Skip to main content
Sister Publication Links
  • Sustainable Plastics
  • Rubber News
Subscribe
  • Sign Up Free
  • Login
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Processor News
    • Suppliers
    • More News
    • Digital Edition
    • End Markets
    • Special Reports
    • Newsletters
    • Resin pricing news
    • Videos
    • Injection Molding
    • Blow Molding
    • Film & Sheet
    • Pipe/Profile/Tubing
    • Rotomolding
    • Thermoforming
    • Recycling
    • Machinery
    • Materials
    • Molds/Tooling
    • Product news
    • Design
    • K Show
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Sustainability
    • Public Policy
    • Material Insights Videos
    • Numbers that Matter
    • Automotive
    • Packaging
    • Medical
    • Consumer Products
    • Construction
    • Processor of the Year
    • Best Places to Work
    • Women Breaking the Mold
    • Rising Stars
    • Diversity
    • Most Interesting Social Media Accounts in Plastics
  • Opinion
    • The Plastics Blog
    • Kickstart
    • One Good Resin
    • Pellets and Politics
    • All Things Data
    • Viewpoint
    • From Pillar to Post
    • Perspective
    • Mailbag
    • Fake Plastic Trees
  • Shop Floor
    • Blending
    • Compounding
    • Drying
    • Injection Molding
    • Purging
    • Robotics
    • Size Reduction
    • Structural Foam
    • Tooling
    • Training
  • Events
    • K Show Livestream
    • Plastics News Events
    • Industry Events
    • Injection Molding & Design Expo
    • Livestreams/Webinars
    • Editorial Livestreams
    • Ask the Expert
    • Plastics News Events Library
    • Processor of the Year submissions
    • Plastics News Executive Forum
    • Injection Molding & Design Expo
    • Plastics News Caps & Closures
    • Women Breaking the Mold Networking Forum
    • Plastics in Automotive
    • PN Live: Mergers and Acquisitions
    • Polymer Points Live
    • Numbers that Matter Live
    • Plastics in Politics Live
    • Sustainable Plastics Live
    • Plastics Caps & Closures Library
    • Plastics in Healthcare Library
    • Women Breaking the Mold Networking Forum Library
  • Rankings & Data
    • Injection Molders
    • Blow Molders
    • Film Sheet
    • Thermoformers
    • Pipe Profile Tubing
    • Rotomolders
    • Mold/Toolmakers
    • LSR Processors
    • Recyclers
    • Compounders - List
    • Association - List
    • Plastic Lumber - List
    • All
  • Directory
  • Resin Prices
    • Commodity TPs
    • High Temp TPs
    • ETPs
    • Thermosets
    • Recycled Plastics
    • Historic Commodity Thermoplastics
    • Historic High Temp Thermoplastics
    • Historic Engineering Thermoplastics
    • Historic Thermosets
    • Historic Recycled Plastics
  • Custom
    • Sponsored Content
    • LS Mtron Sponsored Content
    • Conair Sponsored Content
    • KraussMaffei Sponsored Content
    • ENGEL Sponsored Content
    • White Papers
    • Classifieds
    • Place an Ad
    • Sign up for Early Classified
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. News
March 04, 2002 01:00 AM

BEAR, NSDA clash over recycling figures

Steve Toloken
Assistant Managing Editor
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    On the surface, the fight between Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling and the National Soft Drink Association reads like something only a recycling nerd would get into.

    But dig deep into the studies, critiques, and critiques of critiques coming out of the two groups, and you find this interesting tidbit.

    NSDA, a longtime proponent of curbside recycling and opponent of bottle bills, lashed into BEAR for making an overly expensive estimate of the cost of curbside programs.

    But BEAR cried foul, arguing that to lower the cost of curbside, NSDA made a ``contrived'' assumption: that curbside programs can collect the same amount of valuable aluminum cans as California's bottle bill.

    NSDA declined to say why it chose the figure it did, other than to say it is difficult to find good figures and that it wanted to cast doubt on some of BEAR's assumptions.

    ``This is not the most important issue for us and we don't have anything further to say about that,'' said NSDA director of environmental affairs Preston Read.

    That is one telling example of the statistical war of words the two groups are waging, although NSDA would argue that it is far from the most important. The soft drink group argues that attention should focus on its much more detailed critique of BEAR's estimate of the cost of California's bottle bill.

    The report that BEAR put out in mid-January is likely to be studied closely by government officials, so Plastics News took a more detailed look at the numbers. Perhaps foreshadowing how the report will be used politically, NSDA charged that BEAR's report was tilted toward promoting deposits. BEAR-study participants rejected that.

    The debate

    First, the numbers: BEAR's basic task was to figure out how much it costs to recycle a beverage container. It reported that it costs 2.21 cents per container in traditional bottle bills, 0.55 cent in California's modified bottle bill and 1.72 cents in curbside programs.

    The report found wide differences in recycling rates:

    * Curbside programs recycle between 9-18 percent of containers.

    * Traditional bottle bills recycle 61 percent of containers.

    * California's modified system recycles 54 percent.

    Here is the rub: Washington-based NSDA said BEAR understated California's bottle bill costs and overstated costs in curbside programs. NSDA pegs the cost at 1.27 cents for California's modified bottle bill and 1.4 cents for curbside.

    Much of the public attention thus far has focused on the California figures, even though BEAR officials pointedly say they are not endorsing any plan now.

    Here are the details on the groups' curbside debate:

    To lower the cost of curbside recycling from 1.72 cents to 1.4 cents, NSDA assumed curbside brings in 26 percent aluminum. BEAR assumed the aluminum number to be 6 percent.

    BEAR said its figure came from the experience of one of the four consultants it hired, R.W. Beck Inc. in Orlando, Fla. Beck prepares the Washington-based American Plastics Council's annual recycling report and was hired in part because the firm has well-known industry leanings.

    BEAR chose four consultants - two with industry ties and two with environmental ties - and all four signed a statement defending their analysis from NSDA's critique.

    Read declined to talk about why NSDA chose 26 percent. That figure happens to be the percentage of aluminum collected in California's bottle bill system. Bottle bills draw a much larger percentage of aluminum than curbside programs, and it is the decision to swap in that number that prompted BEAR to cry foul.

    ``Their changes to the curbside program are such a blatant attempt to find a way to prove their point,'' said Ed Boisson, project manager for the BEAR report and a recycling consultant in Pittsboro, N.C.

    Beck officials declined to comment on their 6 percent figure, saying they do not talk about client projects. BEAR presented estimates of the aluminum mix in curbside programs that ranged from 4.5 percent in Boulder, Colo., to 16.8 percent in Hillsborough County, Fla., and said the average was 5.5 percent.

    For NSDA, however, that is focusing on the wrong thing. Much more important, they say, is its critique of BEAR's costs for the California bottle bill. Those figures account for the much larger share of NSDA's cost adjustment.

    NSDA said there are $65 million in costs that BEAR ignored, and by NSDA's calculations, that pushes the per-container charge to 1.27 cents from 0.55 cent. (Indeed, BEAR had once before adjusted its California numbers, from 0.14 cent in a preliminary announcement in November to 0.55 when the report was released in January.)

    BEAR maintains that it looked only at the costs to operate California's bottle bill system - not the total revenue generated by that system.

    Read said that method misses money collected by the bottle bill that is spent to bolster recycling and fight litter, the two chief goals of the legislation.

    The extra money NSDA added in includes at least $9 million in administrative expenses, $10 million in revised processing costs, $10 million in grants to curbside, $10.5 million in grants to local governments, $8 million in grants to local conservation efforts and $5 million to promote recycling.

    ``They appear to be legitimate expenditures that appear to make the California system work,'' said NSDA spokesman Sean McBride.

    Read said that since municipalities in California get reimbursed from the bottle bill for containers collected in curbside, money spent to bolster curbside recycling should be included.

    But Boisson claimed it was legitimate to exclude containers collected in curbside programs that municipalities get reimbursed for from bottle bill proceeds. BEAR looked only at containers collected as part of the bottle bill system when figuring bottle bill costs, he said.

    Boisson added that BEAR excluded much of the money NSDA wanted to add because it was spent in 2000, and not in 1999, the year that BEAR studied. But NSDA said the money was collected in 1999 and should have been spent then, so it is fair to include it.

    Boisson also said that BEAR did not include other subsidies that governments give to curbside programs around the country, because they are not strictly related to the operating costs that BEAR was trying to analyze.

    Boisson said BEAR acknowledges there are problems with the funding mechanisms in California, and welcomes talking about them in the next phase of its work.

    One reason California's bottle bill may be the lowest-cost recycling system is because it has a more centralized collection than most other bottle bills. But the plan also has a large bureaucracy to administer it, and it charges fees to plastic and glass container makers to subsidize the cost of recycling. The system takes in a lot more money than it needs to operate, Boisson said.

    In the end, it is unclear what will happen next with BEAR. One key element of its work thus far was the active involvement of Coca-Cola North America.

    Coke concerns

    But Atlanta-based Coke has pulled out of the next stage of BEAR's work. Coke environmental manager Ben Jordan said the company disagreed with the California numbers and was bothered that some environmental groups used the report to endorse California's bottle bill, what he termed a violation of BEAR's process.

    He said Coke wanted to continue working in some collaborative process, but he said that might not necessarily include all the participants in the BEAR process.

    BEAR Chairman Pierre Ferrari said the group wants to continue its collaborative process, looking at end markets for recycled materials and at recommendations. The group plans to spend the next few months making presentations on its work thus far.

    Atlanta-based BEAR is a unit of Global Green USA, the U.S. wing of Mikhail Gorbachev's Green Cross International.

    RECOMMENDED FOR YOU
    Georgia home to new PET chemical recycling plant
    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Do you have an opinion about this story? Do you have some thoughts you'd like to share with our readers? Plastics News would love to hear from you. Email your letter to Editor at [email protected]

    Most Popular
    1
    Tornadoes, severe weather impact Texas resin plants
    2
    Dow cutting 2,000 jobs, ‘evaluating ... global asset base'
    3
    Guilty plea in scheme involving $4.1M in fraudulent polymer sales
    4
    MAPP survey shows ‘struggling' plastics processing sector
    5
    Plastics firms work to eliminate PFAS use as pressure mounts
    SIGN UP FOR OUR FREE NEWSLETTERS
    EMAIL ADDRESS

    Please enter a valid email address.

    Please enter your email address.

    Please verify captcha.

    Please select at least one newsletter to subscribe.

    Get our newsletters

    Staying current is easy with Plastics News delivered straight to your inbox, free of charge.

    Subscribe today

    Subscribe to Plastics News

    Subscribe now
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram

    Plastics News covers the business of the global plastics industry. We report news, gather data and deliver timely information that provides our readers with a competitive advantage.

    Contact Us

    1155 Gratiot Avenue
    Detroit MI 48207-2997

    Customer Service:
    877-320-1723

    Resources
    • About
    • Staff
    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Data Store
    • Digital Edition
    • Custom Content
    • People
    • Contact
    • Careers
    • Sitemap
    Related Crain Publications
    • Sustainable Plastics
    • Rubber News
    • Tire Business
    • Urethanes Technology
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Copyright © 1996-2023. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Processor News
        • Injection Molding
        • Blow Molding
        • Film & Sheet
        • Pipe/Profile/Tubing
        • Rotomolding
        • Thermoforming
        • Recycling
      • Suppliers
        • Machinery
        • Materials
        • Molds/Tooling
        • Product news
        • Design
      • More News
        • K Show
        • Mergers & Acquisitions
        • Sustainability
        • Public Policy
        • Material Insights Videos
        • Numbers that Matter
      • Digital Edition
      • End Markets
        • Automotive
        • Packaging
        • Medical
        • Consumer Products
        • Construction
      • Special Reports
        • Processor of the Year
        • Best Places to Work
        • Women Breaking the Mold
        • Rising Stars
        • Diversity
        • Most Interesting Social Media Accounts in Plastics
      • Newsletters
      • Resin pricing news
      • Videos
    • Opinion
      • The Plastics Blog
      • Kickstart
      • One Good Resin
      • Pellets and Politics
      • All Things Data
      • Viewpoint
      • From Pillar to Post
      • Perspective
      • Mailbag
      • Fake Plastic Trees
    • Shop Floor
      • Blending
      • Compounding
      • Drying
      • Injection Molding
      • Purging
      • Robotics
      • Size Reduction
      • Structural Foam
      • Tooling
      • Training
    • Events
      • K Show Livestream
      • Plastics News Events
        • Plastics News Executive Forum
        • Injection Molding & Design Expo
        • Plastics News Caps & Closures
        • Women Breaking the Mold Networking Forum
        • Plastics in Automotive
      • Industry Events
      • Injection Molding & Design Expo
      • Livestreams/Webinars
        • PN Live: Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Editorial Livestreams
        • Polymer Points Live
        • Numbers that Matter Live
        • Plastics in Politics Live
        • Sustainable Plastics Live
      • Ask the Expert
      • Plastics News Events Library
        • Plastics Caps & Closures Library
        • Plastics in Healthcare Library
        • Women Breaking the Mold Networking Forum Library
      • Processor of the Year submissions
    • Rankings & Data
      • Injection Molders
      • Blow Molders
      • Film Sheet
      • Thermoformers
      • Pipe Profile Tubing
      • Rotomolders
      • Mold/Toolmakers
      • LSR Processors
      • Recyclers
      • Compounders - List
      • Association - List
      • Plastic Lumber - List
      • All
    • Directory
    • Resin Prices
      • Commodity TPs
        • Historic Commodity Thermoplastics
      • High Temp TPs
        • Historic High Temp Thermoplastics
      • ETPs
        • Historic Engineering Thermoplastics
      • Thermosets
        • Historic Thermosets
      • Recycled Plastics
        • Historic Recycled Plastics
    • Custom
      • Sponsored Content
      • LS Mtron Sponsored Content
      • Conair Sponsored Content
      • KraussMaffei Sponsored Content
      • ENGEL Sponsored Content
      • White Papers
      • Classifieds
        • Place an Ad
        • Sign up for Early Classified