From: Morris, Jeffrey, and H. Scott Matthews, Development of a consumer environmental index
(CEI) & results for Washington State consumers, Journal of Industrial Ecology, forthcoming
2010.
Recycling Offsets
The CEI model uses the DST database to calculate emissions offsets (or
increments) when Washington State recycling rates are higher (or lower) than US
average recycling rates.i Manufacturing recycled-content products dramatically
reduces energy use and pollutant emissions versus virgin-content manufacturing.
Pollutant releases included in the upstream module represent the
upstream phase of a product’s life cycle at the US average mix of virgin- and
recycled-content. When MSW recycling rates in Washington are higher (or
lower) than US recycling rates, the CEI model gives Washington consumers a
credit offset (or debit increment) for the reduced (or increased) emissions.ii
These adjustments reflect the upstream emissions differential if the proportion of
virgin- and recycled-content manufacturing in the US reflected Washington State
recycling rates rather than US average recycling rates.iii The credit or debit is
calculated by revising 1997 US EIO-LCA model results within the upstream
module, as is done in hybrid life cycle analysis methods.
The recycling credit or debit is implemented across all EIO-LCA sectors
for paper (including all types of recyclable paper and cardboard as a group),
plastic bottles, plastic film/bags, and glass containers. The credit for aluminum
cans is implemented only for sectors likely to use aluminum can packaging – i.e.,
sectors involved in producing food, beverages, housekeeping supplies,
pharmaceuticals, film and photographic supplies, pet food/supplies/services, hair
care/oral hygiene/shaving/cosmetic and deodorant products, and tobacco
products.
The CEI model does not presently include a recycling credit for steel cans.
This is because sufficiently disaggregated data did not exist at the time this study
was conducted to separate out the uses of ferrous metals for cans versus other
products such as machinery and cars.
At this time the CEI model also does not attempt to estimate recycling
credits for other materials diverted from disposal. In addition to a lack of
consensus about methodological issues, there are several specific reasons for
this:
 The lack of closed loop recycling for a particular material. Emissions
offsets for most non-closed loop recycling options have not been well
documented. Nor are data readily available on the distribution of recycled
quantities among the non-closed loop options for any given recycled
material.




i
The lack of consensus as to what constitutes recycling versus diversion
from disposal (sometimes called beneficial use to distinguish it from
recycling) for materials such as used motor oil, wood from construction
and demolition activities, and used tires.
The lack of significant recycling levels for materials such as used carpet.
The absence of a mechanism for tracking recycling material credits for
individual components of complex products such as computers.
The existence of situations in which some household discards, such as
used vehicles, do not flow through the municipal solid waste management
system. The initial CEI focuses on household choices regarding disposal
versus recycling of household discards. At this point households do not
have much say in the extent to which discards such as used vehicles are
recycled.
See EPA (1998) for US recycling rates for paper, glass, plastics and metals for 1997, the year of the EIOLCA table used to calculate the upstream environmental impacts in the CEI model. Residential recycling
rates by material for Washington provided in Excel spreadsheet by WADOE specifically for the CEI
project.
ii
Strictly speaking the adjustment for increased/decreased recycled content should be based on utilization
rate differentials rather than recycling rate differentials. Adjustments based on recycling rates will tend to
overstate the increase/decrease in levels of actual recycled-content from increased/decreased recycling.
Recycling rates typically measure material collection and do not adjust for material losses to disposal at
facilities which process collected materials for shipment to recycled-content product manufacturers. Nor do
recycling rates account for additional recycled material losses during recycled-content product
manufacturing. Unfortunately, data on utilization rates are generally not available.
iii
Some materials recycled in Washington State, especially paper and cardboard, are sent out of the US to
recycled-content manufacturers. Because the CEI is based on the economic input-output model for the US,
the implicit assumption here is that virgin- versus recycled-content manufacturing environmental impact
differentials outside the US are the same as inside the US.