OberlinGitlitz

Rolling Over in his Grave: What Charles Martin Hall might think about aluminum wasting in the United States today.: 

Rolling Over in his Grave: What Charles Martin Hall might think about aluminum wasting in the United States today. Jennifer Gitlitz Research Director Oberlin College April 7, 2003

Charles Martin Hall, 1863-1914: 

Charles Martin Hall, 1863-1914 1885: graduated from Oberlin 1886: reduced aluminum from alumina, using cryolite as a solvent and electricity 1886: With backing from Alfred Hunt, founded the Pittsburgh Reduction Company, precursor to Alcoa 1889: Received patent d.1914: Left Oberlin $10 million

Alcoa: 

Alcoa $20.3 billion in gross revenues Over $400 million in profit Operating in 39 countries Produced 3.5 million tons (MT) of aluminum Owns 4 MT of smelter capacity =16% of world total (26 MT), 10% of which is idle CEO Alain Belda’s compensation (2001): $13.9 million Alcoa in 2002:

The Problem: Aluminum can waste is growing: 

The Problem: Aluminum can waste is growing 1990: 594,420 tons 2001: 759,625 tons Graph prepared using data from the Aluminum Association and the U.S. Department of Commerce. 1970 is a CRI estimate. …a 28% increase

Part of larger trend: Falling Container Recycling Rates: 

Part of larger trend: Falling Container Recycling Rates

Trend has been driven by:: 

Trend has been driven by: Growth in away-from-home consumption Expanded, complex beverage market (complicates recycling education and collection programs) Few new curbside or drop-off programs Declining support and funding for recycling Declining relative deposit value in 10 deposit states Aluminum scrap value has not kept up with inflation

Aluminum wasting: not a landfill scarcity issue, but an issue of “replacement production” impacts: 

Aluminum wasting: not a landfill scarcity issue, but an issue of “replacement production” impacts Loss of habitat, agricultural land, and indigenous ways of life as a result of strip-mining, building hydroelectric dams/reservoirs, and infrastructure Bauxite & coal mining: soil erosion, water pollution Local/regional air pollution. Replacing 760,000 tons of wasted cans, for example, generates: 75,000 tons of SOx and NOx (smog & acid rain) 15,800 tons of particulates (soot) >4,000 tons of toxic chlorides, fluorides, & organic compounds

Bauxite mining and alumina refining: soil erosion, air and water pollution: 

Bauxite mining and alumina refining: soil erosion, air and water pollution Mud pond from bauxite mining operation: 4-5 tons of bauxite ore required for 1 ton of aluminum ingot. Photos: Dr. Robert Lancashire, University of the West Indies Jamaica’s Kirkvine alumina refinery: 2 tons of caustic red mud wastes per ton of primary ingot, plus air emissions.

Cans and bottle wasting has disproportionate environmental impacts: 

Cans and bottle wasting has disproportionate environmental impacts

Damage from can & bottle litter: $938 per farm per year: 

Damage from can & bottle litter: $938 per farm per year “There is little a community can do about drought or disaster, but we can do something positive about litter from beverage containers by supporting Jeffords' [national deposit] bill.” livestock deaths crop losses feed contamination equipment damage expensive clean-up Source: Larry Breech, President of the Pennsylvania Farmers Union, in an op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 21, 2002.

Aluminum smelting is electricity-intensive: 

Aluminum smelting is electricity-intensive Replacing one wasted can requires about 0.5 kWh of electricity: enough to light a 100-watt bulb for 5 hours, or to power an average laptop computer for 11 hours. For every six-pack of beer or soda not recycled, the energy equivalent of one beverage can full of gasoline is squandered.

The Hydro-Aluminum connection: 

The Hydro-Aluminum connection 3 case studies: Volta River,Ghana James Bay, Quebec Alcoa in Iceland

Ghana’s Akosombo Dam on the Volta River: 

Ghana’s Akosombo Dam on the Volta River Kaiser’s 200,000 ton smelter completed in 1965 Exacerbated waterborne diseases: schistosomiasis malaria onchocerciasis (river-blindness) Flooded 8,300 km2 incl. tributaries & agric. lands 80,000 people from 740 villages relocated All alumina imported, few development benefits

Loss of agricultural areas: 

Loss of agricultural areas “Since we weren’t on a main river, we didn’t get any compensation from the government. Our farms were flooded. Now we have to farm in the hills…they are rocky and sandy.”

James Bay, Quebec: 

James Bay, Quebec 3 drainage basins: La Grande, Eastmain, Caniapiscau 11 dams, 208 dikes: unbroken chain of reservoirs Flooded 11,250 km2 JB I: 15,743 MW 4 aluminum smelters: 885,000 TPY; 1,740 MW Does not include 3 private Alcan dams (2,687 MW/1823 km2 flooded)

1984: 9,800 migrating caribou drowned in the Caniapiscau River: 

1984: 9,800 migrating caribou drowned in the Caniapiscau River

Quebec’s Eastmain River: before: 

Quebec’s Eastmain River: before

…after 90% of its flow was diverted: 

…after 90% of its flow was diverted

Features of traditional life co-exist…: 

Features of traditional life co-exist… Home to 16,000 Cree and Inuit Methyl mercury in the food chain Loss of ancestral hunting grounds Inundation of graveyards Cultural disintegration

Alcoa in Iceland: 

Alcoa in Iceland 322,000 ton, $1.1B smelter to be completed in 2007--plus infrastructure The International Rivers Network has called it “a Soviet-style restructuring of one of Iceland's most precious wilderness areas…” Will submerge 22 square miles of tundra, including: Grazing habitat for over 2,000 reindeer Nesting ground for the pink-footed goose Up to 60 waterfalls Icelandic equivalent of the Grand Canyon Cheap power tied to the global price of aluminum

Aluminum wasted in the U.S., 2001:: 

Aluminum wasted in the U.S., 2001: 760,000 tons of beverage cans… more than the combined annual capacity of Kaiser’s Ghana smelter: 200,000 TPY Alcoa’s Iceland smelter: 320,000 TPY Alcoa’s Deschambault 215,000 TPY smelter in Quebec: 735,000 TPY According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2.3 million tons of non-can aluminum were also wasted.

Deposits can help halt the waste: 

hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd hfdshfdsjfhdsklhfkjsd Deposits can help halt the waste The deposit is a proven financial incentive for recycling. Even in California, where the deposit is 2.5¢, the aluminum can redemption rate is 75% (and 69% for all containers) The nation’s 10 deposit states achieve an average container recycling rate of 72%, versus 29% in 40 non-deposit states In Michigan, the only state with a dime deposit, the redemption rate is 95%

The Effect of Deposit Laws on the UBC Recycling Rate, 1970-1990: 

The Effect of Deposit Laws on the UBC Recycling Rate, 1970-1990

Obstacles to passing more deposit laws: industry intimidation and spending: 

“Bottle bills are popular and effective, yet special interest money has flowed straight from the bottle industry to congressional campaign coffers in order to end debate on the issue.” -- Gene Karpinski Executive Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) Obstacles to passing more deposit laws: industry intimidation and spending

Lobbying against a national bottle bill: 

Lobbying against a national bottle bill From 1989 -1994, more than $14 million was spent to defeat National Bottle Bill (NBB). In 1992, Congressional candidates opposing an NBB received $3.4 million: more than in any single year. In 1992, the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee voted 10-6 against the NBB. Committee members who opposed an NBB received 75 times the campaign contributions as those in favor. Source: US PIRG.

Cartoon from Joel Pett: 

Cartoon from Joel Pett © Joel Pett, Lexington Herald-Leader, 2000.

The Happy Can: 

The Happy Can Focuses on recyclability, not actual recycling rate Omits impacts of mining, smelting, etc. The lightweighting myth: “less can, more filling” Myth of community building…through municipal curbside programs and can drives

Voluntary mechanisms are insufficient: 

Voluntary mechanisms are insufficient

Aluminum Can Recycling vs. Access to Curbside Programs, 1990-2000: 

Aluminum Can Recycling vs. Access to Curbside Programs, 1990-2000

Who Pays?: 

Who Pays? Curbside recycling collection places an expensive burden on local governments.

Deposits: Real Corporate Responsibility: 

Deposits: Real Corporate Responsibility Deposits transfer the cost of disposing of discards--whether by recycling, landfills, or litter clean-up--from the taxpayer to the producer and consumer. Are deposits “a 1970’s solution to a 1970’s problem”? Or an early example of extended producer responsibility? (EPR)

What would Charles Martin Hall think?: 

What would Charles Martin Hall think? $1,000/ton

Container Recycling Institute: 

1911 Ft. Myer Drive, Suite 702 Arlington, Virginia 22209-1603 Tel. (703) 276-9800 Fax (703) 276-9587 www.container-recycling.org www.bottlebill.org Container Recycling Institute Jennifer Gitlitz Director of Research Home office 2 Pomeroy Ave Dalton, MA 01602 Tel. (413) 684-4746 Fax (928) 833-0460 jgitlitz@container-recycling.org