Canada – blue box diversion in Ontario: a cost/benefit analysis of recycling targets

A new report, which uses the computing power of the Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Model, clearly shows that if packaging materials and printed materials generated from Ontario‘‘s households had recycling targets of 60 per cent put on “each material”, then Blue Box costs would increase significantly and there would be very little additional environmental benefit compared to other methods of achieving 60 per cent diversion in the year 2008.



Using 2003 industry data, supplied by Stewardship Ontario and MacViro Consultants, the IWM Model was used to forecast the costs and environmental benefits (in terms of energy, GHG, NOx, PM and VOC reductions) of a 60 per cent “overall” recycling rate based on a least cost per tonne approach, as opposed to a 60 per cent recycling rate for each material category of packaging and printed materials.



The comparison included the costs and environmental benefits in sending the residues (uncaptured Blue Box printed materials and packaging) to landfill versus energy recovery, for a complete system cost and environmental assessment. Study conclusions showed that a 60 per cent recycling rate on each material category of packaging and printed materials would cost an estimated C$383 million compared to C$227 million for a 60 per cent overall recycling rate, with residues to landfill. (Costs reflect both the cost of recycling and the costs of managing residues).



The additional C$156 million, if 60 per cent is required for each category of packaging materials, would not buy any significant further environmental benefit. Both scenarios achieved similar reductions in Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Particulate Matter (PM) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and the differences in energy and GHG reductions are not significant. A 60 per cent recycling rate on “each material” would only reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a further 266,000 tonnes–about 0.1 per cent of the 240 million tonnes of GHG reductions required for Canada to meet its Kyoto requirements.



By contrast, a 10 per-cent improvement in automotive fuel efficiency (litres/100 kilometres) in the province‘‘s 6.95 million vehicles would result in a reduction of around 5.3 million tonnes of GHGs. Additionally, the analysis strongly suggests that it would be more eco-efficient and more cost-efficient if all residues were used to produce energy, instead of going to landfill.



The analysis shows that an ‘‘overall‘‘ 60 per cent recycling rate combined with residues going to energy recovery, would further reduce the total Blue Box system costs to between C$106 – C$207 million (depending on the efficiency of energy recovery), compared to C$383 million (for 60 per cent recycling of each category of packaging and printed materials, as well as the landfilling of residues). This means that sending residues to energy recovery, instead of landfill, has the potential to cut total costs by up to almost 75 per cent.



The IWM Model is supported by Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Corporations Supporting Recycling (CSR) and EPIC. EPIC would like to see the IWM computer model used by provinces, municipalities and other interested stakeholders to chart the most cost effective and environmentally positive approaches to increasing waste diversion in Canada