Re: [GreenYes] energy (and other) savings through recycling

[Pat Franklin <CRI@container-recycling.org>]

and, recycling can help CONSERVE energy. . . . . . . .


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           CONTACT:Pat Franklin
                                                 Executive Director (703) 
276-9800
May 23, 2000                            Jenny Gitlitz Sr. Research Assoc.
                                                 (508) 793-8516

Aluminum Can Recycling Rate Dispute Continues

CRI says the correct rate for the year 2000 is 55%, not 62.1%
Larger issue is 4-year decline in aluminum can recycling

ARLINGTON, VA (May 22, 2001)-- The Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a 
nonprofit research group, reports that the U.S. aluminum can recycling rate 
dropped to 54.5 percent in 2000, more than 7 percentage points lower than 
the rate reported by the Aluminum Association in April 2001.
“The industry methodology is flat out wrong,” said Pat Franklin, executive 
director of CRI.  “By including imported used cans in the number of cans 
recycled in the U.S., the Aluminum Association inflates the domestic 
recycling rate.  The Container Recycling Institute’s methodology excludes 
these imported scrap aluminum cans, thereby arriving at a more accurate 
domestic recycling rate.  Our method is consistent with the measurement 
methodology used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”
Franklin pointed out that whether one accepts the Aluminum Association’s 
methodology or CRI’s methodology, the more relevant issue is the fact that 
aluminum beverage can recycling has declined every year for the last four 
years. “No matter whose method of measurement you use,” said Franklin, 
“fewer pounds of aluminum cans were recycled last year than in any year 
since 1990.”
“Our calculations show that 1.4 billion pounds of aluminum cans were 
landfilled, incinerated or littered last year272 million pounds more than 
were wasted in 1990,” said Jennifer Gitlitz, CRI senior research 
associate.  “The energy required to replace these wasted cans with new cans 
made from virgin materials could supply the electricity needs of over three 
million American households for a year,” Gitlitz said.  She said aluminum 
manufacturing impacts water quality and wildlife habitat in the United 
States, Canada, and many other parts of the world, and produces emissions 
that contribute to global warming.
“These new statistics on aluminum can wasting come at a time when the 
nation faces an energy crisis,” Gitlitz added, “especially in the Pacific 
Northwest, where 40% of the nation’s primary aluminum is produced.”
CRI will be releasing a report on aluminum can recycling and wasting in 
June 2001.
# # #
====================================================
At 12:32 PM 5/23/01 +0200, you wrote:
>tomd wrote:
> >
> > Please excuse a lurker, but I felt I had to respond to part of this.
> > :
> > > ·        Recycling can help create energy by providing the raw 
> materials we
> > > need to generate electricity.
> > >
> > > ·        Some of the ways we can do that include converting methane gas
> > > from landfills to energy, transforming old tires into electricity at
> > > special plants, and using organic materials like wood chips and forestry
> > > and agriculture waste to fuel biomass plants that, in turn, generate
> > > electricity to power California homes and businesses.
> > >
> > > ·        The Waste Board is looking at all of these possibilities and
> > > working closely with the Governor's Office to meet California's energy
> > > needs on all fronts.
> > > ****************************************************
> >
> > This is NOT recycling. This is burning waste for fuel.
> >
>
>agreed - burning any waste, with any technology known, WILL produce
>harmful off gases - dioxins, furans, SO2, NOx, etc... this is no answer
>- just a blind alley designed by (mainly) the packaging industry - in
>fact, "energy from waste" is already attempting to be imposed in many
>countries, and some of us are fighting that, as it is simply not
>sustainable - they rely on a guaranteed supply of waste, and put the
>pollutants into the great landfill in the sky - also, the energy lost
>(between what it took to make the product, and what we get from burning
>it) leads to an overall inefficiency...
>
>do resist all these attempts - true recycling, after we have phased out
>as many "single use" products as possible, means using the material to
>make other products, not to turn it into toxic ash and air pollution...
>
>take care all...
>
>Muna