Group hugs and glass ceilings
On June 22 I moderated the final panel discussion (on blue box funding) at the annual conference of the Municipal Waste Integration Network (MWIN) in my home town of Collingwood, Ontario. I think I need to go out and buy a lion tamer’s costume for next year, because -- with remarkable consistency -- this year’s end-of-conference panel discussion was very heated and I thought might even erupt into fisticuffs. (I’m only slightly exaggerating.) Somehow we always manage to end the conference on a raucous note and it’s sort of “expected” now that the session I always moderate will be lively and entertaining in this way, and I dread the day it’s ever dull. (As an aside, I forgot to get the group to pose for a photo in a “group hug” afterward like we did last year. Pity.)
The presentations included a very informative and worthwhile explanation of Ontario’s complicated blue box funding formula from Guy Perry (of Stewardship Ontario). Somehow I felt I actually understood the formula after Guy’s PowerPoint presentation (a thought that scares me a little!).
But the sparks really flew when the presentations moved on to two things: glass markets in Ontario and the LCBO’s sponsorship of wine in Tetra Pak containers. Lyle Clark had presented on the LCBO’s new marketing and branding strategies in the morning. Usman Valiante, in my panel, sat beside Lyle and the two had a lively exchange over what Usman claimed was a commercial agenda on the part of the LCBO to develop its own house brands of imported cheap wine that it will sell as “premium” wine with a huge markup, in Tetra Paks. I won’t get into that debate here, but instead direct you to read Usman’s blog entry (see Contributor’s Blog) on this and the associated downloadable files (look under Posted Documents on the home page). It makes for interesting reading, whatever your position is on Tetra Paks and related packaging issues.
The other topic that the panelists scrapped over was the market for recycled glass in Ontario. As luck would have it, this is a timely issue for Lyle Clark and the LCBO which (along with Stewardship Ontario) is sponsoring the establishment of a large glass recycling plant in Ontario. John Mullinder of PPEC was also on the panel, but this time in his capacity as a CERB member (which represents packaging stewards who are concerned about the status quo of the blue box and also see the funding formula as somewhat perverse, in that the brand owners whose materials are recycled at the highest rates [i.e., who are the best environmental performers] pay the steepest bills). Guy Perry weighed in on the glass recycling issue since he’s with Stewardship Ontario, and Usman declared his interests up front, since his clients include the Brewers of Canada and OI Canada (the largest glass recycler and bottle maker in the province).
In short, this was a knowledgable group, but with very different ideas about what should happen with glass, whether or not there should be a deposit-refund system for LCBO glass, and related issues.
I’d like to mention here that I pointed out to the group that Ontario still collects a 10 cent “recycling levy” on all alcohol beverage containers sold in the province. This levy collects a staggering $60 million annually for the government which, alas, puts it into general revenues and doesn’t “recycle” it into recycling (as it were). Another tax grab. I failed to point out at the time that this amount is, ironically, roughly equal to what the public pays province-wide for its half of the net cost of the blue box (industry pays the other 50 per cent). I think an interesting discussion should take place about the proper use of these funds. In my opinion, either we should scrap the levy or direct it to support the recycling infrastructure in Ontario. Lyle Clark kept stating that he didn’t think people would like to see, say, $250,000 used to sponsor a lifecycle assessment of Tetra Paks used for wine. Methinks that’s chump change with $60 million collected every year from the recycling levy. (By the way, partly because of my annoying questions, Tetra Pak is actually funding just such a study via Franklin Associates, so eventually we’ll get some useful data on all this.)
The detailed arguments back and forth about glass markets are too complicated for me to recap here, but I thought I’d follow up by drawing everyone’s attention to a news item about a new study that has implications for one of the main bones of contention. What is that bone? That rather than being “recycled” in the true sense, Usman alleged that too much of the glass collected via the blue box is being “downcycled” into aggregate products whereas much of the “embodied energy” of a bottle, for instance, could be better preserved in true bottle-to-bottle glass recycling.
Anyway, an article appeared in the RCO’s Highlights and Headlines email newsletter about a glass recycling study from the UK -- and I’ve ordered a copy of the study referenced in the article.
Actually it was Usman Valiante who told me about this study, still a bit agitated about the debate at the MWIN conference. He suggests we all consider the article below in the context of the fact that the two OI Canada glass manufacturing plants in Brampton and South Etobicoke have agreed to buy all (including green) of the glass recovered from any LCBO deposit-refund system. In this context, Usman asks: Does it make any sense to crush and color mix glass in single-stream collection systems, invest more energy and effort to “beneficiate it” (all at municipal cost) and then use it as aggregate replacement?
He says we need a definition of recycling that is tied to net environmental benefit. Anyway, here’s an article about the study, which gives you the gist of what the study is about. There’s an interesting dimension here in which the evaluation of recycling programs is tied to greenhouse gas emissions -- something we’re likely to hear a lot more about in future.
Click below to scroll down and read the article:
Recycling glass can harm environment, says report
FIONA HARVEY
Financial Times. Jun 24, 2006. pg. 6
Recycling some materials can do more harm than good to the environment, a report has found.
Recycling materials such as glass can consume more energy than disposing of them in landfill sites, thereby increasing the production of greenhouse gases, according to a report on the waste management business published this week by Grant Thornton, the accountancy firm.
The report is strongly critical of the government’s recycling targets, which focus on increasing the amount of rubbish that is recycled by weight, rather than by any other measure.
This ignores the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, which are widely regarded as the most important environmental concern because of their contribution to climate change, and because of the government’s obligation to reduce such emissions under the Kyoto protocol.
Nigel Mattravers, senior manager at Grant Thornton, said: “The UK’s waste policy has not addressed the impact on carbon dioxide levels and climate change.”
Grant Thornton found the government’s target of recycling 60 per cent of glass would be achieved by encouraging the grinding of the product, in order to manufacture a substitute for the sand used for architectural and filtration purposes.
But it said: “This energy-intensive recycling process generates more carbon dioxide than if the glass was sent to landfill.”
The glass could be turned into bottles instead but is not because the supply of new green glass outweighs demand. The report found that if more alcoholic beverages were bottled in the UK rather than abroad this would change the balance, and the remainder of the excess bottles could be shipped abroad for re-melting.
It concluded: “(The current adverse) outcomes occur because financial instruments and policy interventions have been designed to encourage tonnage diversion from landfill, regardless of the carbon dioxide implications.”
FURTHER DETAIL
The government’s policy of tonnage-based recycling targets delivered at the lowest possible cost means that no distinction is being made between recycling processes that reduce CO2 emissions and recycling processes that increase CO2 emissions, according to research carried out by Grant Thornton Project Finance in association with Oakdene Hollins. This means that the preferred method of recycling for materials such as glass, is having a negative impact on the environment.
The current 60 per cent recycling target for glass is expected to save around 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year by 2008. However, Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins believe that if policies were better directed, the same projected recycling target could save a further 100,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions from 2008 onwards. This could be done at no additional financial cost.
The report’s key findings include:
Closed loop recycling
The most carbon reduction friendly method of recycling is closed-loop recycling, where a material such as glass is re-melted as new glass. However, current carbon-blind policies mean that local authorities often collect green, clear and brown colored glass together. Since the glass is not color separated by the consumer or the local authority prior to recycling, it is difficult to use it for re-melting as new glass due to the man hours and expense that would be involved in the color separation process.
Open loop recycling
In order to meet tonnage-based recycling targets at the lowest cost, the grinding of glass to make sand and other materials is encouraged even though this form of recycling offers little or no CO2 reduction benefits. This energy-intensive form of recycling, or open loop recycling, generates more CO2 than if the glass was sent straight to a land fill site.
Nigel Mattravers, waste specialist within Grant Thornton’s Project Finance team commented: “The Government has done a good job in promoting recycling awareness and raising recycling levels. However the current focus on how many tonnes we recycle and the fixation with meeting weight-based targets rather than on energy efficient recycling methods is actually having an adverse effect on the environment.”
“Energy intensive recycling methods such as glass grinding for use in the construction industry may be helping us to meet tonnage-based recycling targets. However, they are failing to reduce harmful CO2 emissions, which would be lower if all the glass was sent directly to landfill sites,” he continued.
“The current basis for establishing landfill diversion targets, and the balance within the resource recovery agenda is incorrect and should be supplanted by a better driver of sustainability based on the carbon impact or green house gases,” said Mattravers.
Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins’ recommendations
Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins believe that one of the ways in which the government could achieve higher recycling targets as well as much higher carbon dioxide reductions (without spending any additional money) is to increase the international trade of glass cullet.
Mattravers cited an example: “The UK currently imports approximately 500,000 tonnes of green glass as packaging for wine consumption. No more than 45 per cent of this can be used for re-melt in the UK because the supply of new green glass outweighs demand. However, the remaining 55 per cent could be exported for re-melt in bottle manufacturing sites in other countries -- particularly those which are large producers of wine.”
Grant Thornton and Oakdene Hollins also suggest that government policy could be directed at encouraging the bulk import of alcoholic beverages, especially wine and beer which are traditionally drunk from green bottles, for bottling inside the UK, rather than in their country of origin.
Mattravers points out that the renewables sector has seen a substantial increase in investment activity over the past ten years. He asserts that clear signals in the policy landscape and regulatory framework, coupled with outcome-orientated economic incentives, such as ROCs (renewable obligation certificates) has led to a commensurate demand for finance.
“There is a real danger that unless the relative carbon effect of different recycling strategies is properly understood and acted on, the hard-won gains in the renewables sector may be eroded. We think that the government is starting to recognize the carbon effects of current recycling policies. However, this means that the waste management business needs to be cautious about adopting recycling technologies which are not working in partnership with the carbon agenda and be aware of the fact that the government may change its recycling policies in the near future,” Mattravers concluded.
Comments
I just happened to come across your comments, our company has developed and patented a glass processing system that can handle the contaminated mixed cullet ejected from Material Recovery Systems. Our system can stand alone or be attached to a MRF. Our R&D was partically supported by NRC of Ontario and Environment Canada. Our process creates a pure "Glass Sand" product that is utilized in a number of industrial applications, containers,fibreglass,sandblasting,waterfiltration... when we completed out testing,Environment Canada sent a letter to the Association of Municipalites announcing our process...we got zero response....I have vigorously tried to get the GTA to fund a system with little response even though the capital cost of a system would be recovered by the costs of disposing of waste glass...it seems that this new entity, Stewardship Ontario controls the game...they collect from industry over $50 million to distribute to municipalities based on a formula that rewards tons processed not recycled. Glass as you know goes through MRF's and 50% goes out the back door and is then taken to landfill at additional costs. Municipalities have signed a guaranteed tonnage rate to the MRF operators and if they divert glass to another process must pay for ghost tonnage as a penalty. MRF's are cash cows to the waste industry..who control through contract...all levels of solid waste handling...they vigorously oppose any change that threatens their revenue base. Glass is 40-50% of the weight of a blue box.. I approached York Region when it was just thinking about recycling back in 1996...to suggest a new direction...unfortunately they are married to the waste industry and their suggestions...they make sure that no new technologies can emerge through restrictive contracts that require huge performance bonds. In 2003,I again approached York Region as they were constructing their $40-50million MRF system in Keswick and again told them one facility housed in their MRF could handle 80-100,000 tons of waste glass...their myopic response was....'we don't have that amount of waste glass and don't want to be the solution for the GTA'. Sandworks is not a recycler but a reuser our raw material is waste container glass from which we produce a product and therefore are exempt from MOE approval. Our product is 99.7% pure and has been tested extensively by industry and exceeds their strick parameters. I agreed with OI, the LCBO's direction does nothing to solve the waste problems...their spin-doctors tell the media that tetrapaks will reduce waste....glass is recyclable an infinite number of times whereas tetrapaks are just waste and because of their multi-layers take 150-200yrs to breakdown...some of the layers(metals) are toxic to landfills and eventually leach into the water tables. We approached the LCBO to develop our system...they currently handle waste cartons, we suggested a bottle deposit system and all recovered bottles be thrown into a waste bin...an easy system...just add a second trash bin and a shoot. The glass then would be picked up by their regular haulers and taken to our process...since the LCBO is owned by Ontario...the GTA opposed this since it would divert tonnage from their MRF's and they would have to pay penalties to the waste industry...the waste industry's control is complete because our municipalities are short sighted...no new waste technology can survive in this backwards environment...
I totally agree with the assessment of OI, if we had a system in place in Ontario we could supple a large % of their glass cullet needs...The mentality of the LCBO must be changed..its tetrapak direction saves stewardship fees...but wastes taxpayers dollars. What the LCBO pays in penalties(fees),to Stewarship Ontario could easily build a glass processing facility and the saving would multiply....unfortunaltely our Environment Minister(Broten) has no knowlegde in this field and takes the political safe ground of supporting the status quo. Mr. Crittenden, we have the solution to the waste glass problem..it can be implemeted easily but not within the current political climate...I would have liked to put a system up in the Province where it was developed but the road blocks are massive...we are now setting our sights to US and other locations where the climate is more accepting and their is political support for real change. The municipal 'waste management' depts are an oxymoron and only exist to serve the massive waste industry. Trivia question..for you Soprano watchers..What legitimate business is Tony Soprano in? The Answer will tell you what the waste industry is really like. Mr. Crittenden if you wish we could continue this discussion further.
Posted by: David Bergart, President Sandworks | July 31, 2006 10:43 AM
In addition to my previous comments, Mr. Valiante has it right,the current glass recycling system will only down grade the raw material for aggregate use. The glass process will not meet the strict parameters required by industry for furnace ready cullet. The facility will have 30yr old technology in a new building...which to Stewardship Ontario looks like progress. The 905 area use to operate compartmentalized collection trucks, which I refer to as MRF's on wheels...the waste industry(bless their money grabbing hearts)convinced our municipalities to commingle the recyclables...reason it reduced collection times. This only benefited the waste industry and consultants...if we kept our trucks there really was no need for a $50million MRF to be built in York Region...nor pay all those costly consultants and the waste industry to run. As for the study funded by Tetra Pak...its like the tobacco industry funding non-smoking&cancer studies. No industry would fund a study on itself unless the outcome was favourable the results are already predetermined its like a self fulfilling prophesy. The tax grab for bottles has been collected by Ontario for years, many have tried to get it diverted back to fund recycling projects, but have failed miserably. These funds should have been segregated into a separate fund, but that didn't suit the government mandarins who advocated for non-segregated funds...its easier to spend on other government areas when funds are pooled. If you read the contract for this glass recycling system funded by Stewardship Ontario it reads like a contract for a Material Recovery Facility(MRF), the municipalities guarantee the tonnage of glass with penalties(take or pay contract) otherwise known as ghost tonnage...this facility limits the flexibility for using real solutions that can create furnace ready material in large quantities for companies like OI.
Posted by: David Bergart, President Sandworks | July 31, 2006 5:40 PM