Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Replacing Beverage Containers Wasted in 2005e

Container Type Greenhouse Gases Per Ton Wasted (MTCE) (a) Containers Wasted, 2005 (b) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to "Replacement Production"
Units (billion) Tons (million) (million MTCE) # cars with equivalent annual emissions (million) (c)
Aluminum cans 4.09 55.0 0.8 3.3 2.6
#1 PET plastic bottles 0.42 43.6 1.5 0.6 0.5
#2 HDPE plastic bottles 0.38 6.8 0.4 0.2 0.1
Glass bottles 0.08 28.8 6.9 0.5 0.4
Total n/a 134.1 9.6 4.7 3.7

(a) Metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) per ton of "replacement" containers; ie., the difference in GHG emissions between making 1 ton of containers from 100% virgin materials vs. 100% recycled materials. Source for per ton emissions data: Derived from Exhibit 4.4, “Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, 2nd edition." EPA530-R-02-006, May 2002.

(b) Aluminum can data based on data from the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Department of Commerce; plastic and glass data is estimated using data from prior years from the Glass Packaging Institute, the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, the American Plastics Council, and the National Association of PET Container Resources.

(c) Average American car emits 1.3 MTCE/year. Derived from "Prioritizing your climate waste activities." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. October 2005. <www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/ reduce/wstewise/pubs/cliwaste.pdf> Accessed 2-6-05.

© Container Recycling Institute, 2006

Energy Impacts of Replacing Beverage Containers Wasted in 2005 (estimated)

 
Container Type Energy Per Ton Wasted
(MBtu) (a)
Containers Wasted, 2005 (b) Energy Wasted Due to "Replacement Production" (c)
Units (billion) Tons (million) Barrels of Crude Oil Equivalent (million) Households' Total Annual Energy Needs Met (million)
Aluminum cans 206.9 55.0 0.8 29.0 1.5
#1 PET plastic bottles 53.4 43.6 1.5 14.3 0.3
#2 HDPE plastic bottles 51.4 6.8 0.4 3.7 0.1
Glass bottles 2.7 28.8 6.9 3.2 0.1
Total n/a 134.1 9.6 50.2 2.0

(a) Million British Thermal Units (MBtu) per ton of "replacement" containers; ie., the difference in energy required to make 1 ton of containers from 100% virgin materials vs. 100% recycled materials. Source for per ton energy requirements: "Waste Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the Numbers." Choate, Ferland et. al., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, October 2005.

(b) Aluminum can data based on data from the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Department of Commerce; plastic and glass data is estimated using data from prior years from the Glass Packaging Institute, the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, the American Plastics Council, and the National Association of PET Container Resources.

(c) Factors used: 5.78 MBtu/barrel crude oil; Avg. annual residential energy use: 94.6 Mbtu/household. Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, “A Look at Residential Energy Consumption in 2001.” www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption.

© Container Recycling Institute, 2006

Beverage containers wasted, by material: 1986 and 2006

column graph comparing container wasting in 1986 and 2006. Dairy and glass are excluded.In 1986, 648,315 tons of aluminum cans were wasted (not recycled), but in 2006 815,352 tons were wasted.

In 1986, 276,711 tons of steel cans were wasted, but only 1,687 tons were wasted in 2006.

285,188 tons of PET bottles were wasted in 1986, while 2,076,000 tons were wasted in 2006.

In 1986, 58,884 tons of HDPE bottles were wasted, and in 2006, 148,283 tons were wasted.

Aluminum, plastic, and glass recycling rates

Line graph comparing recycling rates of aluminum, PET, and glass containers from 1986-2006

Aluminum cans are the most-recycled major container type in the United States, with a 45% U.S. recycling rate. This rate is down nine percentage points from the 54.5% aluminum can recycling rate in 2000, and it is down twenty percentage points from the peak of 65% in 1992.

PET plastic bottles had a 23.5% recycling rate in 2006, compared to 24.8% in 2000. This rate is down from a peak of 37.3% in 1995.

Glass was recycled at an average rate of 27.8% in 2006.

Popular Links

  • Publications
  • CRI Memberships
  • Data Archive

New beverage container deposit program bills. Expansion and repeal proposals. Sales, redemption rate and waste trends. Refillable bottle infrastructure. Extended producer responsibility.

CRI covers them all – and more – as the leading source of original research, objective analysis and responsible advocacy on the recycling of beverage containers.

Get the latest insights on our Publications and Letters and Briefings pages. Also visit our California DRS page for details on important upgrades made to the state’s beverage container deposit return program, but also the need for additional program reforms – in large part due to misreporting of its fund balance, which diligent work by CRI helped bring to light.

Plus, sign up for our Weekly Headlines e-newsletter for the latest beverage container deposit and recycling industry news, and check back for new information as we continue working to make North America a global model for the collection and quality recycling of packaging materials.

CRI offers a variety of membership and partnership options that provide a wide range of benefits, including complimentary registration to CRI webinars, technical assistance and more.

Review the options on our Memberships & Partnerships page and join us!

Find a wealth of data on metrics such as recycling rates, waste and sales for all beverage container types on CRI’s Data Archive page. Charts and graphs present key information in a user-friendly way.

donate_red_allcaps_black



Learn how CRI made a difference in 2023 through high-profile initiatives, legislative analysis and advocacy, and education and collaboration.






 

 

This counter represents the number of beverage cans and bottles that have been landfilled, littered and incinerated in the US so far this year
Scroll To Top