future

Recycling ...for the future Consider the benefits Recycling is everybody’s business. From industry to govern- ment, from schools to our very own households, America’s commitment to recycling has helped keep our communities clean and our economy strong. Federal agencies are further reducing waste generation, increasing recy- cling, and increasing purchases of recycled products. Working together, there is even more we can do. Today, we challenge every American to step forward, take action, and contribute to this important national effort. By bringing new partners to the recycling efforts of busi- nesses and families across the nation, we will better protect our natural resources, improve our quality of life, and strengthen our economy. — White House Task Force on Recycling Recycling...for the future Consider the benefits This is the first in a series of documents about the state of recycling in America published by the White House Task Force on Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention and Recycling (Task Force on Recycling). November 1998 Recycling is one of the best environmental success stories of the late 20th century. Today, curbside recycling collection programs reach the majority of the American population. In fact, more people recycle household waste than vote in elections. This nationwide, grassroots effort creates an immense flow of materials. Recycling, including composting, diverted 57 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in 1996, up from 34 million tons in 1990—a 67 percent increase in just 6 years. In 2005, the diversion rate resulting from recycling and composting is projected to reach 83 mil- lion tons, or 35 percent of all solid waste. To understand how large this amount is, imagine recycling boxes 3 feet long (9 cubic feet) filled with recovered materials stacked end to end, forming a bridge from the earth to the moon. In 1996, these boxes would reach three-quarters of the way to the moon. When we achieve our 2005 recycling goal of 35 percent, the boxes of recyclables will reach the moon. Is recycling worth all the effort? Is profitability the only bottom line? Some observers suggest that current profitability is the only measure of suc- cess. This perspective focuses solely on how an individual recycling program impacts a communi- ty’s total waste management costs, compared to the alternative of sending everything to a landfill or incinerator. Other observers suggest a broader view of the costs and benefits of recycling. Although experience differs from one recycling program to another, the most successful programs, including many with the highest diversion rates, are cost-effective and, indeed, profitable. Inevitably, markets for collected recyclables go up and down. To somewhat insulate recycling programs from severe market swings, the efficiency of recycling recycling for the future CONSIDER THE BENEFITS programs must continually be improved. One of the goals for the recycling community in the next decade must be to identify and replicate the factors that determine success. While efforts to learn from and adopt the methods used by the most efficient pro- grams are ongoing throughout the country, it is important to recognize the many eco- nomic and environmental benefits recycling already achieves. Many of these benefits either might not be apparent to casual observers, might be clouded by municipal accounting and taxing peculiarities, or might not be reflected in the mar- ket prices of contracts between cities and recyc- lers. The full energy savings from recycling used beverage containers, for example, is not included in the prices negotiated in a curbside recycling contract. The benefits from solid waste recycling also apply to waste streams other than those managed by municipalities, such as industrial wastes, construction and demolition debris, and agricultural wastes. Recycling materials from these sources also enhances the sustain- ability of the planet and the future of our children. At least eight categories of benefits result from the recycling of solid waste. Recycling: � Reduces the need for new landfills � Prevents emissions of many air and water pollutants � Saves energy � Supplies valuable raw materials to industry � Creates jobs � Reduces greenhouse gas emissions � Stimulates the development of greener technologies � Conserves resources for our children’s future It is important to recognize the many economic and environmental benefits recycling already achieves. Recycling has been one of the growth industries of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Recycling is not a fad. By 1996, more than 7,000 curbside col- lection programs served roughly half of the American population. In that year, recycling, including compost- ing, diverted 27 percent, more than a quarter of the nation’s solid waste. But recycling isn’t new; it’s as old as recorded history. Before the days of mass production, households rou- tinely repaired, reused, and recycled their material possessions as a matter of economic necessity. Then as now, key industries rely on recycling. Rags, for example, provided the principal source of fiber for the paper industry until the late 19th century. Corrugated boxes have long been collected by retailers for recy- cling back into shipping containers. Scrap yards have always efficiently recycled old automobiles, automo- tive parts, and other metal goods. World Wars I and II brought brief surges in recycling as scrap drives collected paper, metals, and other materials for the war efforts. After the war, scrap drives declined, and by the late 1960s, the overall levels of recycling and participation by individual households in the United States hit rock-bottom. Traditional forms of recycling also diminished with the explosive growth in America’s economy throughout most of the 20th century. Rising incomes and the spread of affordable mass-produced goods have allowed a life of growing material abundance. With this abun- dance came an increasing tendency to discard and replace products after their initial use, rather than to reuse or recycle them. The surge in environmental activism and awareness that began in the early 1970s led to a new wave of interest in recycling. As many as 3,000 volunteer recycling centers opened in the years following the first Earth Day in 1970. More than 100 curbside collection programs were set up in the early 1970s, many of them concentrating on a few materi- als such as newspapers and cans. Interest in recycling and volunteer programs continued to expand. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and some state agen- cies developed guidelines, technical assistance, and targets for local efforts. Although waste generation grew by 25 percent in the 1970s, recycling grew by more than 45 percent. a brief history of recycling In the 1980s landfill shortages began to occur, particularly in densely popu- lated areas of the country, leading to garbage being transported long dis- tances, frequently across state lines. Waste management firms began to offer recycling programs, often in con- nection with proposals for new incin- erators or landfills. Community groups often called for even more ambitious recycling efforts, in the hopes of lim- iting or avoiding new disposal facili- ties. State and local governments played an increasingly active role in planning for waste management, in- cluding an expanded role for recyc- ling and composting. The combined effects of landfill shortages, resistance to accepting out-of-state garbage, and growing national attention to the issue prompted EPA to publish national pol- icy guidance—the 1989 Agenda for Action called for Americans to achieve a 25 percent recycling rate. By this time, there were about 1,000 curbside collection programs as well as count- less drop-off, workplace, and other recycling efforts. While waste genera- tion again grew rapidly in the 1980s, increasing by nearly 36 percent, recy- cling and composting shot up by nearly 132 percent during the decade, to 16 percent of total waste generation. Increased collection of recyclables initially created a greater supply of recovered materials than could be readily utilized by U.S. manufactur- ing companies. By the mid-1990s, however, industry was making mul- timillion dollar investments in pro- cessing and manufacturing technolo- gies specifically designed to use recovered materials instead of virgin raw materials to produce a broad range of products. Consumers have become increasingly aware of the important role they play when buy- ing products made from the same materials they collect for recycling. Government agencies at all levels have worked to ensure recycling’s viability by increasing government purchases of recycled-content prod- ucts. From 1990 to 1997, recycling continued to achieve double-digit growth, increasing to a total of 27 percent of solid waste generation—a growth of nearly 67 percent over the 1990 recycling rate, surpassing the national policy goal of 25 percent. The national trends in recycling are reflected in the experience of many cities and towns. To pick just one example, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was among the communities where volunteers opened a drop- off station in 1970. A few years later, a volunteer group called Recycle Ann Arbor began curbside recycling collection. Today, Ann Arbor’s municipal government offers its residents weekly collection of 23 types of recyclables and sea- sonal collection of four types of yard debris. These efforts, com- bined with widespread home com- posting, drop-off recycling, and the effects of Michigan’s bottle bill, allow Ann Arbor to divert 52 per- cent of its waste. Recycle Ann Arbor bids competitively for, and consistently wins, the city contract to provide recycling services. The high volume of diversion helps hold down the costs. In 1996, for example, Ann Arbor spent $71 per ton on recycling and compost- ing, compared to $86 per ton for trash collection and disposal. Communities such as Ann Arbor, which have achieved high diversion at low cost, provide use- ful models in the effort to improve the cost-effectiveness of local recy- cling programs throughout the country. the life of a steel can EXPLORATION Iron ore, limestone, and coal are discovered by blasting huge holes in the earth’s surface, with associated impacts on lands and biodiversity. EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING Raw materials are extracted from the earth, possibly displacing plant and animal habitats and polluting the air and nearby water sources. The extracted materials are then processed to remove impurities. COKE MAKING Coal is converted into coke, creating potentially haz- ardous air pollutants and carcinogenic substances which might be emitted. Then, coke is combined with limestone and iron ore in huge blast furnaces that create molten “pig” iron. LANDFILLING After being used, some steel cans are discarded... MANUFACTURING Molten steel is poured into molds, then con- verted into steel coils. DISTRIBUTION Cans are distributed to product manufactur- ers, who fill them with a range of products from paint to peaches. USE Products in steel cans are purchased and used. FABRICATION Steel coils are converted into cans of various sizes. PROCESSING Steel cans are separated from aluminum cans, cleaned to remove labels and food resid- uals, then crushed, baled, and sent to a mill to be melted down and made into new steel cans. No exploration, extrac- tion, or coke making occurs. RECOVERY …while others are recovered for recycling. THE BENEFITS OF RECYCLING STEEL The recycling of steel food containers and packaging between 1990 and 1996 resulted in: � Savings of almost 19 million British thermal units (Btus) of energy. � Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by almost 600 thousand metric tons of carbon equivalent. � Production of valuable materials worth $57 million. � Savings of almost 3 mil- lion cubic yards of landfill space. Overall steel recycling from all sources (e.g., old cans and bridges) in the United States was nearly 72 million tons with a total economic value of almost $6.8 billion. Recovering and reusing materials results in substantial environmental and societal benefits. The following sections detail how recycling reduces the need for new landfills, prevents pollution, saves energy, supplies valuable raw materials to industry, creates jobs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, stimulates development of greener technologies, and conserves resources for our children’s future. No one wants more landfills in their community. And certainly no one wants to live near a landfill. As long as we keep throwing out large amounts of trash, old landfills will fill up and new ones will have to be opened. Here the benefit from recycling is obvious: every cubic yard of material handled by a recycling or composting program is one less cubic yard of landfill space that is required. In 1996, recycling and composting diverted a total of 130 million cubic yards of materi- al away from landfills; in 2005, the projected diversion will be 195 million cubic yards. To handle this much additional waste—the situation we would have faced without recycling— we would have needed 64 more landfills, each of them large enough to serve the combined city populations of Dallas and Detroit, to be opened in our communities in 1996. Similarly, without recycling, we would need 92 such landfills in 2005. recycling… THE BENEFITS RECYCLING REDUCES THE NEED FOR NEW LANDFILLS Annual Landfill Space Saved From Recycling 1996 130 million cubic yards of material Equivalent to 64 large landfills 2005 195 million cubic yards of material Equivalent to 92 large landfills Many pollutants are released by the extraction and processing of raw materials. Some of these pollutants are known to be carcinogenic or toxic to humans, and some have effects, such as creating acid rain, that are damaging to natural habitats. In addition, for many new and high- volume usage chemicals, the long-term effects are unknown. Extensive life-cycle analyses find overall emissions to all environmental media to be lower when we use recovered rather than virgin materials. Recycling is a highly effective strategy for reducing all the categories of health risks and pollution resulting from virgin material extraction and processing. Recycling is a highly effective strategy for reducing all the categories of health risks and pollution resulting from virgin material production. RECYCLING PREVENTS EMISSIONS OF AIR AND WATER POLLUTANTS PURCHASING DECISIONS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Consider the impact of Executive Order 13101’s directive to all federal agencies to cease purchasing copier paper unless it contains 30 percent recycled content. For the paper industry alone, this decision will result in: � 450,000 to 500,000 fewer trees cut down annually for paper production. � 16,000 tons of carbon absorbed annually by the trees that remain standing. � 12 percent reduction in energy used in producing copier paper. � 14 percent average reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases. � 13 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste requiring disposal. � 13 percent reduction in water pollutants. Each of us makes purchasing decisions every day. The federal government only buys 2 percent of all the copier paper sold in the United States. Think of the positive impact on the environment if the remaining 98 percent of the copier paper sold contained recycled content. The extraction and processing of raw materials into manufacturing feedstocks are some of the most energy-intensive activities of industry. Reducing or nearly eliminating the need for these processes, therefore, achieves huge savings in energy. Recycling of aluminum cans, for exam- ple, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite. The amount of energy saved differs by mate- rial, but almost all recycling processes achieve significant energy savings compared to vir- gin material production. In 1996, recycling resulted in an annual energy savings of at least 408 trillion Btus, or 0.5 percent of all energy use nationwide. This is equal to the amount of energy used in 4 million households annually. In 2005, recycling is conservatively projected to save 605 trillion Btus, equal to the energy used in 6 million households. RECYCLING SAVES ENERGY Annual Energy Savings Resulting From Recycling 1996 408 trillion Btus Equivalent to energy used by 4 million households 2005 605 trillion Btus Equivalent to energy used by 6 million households Recycling of aluminum cans saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source. When cans, bottles, paper, and other products are recycled, they are processed into raw materials that can be used in the manufacture of new products. Much of the recent investment in the paper industry has been in mills and machines designed specifically to handle recovered paper. Today, 67 percent of the steel produced in the United States is made from recovered steel. The fastest growing steel companies rely upon mini-mills, whose electric arc furnaces recycle iron and steel scrap using only a fraction of the ener- gy required in traditional steel mills. This also allows the U.S. steel industry to compete more effectively in the global marketplace. In the aluminum industry, 42 percent of all production contains recovered aluminum. Our aluminum beverage cans contain an average of 55 percent recycled content. The industry buys more than $1 billion in recovered aluminum cans at prices that continue to make aluminum recycling an obvious economic success for community recycling programs across the United States. The dollar value of materials recovered from solid waste has become substantial: $3.6 billion in 1996 and a projected $5.2 billion by 2005. Recovered paper and paperboard account for about one-third of the total in both years. In 1996, the market value of recovered paper and paperboard was 24 percent of the value of all pulp mill shipments. By 1997, the paper industry relied on recovered paper for 45 percent of its feedstock. RECYCLING SUPPLIES VALUABLE MATERIALS TO INDUSTRY Annual Value of Materials Supplied From Recycling 1996 $3.6 billion 2005 $5.2 billion The traditional waste management system, involving garbage collection followed by landfilling or incineration, creates relatively few jobs. While no nationwide estimates of job creation are available, some local studies have found substantial impacts from recycling. Frequently, many of the recycling jobs are located in America’s inner cities where job creation is particularly critical. Recent studies of employment in northeast and southern states, bolstered by studies of the remanufacturing industry, indicate that recy- cling activities employ more than 2.5 percent of manufacturing workers. Applying these studies to the entire nation, recycling and remanufacturing activities account for approx- imately 1 million manufacturing jobs and more than $100 billion in revenue. Since unemployment is now at its lowest level in a generation, job creation might appear to be unnecessary. The fact that recycling continues to expand the job base and create tens of thousands of new jobs for a constantly growing labor force is a very important contribution toward sustaining stable employment rates in the future. Of equal importance is that many of these recycling jobs are in urban areas, and many are geared toward entry-level workers. Emissions