Organizations Accuse Aluminum Industry of “Greenwashing”

Nonprofit environmental organizations the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), Washington, D.C., and the International Rivers Network (IRN), Berkeley, Calif., say that “greenwashing” by the aluminum industry masks the real environmental costs of aluminum production.

CRI Executive Director Pat Franklin says the Aluminum Association "reported an increase of less than one percentage point in the national aluminum can recycling rate—from 51.2 to 52.0 percent, but they failed to mention that we still are trashing 800,000 tons of aluminum beverage cans a year.” Franklin adds that this amounts to the annual output of three to four major primary aluminum smelters.

“Frankly, I was surprised to see how slight the increase was, given the record-breaking prices for scrap aluminum cans in 2005,” Franklin says, adding that 100 million fewer cans were recovered for recycling in 2005. In 2004, 51.5 billion cans were collected for recycling, while 51.4 billion cans out of the 99 billion sold in 2005 were recovered for recycling.

Jennifer Gitlitz, CRI research director, says, "These trashed cans must be replaced with new cans made entirely from virgin materials, and that is where the environmental damage occurs.”

She says that bauxite mining and processing are a major source of water pollution. “Each ton of aluminum cans requires five tons of bauxite ore to be strip-mined, crushed, washed and refined into alumina before it is smelted,” she explains. “The process creates about 5 tons of caustic red mud residue which can seep into surface and groundwater.”

Gitlitz continues, “We’re talking about immense energy consumption. Three percent of the electricity generated worldwide goes to aluminum. While aluminum companies often cite big savings from recycling, they fail to mention that at current wasting levels, about 23 billion kilowatt-hours are squandered globally each year through ‘replacement production.’” She adds, “About 7 kWh are saved per pound (33 cans) recycled. Had the billions of cans trashed been recycled, the electricity saved could power 1.3 million American homes.”

Glenn Switkes, Latin America director of the International Rivers Network, says, “Aluminum companies are relocating to the tropics because governments in developing countries are providing them with subsidized hydroelectricity. These dams have irreversible impacts on biodiversity, and displace thousands of riverbank dwellers and indigenous peoples.”

Aluminum production also contributes to climate change, according to the CRI. About 95 million tons of greenhouse gases were produced by the global aluminum industry in 2005, according to the association.

“While the industry as a whole has made laudable technical improvements to reduce greenhouse emissions for each ton of primary aluminum produced,” Gitlitz says, “it has consistently failed to eliminate the portion of greenhouse gasses that come from replacing 1.5 million tons of trashed cans with new ones made from virgin materials—that is to say—from bauxite and electricity.”

Primary aluminum smelting also generates sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, which contribute to smog and acid rain. “Had the cans wasted in 2005 been recycled,” Gitlitz says, “they would have avoided the emission of 75,000 tons of SOx and NOx.”

Franklin also says the recycling rates for aluminum cans are higher in states with beverage container deposit laws, or bottle bills. She says that in the 11 U.S. states with such laws, 75 percent to 95 percent of all cans sold are recycled. “States without deposits only recycled 35 percent of cans sold,” she adds.

“This means that there is already a realistic policy option to combat container waste,” Franklin says, “but it has not been adopted more widely due to industry lobbying, public relations and lip service.”