out three or more cans of trash. Now, more than 50 percent use one can or less, says Gary Horton, the company's president.

The city's policy has worked well because all haulers have to play by the same rules, he says.

By comparison, Western Disposal charges its remaining 13,000 customers in Boulder and Broomfield counties $15.75 for basic service and one can, plus only $1.25 for each additional can, and $3.75 to $5.25 for recycling services, depending on whether the resident uses their own bin.

The company does so because that's what the competition is charging, and none of the other cities set any mandates, Horton says.

"What's happened is, volume-based rates have given people big incentives to recycle and keep their trash down," he says.

Ball's Fisher says the company supports "pay-as-you-throw" strategies as well.

Changes are needed, observers agree. With Monday's recycling events, they hope word spreads. Otherwise, cans and bottles with so much potential wind up squandered.

"We feel strongly that it's one of the advantages of the aluminum container because it is forever recyclable," Fisher says. "As a product that has high value, it's disappointing to us to see it thrown in the landfill."