Buried treasure: while aluminum cans enjoy a high recycling rate relative to plastic bottles, the rate has been declining because of a number of factors

Recycling Today, August, 2004 by Deanne Toto

With a recycling rate in the vicinity of 50 percent, the aluminum industry certainly appears to have successfully conveyed its recyclability message to consumers in the United States. However, the recycling rate for these used beverage containers has declined continually during the past five years and is substantially lower than the 65 percent recycling rate achieved in 1992.

The Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Va., that studies beverage container sales and recycling trends, estimates that more than 1 trillion cans have been disposed of since 1972. These trashed cans amount to buried treasure for the aluminum industry, recyclers and municipalities.

"If [Americans] knew that they were wasting $500 million a year in aluminum cans, I believe that more people would do something about that," Robin King, vice president of Public Affairs for the Aluminum Association, Washington, says.

Additionally, primary smelters are being built outside of North America, representing lost job opportunities for North Americans and exerting a significant toll on the environment.

"New smelters are being constructed in the Brazilian rainforest, on fertile lands in Mozambique and in the heart of Europe's largest remaining wilderness: the Vatnakoejull Glacier in Iceland," CRI Research Director Jenny Gitlitz says. "One of these smelters might produce 300,000 tons of aluminum per year, less than half of what thirsty Americans toss in the garbage can each year."

The factors contributing to the declining UBC recycling rate are many and varied, according to industry observers. Among those most often cited are the stagnant scrap price, light-weighting of aluminum cans, increasing away-from-home consumption and the public's disinterest in recycling.

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS. "Each regional market has its own quirks," Darryl Young, director of the California Department of Conservation, Sacramento, says. "In California, there is a lack of financial incentive to recycle.

Whether or not you are in a deposit state, the relative value of the aluminum has not necessarily kept up with inflation. That is one of the reasons why in California we have increased the deposit," he says. "There was a UC-Berkeley study that said if we increased the CRV (California redemption value), that we could increase the recycling rate up to about 90 percent."

In January of this year, the CRV increased to 4 cents from 2.5 cents for beverage containers holding less than 24 ounces and to 8 cents from 5 cents for containers holding 24 ounces or more.

Young says preliminary results reveal an increase in the number of cans collected. However, the numbers for the first quarter of this year have yet to be finalized.

King says that consumers are not acquainted with the true value of the aluminum can because conflicting information dilutes the message. "Deposits in some states are five or 10 cents. Therefore, the consumer is left thinking that it is really worth five or 10 cents or that a plastic bottle is equally worth five or 10 cents, and that is not true."

He continues, "There is a tendency for these programs to not convey any sense of value of the material, and that is a big barrier."

In addition to price, Tom Mele of Connecticut Metal Industries, a company based in Monroe, Conn., that specializes in recycling aluminum packaging scrap, says consumer indifference contributes to the declining UBC rate.

"Recycling no longer has the political cache it enjoyed in the '80s, and our retail price for cans last year was the same we paid back then," he says.

"We paid 40 cents [per pound] for cans when minimum wage was $2.25 an hour. Today, we are still paying close to that, and McDonalds is $7 to start, with free lunch and a uniform," he continues.

Ken Goldberg at Gold Metal Recycling, Dallas, agrees that depressed pricing has affected the recycling rate. When coupled with the weight reductions cans have undergone throughout the years, the numbers no longer add up for many scavengers.

"Until the last six months, the price has been depressed for so long, combined with the fact that it takes so many more cans to make a pound, that it got really frustrating for the people that were out there recycling," Goldberg says.

Gitlitz' figures illustrate that point. In 1980, it took 25 aluminum cans to make a pound, while it currently takes 33.5 cans to make a pound, she says.

"In 1980, you needed 160 cans to make $3.10, which is what you would get for working one hour at minimum wage," she says. "You had to collect 345 cans in 1991 to make $5.15, which is what you would ear for one hour at minimum wage."

Gitlitz adds that macro-economic forces are also at work. "For many years, there was a glut of primary aluminum on the market worldwide," she says. "That depressed secondary prices, too."

The increase in away-from-home consumption of beverages also has affected the number of aluminum cans captured through curbside programs, many industry observers say.

"While it is true that the recycling rate has fallen over the past few years, we should not lose perspective that fully half of aluminum beverage containers are still being recycled," Lise Herren, executive vice president and COO of Anheuser-Busch Recycling Corp., St. Louis, says.