No Deposit No Return No Curbside Dealing with

No Deposit, No Return, No Curbside: Dealing with Plastic Bag and Bottle Waste in Less-Industrialized Countries Jennifer Gitlitz Container Recycling Institute “Take it Back!” Conference Washington, DC March 7, 2005 © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 1

No Deposit, No Return, No Curbside While a switch to plastic packaging has some great lifecycle implications long-term… …the advent of mega-retailers in less-developed countries has meant a change in the packaging mix worldwide. The problem: small retailers frequently took back glass bottles for reuse, while today’s plastic is generally one-way, with little or no recycling infrastructure in many countries. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 2

No Deposit, No Return, No Curbside Plastic bags–littered by consumers–have clogged sewers and hurt livestock. What should product makers be doing? Is litter their problem? Can design help? What are the implications of China buying up the lion’s share of scrap plastics on three continents? © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 3

Does a switch to plastic packaging have “great lifecycle implications long-term”? When transportation-related fuel savings of plastics over heavier materials (paper, glass, metal) does not apply: Beverage cans: no transportation-related fuel savings of PET over aluminum cans (appx. 14 single-serving PET bottles per pound vs. 33 cans per pound). Unit BTU savings dependent on recycling rates/recycled content. Increased per capita consumption: no benefit from going from tap water or fountain drinks to throwaway, single serving containers made of any material. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 4

Does a switch to plastic packaging have “great lifecycle implications long-term”? When transportation-related fuel savings of plastics over heavier materials (paper, glass, metal) does not apply: Switch from a locally bottled product to a product manufactured at a distance Switch from reusable net grocery bags or baskets to throwaway plastic bags, A switch from a commodity with an indisputable scrap resale value—such as aluminum—to a commodity for which markets are less lucrative. With a scrap values of 1 -10¢/lb, PET bags and bottles may be recycled profitably in major cities or coastal towns, but not necessarily in remote areas. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 5

The advent of mega-retailers has meant a change in the packaging mix © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 6

Plastic bag and bottle litter: a worldwide problem Sewage lines clogged: Lethal Bangladesh floods (1988, 1998) blamed on bags © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 7

Aesthetic nuisance Photo: Vince Cobb, Reusable. Bags. com © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 8

Damage to livestock and wildlife Photo: Earth Resources Foundation Photo: BBC © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 9

Measures to address plastic bag and bottle litter and waste: Plastic bag recycling Bag bans Bag fees or taxes Incentives to use reusable bags Refillable bottles Deposits with enforceable recycling goals © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 10

Recycling bottles & bags Plastic bag recycling: in the United States, only 4. 3% of the 4. 2 million tons of plastic “bags, sacks, & wraps” were recycled in 2001. Largest category is LDPE (60% of generation); also includes HDPE, PVC, PP, PS, and other resins. PET bottle recycling: in the United States, the overall PET bottle recycling rate has fallen from 33. 1% in 1995 to 19. 6% in 2003 (4 out of 5 sold are trashed). Deposits in 10 U. S. states are responsible for the differential in recycling rates for soft drinks (31%) and “custom” containers (11%). © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 11

Apparent Paradox: Growing Curbside Recycling, Shrinking Recycling Rate © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 12

Bag Bans India: Indian province of Ladakh banned plastic bags in early 1990 s. May 1 st is celebrated as “Plastic Ban Day. ” Australia: Bags banned in Coles Bay, Tasmania, April 26, 2003. Several other seaside towns followed. Fed. Env’t Minister hoping for total phase-out by 2007. Papua New Guinea: 1/1/05: ban on import, manufacture & sale of plastic bags. South Africa: banned bags <30 microns; Rwanda < 100 microns Bangladesh: Lethal floods in 1988 and 1998 blamed on bag-clogged sewers. Environment Conservation Act of 2002 banned sale and use of polyethylene bags in Dhaka. China: Changchun City (capital of Jilin Province): ban on sales of non-biodegradeable bags and plastic packaging and utensils. United States: Emmonak, Galena, Kotlik, and 30 other coastal Alaskan communities Alaska have banned the free distribution of plastic bags due to littered tundra & rivers; entangled seals & salmon. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 13

Other plans to ban, tax, or charge fees for plastic bags: China: Shanghai (fee proposed) Canada Kenya: plan to ban bags<30 microns; levy on remainder to fund education, reusables, and recycling Philippines Taiwan United Kingdom San Francisco: 17¢ bag fee under consideration by Board of Supervisors, indepenent study has been commissioned. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 14

Bag Fees and Taxes South Africa: In January 2002, the government required manufacturers to make plastic bags more durable and more expensive to discourage their disposal—prompting a 90 -percent reduction in use. Ireland: passed 15¢ “Plas. Tax” in March 2002, leading to 95% reduction in use. Italy: bag tax is 5 x more than cost of manufacturing the bags; has generated revenue and reduced bag use. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 15

Producer responsibility EU Packaging Directive Green Dot/Germany British Columbia U. S. bottle deposit laws, 11 states Peru (EPR law not enforced) Rio di Janeiro, Brazil © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 16

Can Design Help? Bottle Reuse: One third of the packaging for soft drinks, mineral water and wine in the European Union is refillable. About 90% of glass and PET beverage bottles in Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden are refilled. Compostable (biodegradeable) or photodegradeable plastic bags; technical and financial problems must be solved. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 17

Reusable bags Cotton, hemp, jute, string, straw, polyethylene, etc. Incentives needed: bag taxes, bans, or tax incentives to develop reusable bag industry. Free giveaways. New Zealand Green Bag: designed to accommodate supermarket baggers Demand for locally-produced jute bags soared after Bangladeshi bag ban. Photo: BBC © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 18

© Container Recycling Institute, 2005 19

Is there something product makers should be doing? Is litter their problem? These are ideological, not objective, questions. It’s up to citizens and consumers to tell their governments that products makers must assume responsibility for these problems. If product makers do not act voluntarily to implement design changes and/or recycling, they may face taxes, boycotts, bans, and patchwork regulation. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 20

Extended Producer Responsibility Laws Based on Polluter Pays principle Recycling goals should be set Physical and financial collection responsibility Must be enforceable © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 21

What are the implications of China buying up the lion’s share of scrap plastics on three continents? Snapshot of the United States: PET sales continue to grow Collection has plateaued Wasting is growing Proportion of scrap exports is growing © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 22

U. S. PET Plastic Bottle Sales, Recycling and Wasting, 1995 -2003 Source: data derived from “ 2003 Report on Post Consumer PET Container Recycling Activity, ” National Association of PET Container Resources, September 2004. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 23

PET Bottled Water Sales in the U. S. , 1997 -2003 © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 24

Growth of U. S. PET Exports (millions of pounds) Source: “ 2003 Report on Post Consumer PET Container Recycling A ctivity. ” NAPCOR, 2004. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 25

What are the implications of China buying up the lion’s share of scrap plastics on three continents? Insufficient onus on exporting countries to develop and maintain domestic recycling [manufacturing] infrastructure. In U. S. , manufacturing capacity and markets are not the issue; insufficient collection is. (Amcor closure. ) Short term: lost opportunities for economic development (valueadded from manufacturing goods rather than exporting scrap) Long term: risk of losing recycling markets in one fell swoop when China develops its own manufacturing capability for PET’s feedstock chemicals. © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 26

Bottle litter reduced with deposits Earth Day cleanup, Worcester, MA, 2003 In Massachusetts, the typical non-deposit beverage container is 14 times more likely to be littered than a bottle or can bearing a 5¢ deposit. Left: non-deposit bottles & cans Right: deposit bottles & cans © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 27

* Includes aluminum cans, non-refillable glass bottles, and PET bottles. Beverage Container Recycling/Redemption Rates in Selected Deposit States and Nationally: 1990 - 2000* © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 28

Container Recycling Institute 1601 North Kent St. , Suite 803 Arlington, Virginia 22909 703. 276. 9800 fax 703. 276. 9587 Email: jenny. gitlitz@verizon. net Website: www. container-recycling. org Pat Franklin, Executive Director Jennifer Gitlitz, Research Director © Container Recycling Institute, 2005 29