Green Dot summary byBev Thorpe, Clean Production Action

EPR Work Group meetingJuly 7/8 Buffalo, NYBev@cleanproduction.org

Why make the producer responsible?

Only the product designer can choose material and form/function of the productEPR puts the feedback loop back on the producer to design for disassembly, reuse, and safer recyclingHazardous materials increase the producer’s liability and costs

EPR can make products more recyclable and less wasteful if:

Focus is specifically on waste from end of life productsFinancial responsibility is clear to producers for collection, transport and recyclingMeangful targets are established for collection and recycling….

…EPR programs are effective if:

Recycling is clearly differentiated from waste to energy conversion/incinerationReporting requirements and enforcement mechanisms establishedProducers have incentive to design for reuse/recyclingConsumers have incentives to return their old products (eg free and easy)

EPR is embodied in:

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

First EPR program: Germany’s Green Dot for packaging

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

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

DSDNon profit company, Duales System Deutschland (DSD) licenses logo for a feeFees based on the material and weight of the package and paid by filler – usually the owner of the product brand nameHouseholds 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

License fee for Green Dot, Oct 1994Weight-based Fee: DM/kg

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

paper Al Plastic Comp Natural

materials

DSD sets clear targets

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

Effects of DSD: less packaging

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

Effects of DSD: product redesign

Packaging redesign:lightweightingelimination of unessential packaging (blister packs) increased use of concentrates and refill packs

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 recyclingBUT: One third recycling via ‘feedstock recycling’ eg pyrolysis, hydrogenation and substitution of waste plastic for oil in steel production

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%)

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

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 wasteCosts of the Green Dot are between 520 and 605 euros per tonne, could drop to 250-370 euros

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)

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)

Re-use in Europe

On average in the European Union, about one third of the packaging for soft drinks, mineral water and wine is reusedThe 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.

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

Germany’s 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 textilesBiowasteConstruction wasteBatteries