Hey guys, long time no chat.
I have been marinating. After Plastics News published my analysis of my 2013 Recycling Report, “The State of Post-consumer Thermoformed PET Recycling,” I received a bundle of emails from industry folk; however, none of these comments were posted in the Plastics News ‘comments’ section, which I believe demonstrates the continued tension surrounding the intersection between governmental regulation and business when it comes to environmental stewardship.
Have you heard of the Climate Declaration? It is a letter that has been signed by more than 700 companies and thousands of individuals, calling on the White House to seize the economic opportunity of addressing climate change. The campaign caught the attention of CBS, which is now airing a 15-second ad on their Jumbotron in Times Square, showcasing the Declaration and its message that “tackling climate change is one of America’s greatest economic opportunities.”
Back to increasing the rates of post consumer PET recycling: We have the free marketers who believe that once the technological barriers to recycling have been removed (ahem, PET thermoforms?) the free market will facilitate the continued recycling thereof. Then we have the governmental enthusiasts, who believe that recycling rates won’t increase without expensive government requirements and/or subsidy. Others feel that you need to develop the end market by creating buyers for goods made from recycled content and yet others say you must make it easier for the collection, sorting, recycling process to provide feedstock at a reasonable price.
In NAPCOR’s 2012 Report on PET recycling it notes that the 114MMlb increase in the total volume of bottles collected for recycling from 2011 is due in large part to: (1) An approximate 12.9 MMLb increase in CRV collections from CA; and, (2) an increase in the deposit material volumes reported as per NYC’s recent deposit expansion to include water bottles.
This idea that public policy aimed at incentivizing communities to recycle increases post consumer recycling is echoed by my friend, a State Recycling Program Director. He writes in an email correspondence, “If governments withdrew that funding and those tax-financed collection and policy mechanisms tomorrow (let’s say the 10 bottle bill states all rescinded their laws), the PET stream [for recycling] would completely dry up. He continues, “Looking at it from another angle, the market price for recycled PET bales would need to triple before the ‘free market’ would adequately support the supply chain.”
Okay. I want to increase plastics recycling because plastics are too valuable to throw away. I want there to be an economically sustainable solution to post consumer plastics recycling, creating closed loop supply chains where one man’s ‘trash’ is another man’s treasure. I want to create a truly sustainable plastics industry, where we are responsible for the products we manufacture throughout the life cycle, not because we have to, but because it is the right thing to do; and, there is economic gain to doing so. Sounds kind of like the Climate Declaration, no?
We know that using recycled plastic in products and packaging reduces the greenhouse gas emissions associated with virgin material production; we know that unless properly regulated, landfills emit methane, which is 4 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to greenhouse warming potential. Doesn’t a good approach to mitigating climate change therefore imply we should be recycling plastic—thereby reducing the GHG equivalents emitted with virgin production while simultaneously reducing the material landfilled and methane emitted?
We pay taxes for the collection, “recycling,” and landfilling of the products we consume; yet, we have yet to reap the benefit of these municipally-managed recovery schemes. Plastic recycling rates continue to flat line, regardless of the increase in recycled plastic demand, industry proactivity, and conversion capacity. Landfills continue to fill, and plastics pollution is all too a pervasive global problem. What are we supposed to do if the right thing to do is not the profitable thing to do? How do we change this dynamic; and, what role does government play?
I have no idea. But I’m not going anywhere. Nor are the other idealists, who continue to spill out of University in droves.