use of lca methods for the recycling vs. disposal issue: prices & costs vs. energy &...

Use of LCA Methods For Use of LCA Methods For TheThe

Recycling vs. Disposal Recycling vs. Disposal Issue:Issue:

Prices & Costs vs. Energy Prices & Costs vs. Energy & Environmental Impacts& Environmental Impacts

Dr. Jeffrey Morris Dr. Jeffrey Morris Sound Resource ManagementSound Resource [email protected]@zerowaste.com919-401-4444 or 360-319-2391919-401-4444 or 360-319-2391

INLCA/LCM Conference – September 24, 2003INLCA/LCM Conference – September 24, 2003

Prices for Refuse vs. Recycling,Prices for Refuse vs. Recycling,Virgin vs. Recycled Materials,Virgin vs. Recycled Materials,

&&Virgin vs. Recycled Content Virgin vs. Recycled Content

ProductsProductsAre Telling The Wrong StoryAre Telling The Wrong Story

The Wrong Story The Wrong Story • Recycled-content products typically cost more than virgin-Recycled-content products typically cost more than virgin-

content productscontent products

• Recycled material prices are kept low by virgin material Recycled material prices are kept low by virgin material subsidies and virgin material prices that do not reflect subsidies and virgin material prices that do not reflect public health and ecological impacts public health and ecological impacts

• Total costs for recycling some waste and throwing the rest Total costs for recycling some waste and throwing the rest away are often greater than total costs for just throwing it away are often greater than total costs for just throwing it all away. all away.

Aluminum Ingot vs. Recycled Aluminum Ingot vs. Recycled CansCans

$0

$700

$1,400

$2,100

$2,800

88 90 92 94 96 98 00 02 04

US

$ p

er t

on

Virgin Ingot

Recycled Cans

Unbleached Softwood Kraft Unbleached Softwood Kraft Pulp vs. Recycled CardboardPulp vs. Recycled Cardboard

$0

$300

$600

$900

93 95 97 99 01 03

US

$ p

er t

on

Virgin Woodpulp

Recycled Cardboard

Polyethylene Terephthalate Polyethylene Terephthalate Pellets vs. Recycled PET Pellets vs. Recycled PET

BottlesBottles

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

94

96

98

00

02

04

US

$ p

er

ton

Virgin Pellets

Recycled Bottles

ONP (#8) & Mixed PaperONP (#8) & Mixed Paper

($50)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02

US$

per t

on

ONP

MXD

Average Value Per Ton for Curbside Average Value Per Ton for Curbside RecyclablesRecyclables

Pacific Northwest, 1985-2003

$0.00

$20.00

$40.00

$60.00

$80.00

$100.00

$120.00

$140.00

$160.00

$180.00

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

$/to

n

$42

$57

$71

Curbside Recycling vs. Avoided Curbside Recycling vs. Avoided Disposal Costs in Four WA RegionsDisposal Costs in Four WA Regions

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

Urban West Urban East Rural West Rural East

Mo

nth

ly A

mo

un

t p

er

Ho

us

eh

old Recycling

CostsMinusMarketRevenues

AvoidedDisposalCosts

Net Cost for Curbside Net Cost for Curbside Recycling Recycling

in Four WA Regionsin Four WA Regions

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00


Mon

thly

Net

Cos

t per

Hou

seho

ld

Three Stages of a Product’s Three Stages of a Product’s Life CycleLife Cycle

• EXTRACTION/MANUFACTURINGEXTRACTION/MANUFACTURING

• USE USE

• WASTE MANAGEMENTWASTE MANAGEMENT

Virgin-Content ProductionVirgin-Content ProductionUses More EnergyUses More Energy

ThanThanRecycled-Content ProductionRecycled-Content Production

Energy Used for Resource Extraction Energy Used for Resource Extraction & Product Manufacturing& Product Manufacturing

Products Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

AlumSheet PETPellets HDPEPellets Newsprint Cardboard SteelBar GlassContrs

Mill

ion

Btu/

Ton

Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional energy to manufacturematerial with 100% virgin content

Virgin-Content ProductionVirgin-Content ProductionCreates More PollutionCreates More Pollution

ThanThanRecycled-Content ProductionRecycled-Content Production

Greenhouse Gases from Resource Greenhouse Gases from Resource Extraction & Product ManufacturingExtraction & Product Manufacturing


-6000

0

6000

12000

18000

24000

Alm PET HDPE News News(seq) Crdbd Crdbd(seq) Steel Glass

CO2 E

quiva

lent L

bs/T

on

Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional emissions from manufacturingmaterial with 100% virgin content. Red atbottom indicates lower CO2 for virgin cardboard.

Acidification from Resource Acidification from Resource Extraction & Product ManufacturingExtraction & Product Manufacturing


0

3

6

9

Alm PET HDPE News Crdbd Steel Glass

Hydr

ogen

Equ

ival

ent L

bs/T

on

Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional emissions from manufacturingmaterial with 100% virgin content

Eutrophication from Resource Eutrophication from Resource Extraction & Product ManufacturingExtraction & Product Manufacturing


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Alm PET HDPE News Crdbd Steel Glass

Phos

phat

e Eq

uiva

lent

Lbs

/Ton

Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional emissions from manufacturingmaterial with 100% virgin content

Additional Energy Use Additional Energy Use and Pollution from and Pollution from Curbside Recycling Curbside Recycling

Trucks Are Trucks Are Overshadowed by Overshadowed by

Conservation of Energy Conservation of Energy and Reduced Pollution and Reduced Pollution from Recycled-Content from Recycled-Content

ProductionProduction

Recycling per Curbside Recycling per Curbside Available Household in Four Available Household in Four

WA RegionsWA Regions

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Mon

thly

Pou

nds

per H

ouse

hold

Energy Used for Energy Used for Extraction/Manufacturing of Extraction/Manufacturing of

Materials Recycled in The UW Materials Recycled in The UW RegionRegion

Curbside Recycled Materials Made with Virgin- vs. Recycled-Content

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AluminumCans

PET Bottles HDPE Bottles Newspapers &Mixed Paper

CardboardBoxes

Steel Cans GlassContainers

Ener

gy U

sage

(kW

h)/H

shld

/Mnt

h

Red shading at top of bar indicatesadditional energy to manufacturematerial with 100% virgin content

Energy Used for Waste Energy Used for Waste Resources Management in The Resources Management in The

UW RegionUW Region

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

RecyclingCollection,

Processing &Shipping to Market

Garbage Collection,Transfer, & Hauling

to Landfill

Landfilling

En

erg

y U

sag

e (k

Wh

)/H

shld

/Mn

th

3.5 2.4 1.4

The Disposal Life CycleThe Disposal Life CycleUses More EnergyUses More Energy

ThanThanThe Recycling Life CycleThe Recycling Life Cycle

Disposal Methods in WA Disposal Methods in WA Regions Regions

• Urban East – 90% waste-to-energy incinerationUrban East – 90% waste-to-energy incineration

• All Other Regions – 100% landfillAll Other Regions – 100% landfill

• Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations Landfill energy/environmental impact calculations assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact assume 75% methane gas capture and flaring; in fact smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas smaller, older landfills in WA do not have landfill gas capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual capture systems. Also, 75% may be too high for actual landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.landfill lifetime methane capture rate at most landfills.

Net Energy Use Reductions from Net Energy Use Reductions from Curbside Recycling in WA Curbside Recycling in WA

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50


Mon

thly

kW

h S

aved

per

Hou

seho

ld

WasteManagement

Extraction &Manufacturing

The Disposal Life CycleThe Disposal Life CycleGenerates More PollutionGenerates More Pollution

ThanThanThe Recycling Life CycleThe Recycling Life Cycle

Net Greenhouse Gas Net Greenhouse Gas Reductions from Curbside Reductions from Curbside

Recycling in WARecycling in WA

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160


Mon

thly

CO

2 E

quiv

alen

t Pou

nds

per H

ouse

hold

WasteManagement


Net Acidification Potential Net Acidification Potential Reductions from Curbside Reductions from Curbside


-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02


Mon

thly

Aci

dific

atio

n E

quiv

alen

cy p

er H

ouse

hold

WasteManagement


Net Eutrophication Potential Net Eutrophication Potential Reduc-tions from Curbside Reduc-tions from Curbside

Recycling in WA Recycling in WA

-0.02

-0.01

0.00

0.01

0.02


Mon

thly

Eut

roph

icat

ion

Equ

ival

ency

per

Hou

seho

ld

WasteManagement


Net Human Toxicity Potential Net Human Toxicity Potential Reduc-tions from Curbside Reduc-tions from Curbside


-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Mon

thly

Hum

an T

oxic

ity P

oten

tial p

er H

ouse

hold

WasteManagement


How Do We Value/Compare How Do We Value/Compare Environmental BenefitsEnvironmental Benefits

Against Costs?Against Costs? • Categorize Pollutants by Impacts – global warming, Categorize Pollutants by Impacts – global warming,

acid rain, smog, eutrophication of waterways, acid rain, smog, eutrophication of waterways, human toxicity, ecological toxicity, etc.human toxicity, ecological toxicity, etc.

• Create Normalization Measures for Each CategoryCreate Normalization Measures for Each Category

• Economic Costs vs. Weights Developed by Political Economic Costs vs. Weights Developed by Political Process or Other Methods (e.g., BEES 3.0) Process or Other Methods (e.g., BEES 3.0)

Monthly Value per Household Monthly Value per Household of Three Environmental of Three Environmental Benefits from Pollutant Benefits from Pollutant Releases Avoided Thru Releases Avoided Thru

Curbside Recycling in UW WA Curbside Recycling in UW WA BEES Estimated

Normalized Value Economic Valueof Avoided Impacts of Avoided Impacts

Global Warming 0.002851 $1.61

Acidification 0.000001 $1.05

Eutrophication 0.000095 $0.53

External Cost of Air PollutantsExternal Cost of Air Pollutants(US$ per pound)(US$ per pound)

C rite r ia A ir Polluta nts Low H igh C arbo n M o no xide (C O ) $ 0 .0 1 $ 0 .4 8

N itro ge n O xide s (N O x ) 0 .4 1 4 .5 3

Sulfur O xide s (SO x ) 0 .0 7 2 .2 3

P ar tic ulate s (To tal) 1 .1 9 2 .5 6 Le ad (P b) 0 .1 9 5 2 8G re e nhouse G a se s

C arbo n D io xide (C O 2 ) 0 .0 0 0 2 0 .0 1 2

M e thane (C H 4 ) 0 .0 1 0 .3 8

O the r A ir Polluta nts

H ydro c arbo ns (no n C H 4 ) 0 .2 6 0 .2 6

Am m o nia (N H 3 ) 0 .7 6 1 2 .4 7

H ydro c hlo r ic Ac id (H C L) 2 .4 9 2 .4 9

External Cost of Water External Cost of Water PollutantsPollutants

(US$ per pound)(US$ per pound)Low H igh

D is so lve d So lids N o e s t . N o e s t . Suspe nde d So lids $ 6 .2 3 $ 6 .2 3 B O D 0 .0 8 0 .0 8 C O D 0 0 O il 0 .2 6 3 0 3 .6 9 Sulfur ic Ac id 0 .1 2 0 .1 2 Iro n 0 0 Am m o nia 0 .7 6 1 .8 4 C o ppe r 9 .5 9 1 9 .9 C adm ium 2 1 5 .7 8 1 ,6 0 6 .3 4 Arse nic 1 1 .9 9 7 ,4 7 7 .2 9 M e rc ury 2 ,4 6 4 .0 0 6 ,2 3 3 .7 2 P ho sphate 0 .1 2 0 .1 2 Se le nium 0 7 0 .0 0 C hro m ium 3 3 5 .6 6 3 3 5 .6 6 Le ad 6 1 .5 4 5 2 8 .0 0 Z inc 0 .5 6 3 .7 0

Reasonable Estimates for the Reasonable Estimates for the Costs of Pollution Indicate Costs of Pollution Indicate

That Recycling Actually Costs That Recycling Actually Costs Less Than GarbageLess Than Garbage

Australian Kerbside Study: Australian Kerbside Study: Recycling Costs Amount to Just Recycling Costs Amount to Just

38% of Dollar Value of Net 38% of Dollar Value of Net Environmental BenefitsEnvironmental Benefits

• Environmental Benefits: Environmental Benefits:

75% from upstream air & water pollution decreases75% from upstream air & water pollution decreases

21% from upstream land use reductions & future 21% from upstream land use reductions & future resource access improvementsresource access improvements

4% from global warming credits4% from global warming credits

2% from reduced land use for landfills2% from reduced land use for landfills

• Environmental Costs: Environmental Costs:

2% from increased truck traffic2% from increased truck traffic

CO2 Value Per Ton Required to CO2 Value Per Ton Required to Offset Curbside Net Monthly Offset Curbside Net Monthly Cost per Household in WACost per Household in WA

Recycling Net Cost CO2 Savings CO2 ValuePer Month Per Month Per Month to Offset Cost

(lbs.) (lbs.)

Urban West 56 $0.73 157 $9

Urban East 26 $0.85 55 $31

Rural West 29 $0.99 77 $26

Rural East 19 $1.35 64 $42

What Will Make What Will Make Recycling Profitable?Recycling Profitable?

Policy Options to Correct Policy Options to Correct Garbage Vs. Recycling Garbage Vs. Recycling

Market FailuresMarket Failures 1.1. Taxes/subsidies to change relative prices – e.g., Taxes/subsidies to change relative prices – e.g.,

no-additional-charge (“free” or “bundled” or no-additional-charge (“free” or “bundled” or “embedded”) recycling for garbage collection “embedded”) recycling for garbage collection subscribers – e.g., bundled commercial recycling subscribers – e.g., bundled commercial recycling decreases garbage disposal per employee by decreases garbage disposal per employee by 10% to 20% and increases recycling by 10 10% to 20% and increases recycling by 10 percentage points.percentage points.

2.2. Regulatory Actions – e.g., cap & trade and bans.Regulatory Actions – e.g., cap & trade and bans.

3.3. Extended Producer/Product Responsibility & Extended Producer/Product Responsibility & Product Stewardship – e.g., deposit/refund Product Stewardship – e.g., deposit/refund systems.systems.

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Allowance Trading (average Allowance Trading (average

monthly prices) monthly prices)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01

US

$ p

er t

on

Beverage Container Recycling Beverage Container Recycling Rates Rates

• The 10 deposit/redemption states had The 10 deposit/redemption states had a beverage container recycling rate of a beverage container recycling rate of 71.6% in 1999 (redemption rates 71.6% in 1999 (redemption rates averaged 78%, varying between 69% averaged 78%, varying between 69% and 95%)and 95%)

• The 40 non-deposit/redemption states The 40 non-deposit/redemption states had a beverage container recycling had a beverage container recycling rate of 27.9% in 1999 rate of 27.9% in 1999

use of lca methods for the recycling vs. disposal issue: prices & costs vs. energy &...

Documents