Recycling

...for the future

Consider the benefits
Recycling is everybody’s business. From industry to government, from schools to our very own households, America’s commitment to

recycling has helped keep our communities clean and our economy strong.

Federal agencies are further reducing waste generation, increasing recycling, and increasing purchases of recycled products.

Working together, there is even more we can do. Today, we challenge every

American to step forward, take action, and contribute to this important

national effort. By bringing new partners to the recycling efforts of businesses and families across the nation, we will better protect our natural

resources, improve our quality of life, and strengthen our economy.

— White House Task Force

on Recycling
Recycling...for the future

Consider the benefits

This is the first in a series of documents about the state of recycling in America 

published by the White House Task Force on Greening the Government Through Waste

Prevention and Recycling (Task Force on Recycling).

November 1998
Recycling is one of the best environmental success stories of the late 20th century.

Today, curbside recycling collection programs reach the majority of the American

population. In fact, more people recycle household waste than vote in elections. This

nationwide, grassroots effort creates an immense flow of materials. Recycling, including

composting, diverted 57 million tons of material away from landfills and incinerators in

1996, up from 34 million tons in 1990—a 67 percent increase in just 6 years. In 2005,

the diversion rate resulting from recycling and composting is projected to reach 83 million tons, or 35 percent of all solid waste. 

To understand how large this amount is, imagine recycling boxes 3 feet long (9

cubic feet) filled with recovered materials stacked end to end, forming a bridge from the

earth to the moon. In 1996, these boxes would reach three-quarters of the way to the moon.

When we achieve our 2005 recycling goal of 35 percent, the

boxes of recyclables will reach the moon. 

Is recycling worth all the effort? Is profitability

the only bottom line? Some observers suggest that

current profitability is the only measure of success. This perspective focuses solely on how an

individual recycling program impacts a community’s total waste management costs, compared to the

alternative of sending everything to a landfill or

incinerator. Other observers suggest a broader

view of the costs and benefits of recycling.

Although experience differs from one recycling

program to another, the most successful programs,

including many with the highest diversion rates,

are cost-effective and, indeed, profitable. Inevitably,

markets for collected recyclables go up and down.

To somewhat insulate recycling programs from

severe market swings, the efficiency of recycling

recycling for the future

CONSIDER THE BENEFITS
programs must continually be improved. One of the goals for the recycling community

in the next decade must be to identify and replicate the factors that determine success.

While efforts to learn from and adopt the methods used by the most efficient programs are ongoing throughout the country, it is important to recognize the many economic and environmental benefits recycling already achieves. Many of these benefits

either might not be apparent to casual observers, might

be clouded by municipal accounting and taxing

peculiarities, or might not be reflected in the market prices of contracts between cities and recyclers. The full energy savings from recycling used

beverage containers, for example, is not included

in the prices negotiated in a curbside recycling

contract.

The benefits from solid waste recycling also

apply to waste streams other than those managed by municipalities, such

as industrial wastes, construction and demolition debris, and agricultural

wastes. Recycling materials from these sources also enhances the sustainability of the planet and the future of our children.

At least eight categories of benefits result from the recycling of solid

waste. Recycling:

■ Reduces the need for new landfills

■ Prevents emissions of many air and water pollutants

■ Saves energy

■ Supplies valuable raw materials to industry

■ Creates jobs

■ Reduces greenhouse gas emissions

■ Stimulates the development of greener technologies

■ Conserves resources for our children’s future

It is important to recognize the many economic

and environmental benefits recycling already achieves.
Recycling has been one of the

growth industries of the 1970s, 1980s,

and 1990s. Recycling is not a fad. By

1996, more than 7,000 curbside collection programs served roughly half

of the American population. In that

year, recycling, including composting, diverted 27 percent, more than

a quarter of the nation’s solid waste.

But recycling isn’t new; it’s as old

as recorded history. Before the days

of mass production, households routinely repaired, reused, and recycled

their material possessions as a matter

of economic necessity. Then as now,

key industries rely on recycling.

Rags, for example, provided the

principal source of fiber for the

paper industry until the late 19th

century. Corrugated boxes have long

been collected by retailers for recycling back into shipping containers.

Scrap yards have always efficiently

recycled old automobiles, automotive parts, and other metal goods. 

World Wars I and II brought brief

surges in recycling as scrap drives

collected paper, metals, and other

materials for the war efforts. After

the war, scrap drives declined, and

by the late 1960s, the overall levels

of recycling and participation by

individual households in the United

States hit rock-bottom. Traditional

forms of recycling also diminished

with the explosive growth in America’s

economy throughout most of the

20th century. Rising incomes and the

spread of affordable mass-produced

goods have allowed a life of growing

material abundance. With this abundance came an increasing tendency

to discard and replace products after

their initial use, rather than to reuse

or recycle them. 

The surge in environmental

activism and awareness that began in

the early 1970s led to a new wave of

interest in recycling. As many as

3,000 volunteer recycling centers

opened in the years following the first

Earth Day in 1970. More than 100

curbside collection programs were

set up in the early 1970s, many of

them concentrating on a few materials such as newspapers and cans.

Interest in recycling and volunteer

programs continued to expand. The

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and some state agencies developed guidelines, technical

assistance, and targets for local efforts.

Although waste generation grew by

25 percent in the 1970s, recycling

grew by more than 45 percent.

a brief history of recycling
In the 1980s landfill shortages began

to occur, particularly in densely populated areas of the country, leading to

garbage being transported long distances, frequently across state lines.

Waste management firms began to

offer recycling programs, often in connection with proposals for new incinerators or landfills. Community groups

often called for even more ambitious

recycling efforts, in the hopes of limiting or avoiding new disposal facilities. State and local governments

played an increasingly active role in

planning for waste management, including an expanded role for recycling and composting. The combined

effects of landfill shortages, resistance

to accepting out-of-state garbage, and

growing national attention to the issue

prompted EPA to publish national policy guidance—the 1989 Agenda for

Action called for Americans to achieve

a 25 percent recycling rate. By this

time, there were about 1,000 curbside

collection programs as well as countless drop-off, workplace, and other

recycling efforts. While waste generation again grew rapidly in the 1980s,

increasing by nearly 36 percent, recycling and composting shot up by

nearly 132 percent during the decade,

to 16 percent of total waste generation.

Increased collection of recyclables

initially created a greater supply of

recovered materials than could be

readily utilized by U.S. manufacturing companies. By the mid-1990s,

however, industry was making multimillion dollar investments in processing and manufacturing technologies specifically designed to use

recovered materials instead of virgin

raw materials to produce a broad

range of products. Consumers have

become increasingly aware of the

important role they play when buying products made from the same

materials they collect for recycling.

Government agencies at all levels

have worked to ensure recycling’s

viability by increasing government

purchases of recycled-content products. From 1990 to 1997, recycling

continued to achieve double-digit

growth, increasing to a total of 27

percent of solid waste generation—a

growth of nearly 67 percent over the

1990 recycling rate, surpassing the

national policy goal of 25 percent. 

The national trends in recycling

are reflected in the experience of

many cities and towns. To pick just

one example, Ann Arbor, Michigan,

was among the communities

where volunteers opened a dropoff station in 1970. A few years

later, a volunteer group called

Recycle Ann Arbor began curbside

recycling collection. Today, Ann

Arbor’s municipal government

offers its residents weekly collection

of 23 types of recyclables and seasonal collection of four types of

yard debris. These efforts, combined with widespread home composting, drop-off recycling, and

the effects of Michigan’s bottle bill,

allow Ann Arbor to divert 52 percent of its waste. Recycle Ann

Arbor bids competitively for, and

consistently wins, the city contract

to provide recycling services. 

The high volume of diversion

helps hold down the costs. In 1996,

for example, Ann Arbor spent $71

per ton on recycling and composting, compared to $86 per ton for

trash collection and disposal. 

Communities such as Ann

Arbor, which have achieved high

diversion at low cost, provide useful models in the effort to improve

the cost-effectiveness of local recycling programs throughout the

country.
the life of a steel can

EXPLORATION

Iron ore, limestone,

and coal are

discovered by blasting

huge holes in the

earth’s surface, with

associated impacts on

lands and biodiversity.

EXTRACTION AND

PROCESSING

Raw materials are 

extracted from the earth,

possibly displacing plant

and animal habitats and

polluting the air and nearby

water sources. The extracted

materials are then processed

to remove impurities.

COKE MAKING

Coal is converted into coke,

creating potentially hazardous air pollutants and

carcinogenic substances

which might be emitted.

Then, coke is combined 

with limestone and iron ore

in huge blast furnaces that

create molten “pig” iron.

LANDFILLING

After being used,

some steel cans are

discarded...

MANUFACTURING

Molten steel is poured

into molds, then converted into steel coils.

DISTRIBUTION

Cans are distributed to

product manufacturers, who fill them with

a range of products

from paint to peaches.

USE

Products in steel cans

are purchased 

and used.

FABRICATION

Steel coils are 

converted into cans 

of various sizes.
PROCESSING

Steel cans are separated from

aluminum cans, cleaned to

remove labels and food residuals, then crushed, baled, and

sent to a mill to be melted

down and made into new steel

cans. No exploration, extraction, or coke making occurs.

RECOVERY

...while others are recovered

for recycling.

THE BENEFITS OF

RECYCLING STEEL

The recycling of steel food

containers and packaging

between 1990 and 1996

resulted in: 

■ Savings of almost 19 

million British thermal

units (Btus) of energy.

■ Reduction of greenhouse

gas emissions by almost

600 thousand metric tons

of carbon equivalent.

■ Production of valuable

materials worth $57

million.

■ Savings of almost 3 million cubic yards of landfill

space. 

Overall steel recycling from

all sources (e.g., old cans and

bridges) in the United States

was nearly 72 million tons

with a total economic value of

almost $6.8 billion.
Recovering and reusing materials results in substantial environmental and societal

benefits. The following sections detail how recycling reduces the need for new landfills,

prevents pollution, saves energy, supplies valuable raw materials to industry, creates

jobs, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, stimulates development of greener technologies,

and conserves resources for our children’s future.

No one wants more landfills in their community. And certainly no one

wants to live near a landfill. As long as we keep throwing out large

amounts of trash, old landfills will fill up and new ones will have to be

opened. Here the benefit from recycling is obvious: every cubic yard of

material handled by a recycling or composting program is one less cubic

yard of landfill space that is required.

In 1996, recycling and composting diverted a total of 130 million cubic yards of material away from landfills; in 2005, the projected diversion will be 195 million cubic yards. To

handle this much additional waste—the situation we would have faced without recycling—

we would have needed 64 more landfills, each of them large enough to serve the combined

city populations of Dallas and Detroit, to be opened in our communities in 1996. Similarly,

without recycling, we would need 92 such landfills in 2005. 

recycling...

THE BENEFITS

RECYCLING REDUCES

THE NEED FOR NEW

LANDFILLS

Annual Landfill Space Saved 

From Recycling

1996

130 million cubic yards of material

Equivalent to 64 large landfills

2005

195 million cubic yards of material

Equivalent to 92 large landfills
Many pollutants are released by the extraction and processing of raw

materials. Some of these pollutants are known to be carcinogenic or

toxic to humans, and some have effects, such as creating acid rain, that

are damaging to natural habitats. In addition, for many new and highvolume usage chemicals, the long-term effects are unknown. Extensive

life-cycle analyses find overall emissions to all environmental media to be lower when

we use recovered rather than virgin materials. Recycling is a highly effective strategy for

reducing all the categories of health risks and pollution resulting from virgin material

extraction and processing.

Recycling is a highly effective strategy for reducing all the

categories of health risks and pollution resulting from 

virgin material production.

RECYCLING PREVENTS 

EMISSIONS OF 

AIR AND WATER 

POLLUTANTS

PURCHASING DECISIONS HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Consider the impact of Executive Order 13101’s directive to all federal agencies to

cease purchasing copier paper unless it contains 30 percent recycled content. For the

paper industry alone, this decision will result in:

■ 450,000 to 500,000 fewer trees cut down annually for paper production.

■ 16,000 tons of carbon absorbed annually by the trees that remain standing.

■ 12 percent reduction in energy used in producing copier paper.

■ 14 percent average reduction in air emissions and greenhouse gases.

■ 13 percent reduction in the amount of solid waste requiring

disposal.

■ 13 percent reduction in water pollutants.

Each of us makes purchasing decisions every day. The

federal government only buys 2 percent of all the copier

paper sold in the United States. Think of the positive

impact on the environment if the remaining 98 percent

of the copier paper sold contained recycled content.
The extraction and processing of raw materials into manufacturing

feedstocks are some of the most energy-intensive activities of industry.

Reducing or nearly eliminating the need for these processes, therefore,

achieves huge savings in energy. Recycling of aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount

of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite. The amount of energy saved differs by material, but almost all recycling processes achieve significant energy savings compared to virgin material production. 

In 1996, recycling resulted in an annual energy savings of at least 408 trillion Btus, or

0.5 percent of all energy use nationwide. This is equal to the amount of energy used in

4 million households annually. In 2005, recycling is conservatively projected to save 605

trillion Btus, equal to the energy used in 6 million households.

RECYCLING 

SAVES ENERGY

Annual Energy Savings Resulting 

From Recycling

1996

408 trillion Btus

Equivalent to energy used by 4 million households

2005

605 trillion Btus 

Equivalent to energy used by 6 million households

Recycling of aluminum cans saves 95 percent 

of the energy required to make the same amount 

of aluminum from its virgin source.
When cans, bottles, paper, and other products are recycled, they are

processed into raw materials that can be used in the manufacture of

new products. Much of the recent investment in the paper industry has

been in mills and machines designed specifically to handle recovered

paper. Today, 67 percent of the steel produced in the United States is

made from recovered steel. The fastest growing steel companies rely upon mini-mills,

whose electric arc furnaces recycle iron and steel scrap using only a fraction of the energy required in traditional steel mills. This also allows the U.S. steel industry to compete

more effectively in the global marketplace. In the aluminum industry, 42 percent of all

production contains recovered aluminum. Our aluminum beverage cans contain an

average of 55 percent recycled content. The industry buys more than $1 billion in

recovered aluminum cans at prices that continue to make aluminum recycling an

obvious economic success for community recycling programs across the United States. 

The dollar value of materials recovered from solid waste has become substantial: $3.6

billion in 1996 and a projected $5.2 billion by 2005. Recovered paper and paperboard

account for about one-third of the total in both years. In 1996, the market value of

recovered paper and paperboard was 24 percent of the value of all pulp mill shipments.

By 1997, the paper industry relied on recovered paper for 45 percent of its feedstock.

RECYCLING 

SUPPLIES VALUABLE

MATERIALS 

TO INDUSTRY

Annual Value of Materials Supplied 

From Recycling

1996

$3.6 billion

2005

$5.2 billion
The traditional waste management system, involving garbage collection

followed by landfilling or incineration, creates relatively few jobs.

While no nationwide estimates of job creation are available, some local

studies have found substantial impacts from recycling. Frequently,

many of the recycling jobs are located in America’s inner cities where

job creation is particularly critical. Recent studies of employment in northeast and

southern states, bolstered by studies of the remanufacturing industry, indicate that recycling activities employ more than 2.5 percent of manufacturing workers. Applying these

studies to the entire nation, recycling and remanufacturing activities account for approximately 1 million manufacturing jobs and more than $100 billion in revenue.

Since unemployment is now at its lowest level in a generation, job creation

might appear to be unnecessary. The fact that recycling continues to expand the job base

and create tens of thousands of new jobs for a constantly growing labor force is a very

important contribution toward sustaining stable employment rates in the future. Of

equal importance is that many of these recycling jobs are in urban areas, and many are

geared toward entry-level workers. 

Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases

contribute to global climate change. Reducing these emissions is a

national and international environmental priority to which recycling

contributes. The President recently indicated that the Administration

will advance the technology to reduce greenhouse gases, noting that by

increasing conservation and energy efficiency and using clean energy technologies, we

can reduce our greenhouse gas emission by significant amounts in the coming years.

In 1996, recycling of solid waste in the United States prevented the release of 33

million tons of carbon into the air—roughly the amount emitted annually by 25 million

cars. In 2005, recycling is projected to avoid 48 million tons of carbon emissions annually,

or the equivalent of 36 million cars. These carbon emissions are avoided through a combination of energy savings, forest carbon sequestration, and lower methane emissions.

Production with recovered materials results in much lower emissions of carbon dioxide because the energy used during the extraction and processing of virgin raw materials

is reduced. Net carbon emissions from producing a ton of new material are 4 to 5 times

higher than producing with recovered material in the steel, copper, glass, and paper

industries, and 40 times higher for aluminum. Most energy used for the manufacturing

RECYCLING 

CREATES JOBS

RECYCLING 

REDUCES 

GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS

Growing worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other 

with its potentially devastating weather-related effects.
of consumer products involves burning of coal, oil, or other fossil fuels, either directly

or because manufacturing plants buy electricity generated by fossil-fuel burning utilities.

Recycling lowers energy use in producing everything from boxes to buses, and thereby

lowers carbon emissions as well. 

Even when an industry relies heavily on hydroelectric power, as the aluminum

industry does, energy savings from recycling indirectly reduce carbon emissions. When

recycling reduces the use of energy in aluminum production, low-cost hydroelectric

power becomes available to other electric utility users. As they switch to hydroelectric

power, this allows higher-cost electricity produced from fossil fuels to be cut back,

which reduces carbon emissions.

Another reduction in the build-up of greenhouse gas emissions results from recycling paper. When we recycle, the paper industry’s need for virgin wood pulp is reduced,

which leaves more trees standing over longer periods of time. More carbon is retained in

forests through the natural process by which trees absorb carbon and generate oxygen,

thereby, keeping the carbon out of the atmosphere and reducing the potential for climate change.

Finally, if organic wastes, such as leaves, grass clippings, and paper, are recycled

instead of landfilled, we reduce production of methane, another major greenhouse gas

with even greater climate change potential than carbon dioxide. Second only to fossilfuel combustion, landfills are a leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United

States. Anything that reduces the landfilling of paper (or other organic matter), therefore, reduces greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Annual Reductions in Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Resulting From Recycling

1996

33 million tons of carbon

Equivalent to amount emitted by 25 million cars 

2005

48 million tons of carbon

Equivalent to amount emitted by 36 million cars 

greenhouse gases pose the serious long-term threat of climate change,
New technologies and industries are not created in a vacuum. Government incentives and regulations influence the direction in which private

enterprise evolves. In the late 19th century, for example, when America’s

natural resources appeared to be limitless, huge government grants of

land to railroads, mining interests, and timber companies opened the

West to transportation and industry. Prevailing attitudes encouraged the intensive use of

virgin raw materials. More recently, the federally funded interstate highway system,

government-funded research, and federal involvement in the development of computers

helped to establish many of the industries characteristic of the late 20th century. Recycling,

along with other environmental initiatives, sets a similar context for today’s industry. 

The vast supply of low-cost materials from community collection programs has

spurred many businesses to develop new and innovative technologies and products. A

good example is plastic lumber, which was developed to utilize low-cost materials such

as plastic grocery bags and wood chips or sawdust. Plastic lumber is long lasting,

requires limited upkeep, and resists warping and decay. (Seen below, a bridge built of

recycled plastic lumber at Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri, which represents the reuse of

about 13,000 pounds of mixed plastics that otherwise would have been landfilled.)

Existing technologies can likewise be adapted to utilize collected recyclables to manufacture products. One example of this is a technology originally developed for food

processing that is being used to remove additional glass, metal, plastic, and rubber from

cars now being recycled for steel. This allows the company to divert materials from

landfilling to recycling, thus saving money. The company hopes to some day apply this

technology to “mine” wastes from landfills.

RECYCLING

STIMULATES 

THE DEVELOPMENT

OF GREENER

TECHNOLOGIES
As we enter the 21st century, the earth’s natural resources are not

limitless. Ultimately, coal, oil, iron ore, bauxite, and other nonrenewable resources are available only in limited quantities. Even renewable

resources, such as paper and other wood products, are available only

up to a limited annual capacity. And while material depletion is a concern, other environmental issues, such as climate change, might present even more

pressing claims for immediate attention. 

Today, the three-part test for recycling in the United States is to: first, sustain our

commitment to supply those industries that have already invested in processing and

using recovered materials; second, to expand the markets for recycling of additional

materials; and third, to continue to improve recycling policies, processes, and technologies for recovering both renewable and, especially, nonrenewable resources.

RECYCLING 

CONSERVES

RESOURCES FOR OUR

CHILDREN’S FUTURE
Americans have done a remarkable job throughout our history in coming together to

meet challenges. The challenges of the new millennium will be many, but none more

critical than conserving the planet for our children.

WHAT CAN YOU DO? THE NATIONAL RECYCLING CHALLENGE

The Task Force on Recycling invites all citizens and sectors of American society—business, industry, government, and the public—to come together to maximize the many

economic, environmental, and societal benefits that recycling provides. Let’s work

together now to ensure that our children will enjoy a material and environmental quality

of life even better than our own. 

the real bottom line—

our children’s future
The Task Force on Recycling gratefully acknowledges the assistance of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste in the preparation of

the material for this brochure. In particular, the contributions of Eugene Lee and Dr. George Garland have been invaluable. Additionally, we are grateful for the assistance of Dr. Ron McHugh from EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and

Toxic Substances.

The Task Force on Recycling also is very grateful for the production assistance provided by the U.S. Postal Service.

Other contributors to this document include:

—Dr. Frank Ackerman, Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA. 

—Tellus Institute, Boston, MA, Recycling Benefits Calculations, memorandum to Dr. George Garland, 

U.S. EPA, September 11, 1998.

—Eastern Research Group, Inc., Arlington, VA, for technical communications and graphic design services. 

Much of the data utilized in preparing this document are from Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the

United States: 1996 Update, U.S. EPA, May 1997 (EPA530-R-97-015). 

The multimedia calculations for changes to federal paper procurement policy are derived from two sources: Paper

Task Force Recommendations for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable Paper, Duke University,

Environmental Defense Fund, Johnson and Johnson, McDonald’s, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, and

Time, Inc., 1995; and calculations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Products Laboratory, facsimile from Dr.

Peter Ince dated April 22, 1998 to Dr. Ronald McHugh, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Data on remanufacturing came from The Remanufacturing Industry: Hidden Giant, Robert T. Lund, Boston

University, Boston, MA, January, 1996.

Data on shifts from renewables to nonrenewables came from the U.S. Geological Survey, Minerals Information

Team, correspondence dated October 26, 1998.

Data on jobs and macroeconomic effects came from Macroeconomic Importance of Recycling and

Remanufacturing, a study for the U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste prepared by Project Performance Corporation,

McLean, VA, October 29, 1998.

Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

For further information visit <www.ofee.gov>

In accordance with Executive Order 13101, this brochure was printed on paper containing no less 

than 30 percent postconsumer fiber using soy-based ink.