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
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
Refillable glass bottles
…
…are giving way to
one-way, disposable
plastic bottles and
aluminum cans
© 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, ReusableBags.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
2002: 8,875 curbside programs
70%
60%
50%
55%
139 million people served
49% of U.S. population
51%
49%
40%
35%
30%
20%
15% 1990: 2,711 curbside programs
10%
37 million people served
15% of U.S. population
1990
0%
© Container Recycling Institute, 2005
12
Bag Bans
India: Indian province of Ladakh banned plastic bags in early 1990s. May 1st 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¢ “PlasTax” in March 2002, leading to
95% reduction in use.
Italy: bag tax is 5x 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
4,500
Sales
Wasting
Recycling
(millions of pounds)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
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
(billions of units)
20
16
12
8
4
0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Includes domestic and imported non-sparkling water in plastic bottles of 1.5 liters or less. Data
derived from the Beverage Marketing Corporation. Note: CRI estimated 1997 and 1998 imports.
© Container Recycling Institute, 2005
24
Growth of U.S. PET Exports
(millions of pounds)
2003
520
2002
522
321
275
2001
600
234
2000
599
170
1999
588
183
656
1998
0
300
Domestic
Exported
89
600
900
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
Beverage Container Recycling/Redemption Rates in
Selected Deposit States and Nationally:
1990 - 2000*
* Includes aluminum cans, non-refillable
glass bottles, and PET bottles.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
48.8%
53.2%
`
50%
43.5%
Michigan
California
Massachusetts
40%
30%
1990
1992
Oregon
New York
U.S.
1994
1996
© Container Recycling Institute, 2005
1998
2000
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