SRI Consulting Releases Report Analyzing Impact of Recycling PET Bottles

SRI Consulting (SRIC) has released a report analyzing the impact that PET bottles have on the environment. The consulting group claims that its report, PET’s Carbon Footprint: To Recycle or Not To Recycle, provides an independent evaluation of the carbon footprint of PET bottles with an analysis of secondary packaging from cradle to grave and from production of raw materials through to disposal.

“The key to this is not in raising collection rates, but in improving yields, especially in sorting and, to a lesser extent, in reprocessing. For countries without a recycling infrastructure, the best choice may well be to landfill bottles,” says Mike Arné, assistant director, SRIC’s Carbon Footprint Initiative in a press release announcing the report.
The report claims that recycling programs using curbside collection typically displace less than 50 percent of new PET. Community programs with plastic bottle take-back, mandated separate collection, or deposits on bottles tend to report much higher displacement rates. For regions that already have a recycling infrastructure, the aim should be to boost recycled PET displacement of virgin PET significantly more than 50 percent.

The report also claims the following:
•Shipping distances are not footprint critical – The practice of shipping baled PET bottles to China for recycling does not significantly affect the footprint.
•Incineration creates the highest footprint – burning used bottles in waste incinerators converts them largely to the greenhouse-gas carbon dioxide, which then goes into the atmosphere. This footprint debit can be reduced somewhat by generating power and heat from the incinerator, but the net effect is still carbon positive.
•PET recyclate has a lower footprint than new virgin PET – Manufacturers making product from recycled PET should be able to claim that they are lower-carbon than alternatives made from new PET.

However, contesting many of the conclusions drawn in the report has been the European Plastics Recyclers (EuPR), a group that represents national associations and individual member companies covering 80 percent of the European plastic market. In critiquing the report, the EuPR contends that the main points of the report are inconsistent with a move toward a recycling society.

In a statement the EuPR released after the SRI report was published, Casper van den Dungen, vice president of EuPR’s PET Working Group, says, “This publication is unwise, dangerous for sustainability and goes against European legislation.”

“By applying the SRI Consulting results we would lose valuable material in landfills. The used model is intrinsically wrong as in reality landfill should be avoided as a starting principle,” van de Dungen adds. Regarding exports outside Europe, van de Dungen notes, “The study is wrongly indicating that a one-way transport is not critical from a carbon footprint point of view. Although, much is coming back as imported products with a higher carbon footprint compared to our local alternatives in Europe.”

Finally, van den Dungen says, “Publishing such reports to question recycling doesn’t help to reach the legal and environmental targets in an already enough complex market.”

More information on the report may be obtained by visiting www.sriconsulting.com.