Green Dot summary by Bev Thorpe, Clean Production Action

1
Green Dot summary byBev Thorpe, Clean Production
Action

• EPR Work Group meeting
• July 7/8 Buffalo, NY
• Bev_at_cleanproduction.org

2
Why make the producer responsible?

• Only the product designer can choose material and
  form/function of the product
• EPR puts the feedback loop back on the producer
  to design for disassembly, reuse, and safer
  recycling
• Hazardous materials increase the producers
  liability and costs

3
EPR can make products more recyclable and less
wasteful if

• Focus is specifically on waste from end of life
  products
• Financial responsibility is clear to producers
  for collection, transport and recycling
• Meangful targets are established for collection
  and recycling.

4
EPR programs are effective if

• Recycling is clearly differentiated from waste to
  energy conversion/incineration
• Reporting requirements and enforcement mechanisms
  established
• Producers have incentive to design for
  reuse/recycling
• Consumers have incentives to return their old
  products (eg free and easy)

5
EPR is embodied in

• Bottle return/refund programs
• Product leasing where manufacturer maintains
  control of product ownership/reuse/repair eg
  Xerox
• Providing a Service instead of a product, eg
  Interface supplying floor covering service and
  carpet tile replacement versus new carpet

6
First EPR program Germanys Green
Dot for packaging

• Packaging Ordinance 1991 establishes EPR
• Packaging accounted for 1/3 by weight and ½ by
  volume of total waste stream and was growing!
• Would stimulate new recycling technologies
• Berlin Wall collapse meant new consumerism and
  waste and decreasing landfill space

7
Established individual or third party system

• Fillers are responsible for packaging waste can
  deal with it themselves or set up third party
  system
• Industry responded by designing the Dual, or
  Green Dot, system

8
DSD

• Non profit company, Duales System Deutschland
  (DSD) licenses logo for a fee
• Fees based on the material and weight of the
  package and paid by filler usually the owner of
  the product brand name
• Households have 2 bins one for regular trash
  (municipality responsibility) and one for
  packaging (DSD picks up for free)
• DSD also operates drop-off igloos for glass and
  paper

9
License fee for Green Dot, Oct 1994Weight-based
Fee DM/kg
10
(No Transcript)
11
DSD sets clear targets

• Recycling targets ranging from 64 to 72 percent
  for various materials
• Refill rate for beverage containers at 72 percent
  or higher

12
Effects of DSD less packaging

• Between 1991 and 1995 packaging consumption
  decreased by one million tons
• Green Dot packaging decreased 14 from 1991-1995,
  while total packaging in Germany decreased 7
• Comparison in USA (same time) packaging increased
  13

13
Effects of DSD product redesign

• Packaging redesign
• lightweighting
• elimination of unessential packaging (blister
  packs)
• increased use of concentrates and refill packs

14
What about plastics?

• In 1996 plastic packaging recycling increased to
  68
• Move away from PVC (difficult to recycle) to
  better recyclable material (eg paper)
• Incineration not considered recycling
• BUT One third recycling via feedstock
  recycling eg pyrolysis, hydrogenation and
  substitution of waste plastic for oil in steel
  production

15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
New recycling targets from 1999

• Glass 75 (previously 70)
• Tinplate 70 (same)
• Aluminum 60 (prev 50)
• Paper/crdbd) 70 (prev 60)
• Composites 60 (prev 50)

20
Hazardous contents must decrease

• concentrations of lead, cadmium, mercury and
  hexavalent chromium in packaging reduced
• 600 ppm (parts per million) by weight from 30
  June 1998
• 250 ppm by weight from 30 June 1999
• 100 ppm by weight from 30 June 2001

21
Prognos Assessment of DSD, 2002

• The recycling of two million tonnes of
  lightweight packaging avoids carbon dioxide
  pollution by the same quantity which arises in
  the incineration of 28 million tonnes of residual
  waste
• Costs of the Green Dot are between 520 and 605
  euros per tonne, could drop to 250-370 euros

22
Greenhouse gas reductions

• By recycling used sales packaging, a total of
  67.5 billion megajoules of primary energy was
  saved
• In addition, this saved 1.5 million tonnes of
  climate-damaging greenhouse gases.
• (Source Environmental Success Balance 2002 of
  Duales System Deutschland AG, www.gruener-punkt.de
  )

23
Future predictions for packaging in Germany

• Predictions of 15 decrease in waste 2000-2005
  (Prognos Institute)
• No untreated waste to landfill in 2005 will lead
  to more reductions (more reuse and recycling)
• Mechanical biological treatment will be used more
  in future (versus incineration)

24
Re-use in Europe

• On average in the European Union, about one third
  of the packaging for soft drinks, mineral water
  and wine is reused
• The highest reuse rates are achieved in Denmark,
  Finland, Germany and Sweden in some cases more
  than 90 percent of the volume bottled (glass and
  PET) is reused in these countries.

25
Beverage bottle reuse -Europe

• WINE REUSE Austria (83 percent) Finland (71
  percent) Sweden reuses 55 percent, Portugal
  around 50 percent Spain 32 percent and Germany
  29 percent.
• SOFT DRINK REUSE Austria, Germany, Sweden,
  Finland and Portugal reuse between one third and
  two thirds of the glass packaging. Denmark
  achieves 80 percent, followed by Germany with 61
  percent.
• BEER and MINERAL WATER higher

26
Germanys Closed Material and Waste Management
Act 1996

• Aim to eliminate the dumping of untreated waste
  entirely within 20 years, as a result of the
  progress made in recovery technology.
• EPR in Germany extended to
• Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equpment
  (WEEE)
• End of Life Vehicles (EoLV)
• Carpets and textiles
• Biowaste
• Construction waste
• Batteries