USA

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/tom_szaky/7_reasons_why_recycling_not_waste_response_reign_recycling?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=brandsweekly&utm_campaign=oct15&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoluq7NZKXonjHpfsX56ugtUaa1lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4FRMJiI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFTrTBMbVxyLgOXxk%3D

Recycling in the United States is an economically unsustainable trend — or at least that’s what New York Times writer John Tierney recently argued in his opinion piece, “The Reign of Recycling,” published in the October 4th Sunday Review. Tierney’s arguments focus almost entirely on the inefficiency and economic viability of recycling, suggesting that CPG companies and major brands, municipalities, and even consumers should stop worrying about recycling, and that linear disposal methods are successful enough for the sake of cost-effectiveness and profitability. I believe that this is a dangerous conclusion to make in the 21st century, a time where the need for long-term sustainability strategies and circular waste solutions are more apparent than ever.

We know full well the function economics play in recycling. If the value of a potentially recyclable commodity is higher than collection, logistic and processing costs, there is an economic incentive to recycle. But what about obviously less recyclable materials, such as multilayered films or plastic sachet packaging — materials that are, universally, considered non-recyclable? To go along with Tierney’s argument, landfilling and incineration are the only economically viable alternatives.

This focus on short-term economic viability is problematic, as it disregards the critical need for a more circular system of manufacturing and consumption. We don’t push for better education or health care based on whether they are economically justifiable institutions — we do it because there is a social imperative. Telling corporations and the public that recycling — save for a very select few materials — is essentially a waste undermines the need for more comprehensive strategies supporting sustainable development: reusing materials when we can, recycling those materials when we can’t, and decreasing the consumption of unsustainable materials bound for landfill.

There are a variety of environmental subjects that Tierney does not approach: the trillions of pieces of plastic floating on top and piling up on the bottom of our oceans; the difficulty of accurately identifying the health risks posed by waste incineration; the destructive linear model of consumption and production that resigns raw materials to single-use lives (burying waste and other materials in a landfill or burning in an incinerator). These (among many, many others) are all relevant topics that must be considered to accurately determine the environmental effects of our currently wasteful society.

Tierney also brings up the price comparison between recycled plastics and the plunging price of virgin plastic, thanks in no small part to the recent dip in oil prices. He fails to mention, however, the incredible volatility of global crude oil prices. In fact, a rebound is already predicted to occur over the course of the next five years. Recycled plastics can be a great way for manufacturers to avoid these volatile costs, do something environmentally beneficial, and strengthen supply chain security.

Recycled material in general can be a great way to build supply chain security overall. My company, for example, works with dozens of manufacturers to facilitate the collection and recycling of their pre- and post-consumer product and packaging waste. In a variety of these partnerships, after aggregating the collected waste we send it back to the manufacturer, where the recycled material is reintegrated into existing supply chains. It reduces waste and costs, and gives the company a competitive edge in the market.

As the need for sustainability strategies rises, even government institutions are increasingly demanding more recycled content in products, more recyclable packaging, and more substantial overall sustainability practices. Packaging taxes and extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is already active in many parts of the world, making manufacturers responsible for the collection and recycling (or reuse) of their pre- and post-consumer packaging waste.

The European Der Grüne Punkt (The Green Dot) network is possibly the most notable EPR system in the world, essentially taxing product manufacturers based on their waste-diversion strategies. The Green Dot’s licensing fees act as an incentive to increase sustainability practices, encouraging product manufacturers to collect and recycle their pre- and post-consumer waste (lowering their respective fees as a result). These strategies can help create a better ecological balance between production and consumption.

We can’t forget about consumers in this conversation either, as they are increasingly prone to making purchasing decisions based on product — and packaging — sustainability. Conscious consumers are reading labels and packaging for recyclability and sustainability claims, buying from socially responsible CPG companies, and are even inclined to pay premiums for eco-friendly or socially responsible products. Does this mean that consumers are falling into a “green marketing” trap, or — gasp! — that they actually care about the planet? Consumers will reward those manufacturers that make environmental stewardship, recyclability, and sustainability a part of their business models.

We have to take a step back and evaluate the economic and environmental costs to potential alternatives to recycling. Calling on short-term efficiencies and a lack of profitability will do nothing but undermine future efforts to strengthen our recycling infrastructure and to sustainably develop for future generations. Being complacent with our disposable society is not how we will accomplish this.

I couldn’t help but note the irony of the Times running an opinion piece decrying recycling because of a lack of obvious profitably on the very same day that yet another US State — South Carolina — was experiencing historic flooding and being called to a State of Emergency. The tragic events in South Carolina are leading to loss of life and billions of dollars of damage to public and private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Tierney and his editors at the New York Times failed to include these costs in their myopic calculations.

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/tom_szaky/7_reasons_why_recycling_not_waste_response_reign_recycling

Recycling in the United States is an economically unsustainable trend — or at least that’s what New York Times writer John Tierney recently argued in his opinion piece, “The Reign of Recycling,” published in the October 4th Sunday Review. Tierney’s arguments focus almost entirely on the inefficiency and economic viability of recycling, suggesting that CPG companies and major brands, municipalities, and even consumers should stop worrying about recycling, and that linear disposal methods are successful enough for the sake of cost-effectiveness and profitability. I believe that this is a dangerous conclusion to make in the 21st century, a time where the need for long-term sustainability strategies and circular waste solutions are more apparent than ever.

We know full well the function economics play in recycling. If the value of a potentially recyclable commodity is higher than collection, logistic and processing costs, there is an economic incentive to recycle. But what about obviously less recyclable materials, such as multilayered films or plastic sachet packaging — materials that are, universally, considered non-recyclable? To go along with Tierney’s argument, landfilling and incineration are the only economically viable alternatives.

This focus on short-term economic viability is problematic, as it disregards the critical need for a more circular system of manufacturing and consumption. We don’t push for better education or health care based on whether they are economically justifiable institutions — we do it because there is a social imperative. Telling corporations and the public that recycling — save for a very select few materials — is essentially a waste undermines the need for more comprehensive strategies supporting sustainable development: reusing materials when we can, recycling those materials when we can’t, and decreasing the consumption of unsustainable materials bound for landfill.

There are a variety of environmental subjects that Tierney does not approach: the trillions of pieces of plastic floating on top and piling up on the bottom of our oceans; the difficulty of accurately identifying the health risks posed by waste incineration; the destructive linear model of consumption and production that resigns raw materials to single-use lives (burying waste and other materials in a landfill or burning in an incinerator). These (among many, many others) are all relevant topics that must be considered to accurately determine the environmental effects of our currently wasteful society.

Tierney also brings up the price comparison between recycled plastics and the plunging price of virgin plastic, thanks in no small part to the recent dip in oil prices. He fails to mention, however, the incredible volatility of global crude oil prices. In fact, a rebound is already predicted to occur over the course of the next five years. Recycled plastics can be a great way for manufacturers to avoid these volatile costs, do something environmentally beneficial, and strengthen supply chain security.

Recycled material in general can be a great way to build supply chain security overall. My company, for example, works with dozens of manufacturers to facilitate the collection and recycling of their pre- and post-consumer product and packaging waste. In a variety of these partnerships, after aggregating the collected waste we send it back to the manufacturer, where the recycled material is reintegrated into existing supply chains. It reduces waste and costs, and gives the company a competitive edge in the market.

As the need for sustainability strategies rises, even government institutions are increasingly demanding more recycled content in products, more recyclable packaging, and more substantial overall sustainability practices. Packaging taxes and extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation is already active in many parts of the world, making manufacturers responsible for the collection and recycling (or reuse) of their pre- and post-consumer packaging waste.

The European Der Grüne Punkt (The Green Dot) network is possibly the most notable EPR system in the world, essentially taxing product manufacturers based on their waste-diversion strategies. The Green Dot’s licensing fees act as an incentive to increase sustainability practices, encouraging product manufacturers to collect and recycle their pre- and post-consumer waste (lowering their respective fees as a result). These strategies can help create a better ecological balance between production and consumption.

We can’t forget about consumers in this conversation either, as they are increasingly prone to making purchasing decisions based on product — and packaging — sustainability. Conscious consumers are reading labels and packaging for recyclability and sustainability claims, buying from socially responsible CPG companies, and are even inclined to pay premiums for eco-friendly or socially responsible products. Does this mean that consumers are falling into a “green marketing” trap, or — gasp! — that they actually care about the planet? Consumers will reward those manufacturers that make environmental stewardship, recyclability, and sustainability a part of their business models.

We have to take a step back and evaluate the economic and environmental costs to potential alternatives to recycling. Calling on short-term efficiencies and a lack of profitability will do nothing but undermine future efforts to strengthen our recycling infrastructure and to sustainably develop for future generations. Being complacent with our disposable society is not how we will accomplish this.

I couldn’t help but note the irony of the Times running an opinion piece decrying recycling because of a lack of obvious profitably on the very same day that yet another US State — South Carolina — was experiencing historic flooding and being called to a State of Emergency. The tragic events in South Carolina are leading to loss of life and billions of dollars of damage to public and private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Tierney and his editors at the New York Times failed to include these costs in their myopic calculations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/where-our-trash-goes.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

Readers take issue with a Sunday Review essay that said recycling has failed in economic and environmental terms.

To the Editor: Re “The Reign of Recycling” (Sunday Review, Oct. 4):

John Tierney’s article fails to understand the psychology of recycling. The habit of recycling encourages people to consider their personal impact on the environment, and, yes, it makes people feel good about themselves. Decades of research in psychology has shown that recycling behavior has positive spillovers; it makes people more likely to help the environment in many other important ways.

A garbage tax (on trash that goes to the landfill) will likely do the exact opposite. Behavioral research has taught us that giving people the option to “buy out” of their environmental responsibility undermines their personal motivation to help.

Long-term environmental problems call for long-term changes in human behavior. Advising people to stuff their garbage deep inside the earth because that’s what we have always done is exactly the type of thinking that got us here in the first place. Just because societies had open sewage systems for over a thousand years doesn’t mean it is a good idea. Whatever the inefficiencies of the recycling process may be, misinforming people that recycling is a waste of time is not going to help the environment.

SANDER VAN DER LINDEN

Princeton, N.J.

The writer is a researcher, lecturer and social psychologist at Princeton University who directs the Social and Environmental Decision-Making Lab.

To the Editor:

“The Reign of Recycling” and its attack on the benefits of recycling could not have been more off-base.

Recycling and composting are cost-effective and efficient ways to fight climate change and provide other social and environmental benefits.

For example, San Francisco’s pioneering composting program uses food scraps and yard trimmings to produce rich soil for farmers in California instead of sending them to the landfill, where they would produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In addition, soil produced from compost retains up to 20 times its weight in water, a significant benefit during California’s drought.

It only makes sense for the State of California to effectively eliminate the disposal of organic material by 2025 by turning it into more useful products. Moreover, processing recycleables can create 20 times as many jobs as sending material to landfills.

After more than a thousand years of burying our trash in landfills, it is time to update the use and disposal of precious resources for the 21st century.

EDWIN M. LEE

San Francisco

The writer is the mayor of San Francisco.

To the Editor: John Tierney’s sadly shortsighted essay on recycling completely misses the key problem in our consuming society: the front end. With the production side held completely unaccountable, recycling becomes an impossible game of catch-up. Mr. Tierney, as he’s done so often before, scorns the left hand for trying to clean up a horrific mess that the right hand has created.

A sane solution would be to require everything that our society produces and consumes to be reusable or compostable, with a clear plan where it will all go once it’s served its initial purpose. Is that really so hard to do?

HARVEY WASSERMAN

Bexley, Ohio

To the Editor: Recycling does seem very costly compared with its supposed benefits.

Some readers are old enough (as I am) to remember when soda and beer bottles were returned to the store where purchased and, instead of being crushed, were refilled with the same product and then resold. With modern means, couldn’t chips be incorporated into appropriate containers to expedite the process? Is it really necessary to destroy and remake containers, particularly energy-intensive glass and aluminum?

Refilling instead of recycling could provide local jobs and avoid the costs, economic and environmental, of transporting the recycled material vast distances to be reutilized.

New labeling could be applied to help alleviate the American abhorrence of “used” containers.

ANDREA GOLDEN

Arlington, Mass.

To the Editor: John Tierney misses the point of recycling by largely limiting his viewpoint of its benefits to monetization of waste. Surely the question of whether money can be made from recycling is of interest only to corporations in the business of processing waste.

Few countries in the world are blessed with both enough space to hide waste in landfills and the infrastructure needed to move waste from consumers to landfills. In traveling the globe, I’ve been struck repeatedly by scenes such as the vast numbers of plastic bags blowing across the Moroccan desert and household waste simply dumped in many Asian villages.

Many people living in or close to poverty simply have no options for getting rid of inorganic household waste that cannot be processed locally. Recycling is one important channel in a comprehensive program for waste management that delivers a clean, safe living space.

While first-world countries can pat themselves on the back for progress with paper, metal and plastics, the record is not good for many other kinds of waste, much of it dangerous. In the United States, options for handling toxic fluids such as automotive oil and paint thinners are inconvenient to consumers and not widely available. The same is true for pharmaceuticals, which when flushed into bodies of water endanger wildlife and whole ecosystems.

Globally, there remains much to be done, and making a buck should not be anyone’s priority.

KEVIN GROSS

Stow, Mass.

To the Editor: While it is true that recycling post-consumer plastics has been a tough nut to crack technologically, and recovery rates have plateaued at about 30 percent nationally, tremendous progress has been made in just the past few years.

I am chairman of a recycling company that has spent the past eight years developing a sustainable business model, driven by new technology and no government handouts, to take unsorted post-consumer plastic waste from residents and separate everything automatically so that every single resin type and plastic form is usable by a paying customer.

Just last year, we signed our first contract to supply 300 million pounds of previously nonrecyclable plastic to a Fortune 500 company. Our projections are that this technology, when rolled out nationally, will be diverting three billion pounds of plastic waste from our city streets, oceans and landfills by 2020.

With so much blood and treasure spent to secure the petroleum-based resources to make plastics, it is thoroughly immoral to simply throw them back into a hole.

MITCH HECHT

Wilton, Conn.

To the Editor: Incredibly, John Tierney fails to mention the most obvious, and most important, alternative (or complement) to recycling: reducing waste to begin with. It’s not that hard.

Ten years ago I started carrying around a stainless steel water bottle everywhere I go. This one easy step dissolved my need for not only bottled water, but most other to-go drinks, too. Same goes for my trusty morning thermos — my coffee stays hotter, there’s no leaching from cheap Styrofoam or plastic-lined cups, and no waste. Same for take-out: Eat there or cook at home, and forgo the mountain of waste.

The list goes on: reusable grocery bags, buying bulk dry goods rather than individually packaged, forgoing the plastic bag at the corner store. You get the idea. These few strategies dramatically reduce the amount of trash and recycling I generate on any given day. It’s not hard; just do it.

ELLIOT COHEN

Boulder, Colo.

To the Editor: The elephant in the room in John Tierney’s article is: Why do we continue to manufacture plastic for spurious purposes? We hear about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, about microplastics that are poisoning the sea, about turtles shaped like hourglasses because they grow inside a six-pack ring.

We can drink tap water out of nondisposable containers rather than bottled water; we do not need to drink coffee from a Styrofoam cup with a half life of hundreds of years; and we do not need large plastic toys for children. Plastic should be treated as a special material that can be a life saver in medical uses (stents) and marvelous for things like flexible plumbing pipe. But pretending that we can throw it away without consequences is criminal.

JULIA O’NEAL

Ocean Springs, Miss.

To the Editor: While John Tierney is correct is describing the current economic plight of the recycling industry, he doesn’t mention how the recycling industry — and the solid waste industry of which it is a part — is changing.

Driven by technology and economics, parts of the country are moving away from the current recycling model. Optical sorting, computerized scanning and enhanced mechanical devices have made such developments possible. Montgomery, Ala., established a new system in which residents no longer sort their trash. Instead, the material goes to a sorting facility, where organics are separated from inorganics, and metals, paper, glass and plastic are sorted. The plan is for the organics go to an anaerobic digester; only the residue from the process will be landfilled.

In California, localities such as San Jose are experimenting with a system in which “wet trash” (organics) are placed in one bin, and “dry trash” (everything else) in another bin. The dry portion is mechanically and optically sorted for recyclables of value, and the organic fraction is diverted to an anaerobic digester and used for energy.

While neither of these approaches achieves zero waste, 60 to 70 percent of the stream is being repurposed.

EILEEN BRETTLER BERENYI

Westport, Conn.

The writer is president of Governmental Advisory Associates.

With summer approaching, the resort town of Ocean City, Maryland, will soon see an influx of tourists, their coolers filled with water bottles and soda cans. Vacationers here can also take a break from recycling and toss all their trash — every last bit of paper, aluminum and plastic — in the garbage can, guilt-free. The city ditched its recycling program five years ago, saying that it had become too costly.

“It was something that needed to be done,” said solid-waste manager Steven Brown, who says Ocean City has saved about a million dollars by contracting to incinerate all its trash.

But don’t call it burning the trash — that’s old school. Here, as in Palm Beach County, Florida, it’s the cleaner-sounding “waste-to-energy” program. And with the cost of recycling climbing each time the price of oil drops, it’s looking better every day, especially as some worry that America has achieved peak recycling with a rate stubbornly hovering around 34 percent.

It’s probably coincidence, but recycling levels began to plateau about the time John Tierney wrote a now infamous piece for The New York Times Magazine, titled “Recycling is Garbage.” In it, Tierney said recycling may be America’s “most wasteful activity” and railed against government-mandated programs that created “a glut of paper, glass and plastic that no one wanted to buy.” This was in 1996, 16 years after Woodbury, N.J., was the first American municipality to implement mandatory recycling, with other cities eagerly following.

Recycling rates climbed steadily in the 1980s and 1990s. There has been scant growth in the past decade, however, despite cities’ enthusiastic attempts to engage their citizens. (Residents of Mt. Pleasant, S.C., qualified for random cash prizes last fall if they put stickers on their trash cans that indicated the kinds of recyclables accepted.)

In a 2012 report, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that for every 4.38 pounds of trash they produce, Americans recycle about 1.51 pounds. When broken down by types of material, the rate can drop even lower. The recycling rate for plastics is about 23 percent, despite the billion water bottles sold every year.

One man’s trash

An anemic recycling rate is not unique to America. In the United Kingdom, they call it “green fatigue” — an initial burst of enthusiasm at the prospect of saving the planet, worn down by years completing tedious tasks like rinsing out peanut butter jars or prying off labels with no discernible difference to the environment. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch still floats between California and Japan, a sickening amalgamation of fishing nets, particles of plastic and random ocean-faring detritus. A plastic bottle will wear down — after 450 years.

The major problem with recycling for municipalities, however, is not the stagnant participation rates, but the cost.

In Ocean City, where year-round residents number just 7,000, the city reached a point where it could no longer afford to recycle, said Brown, the solid-waste manager. Instead, they rewrote the old adage about trash and treasure, changing it to “One man’s trash is another man’s fuel source.”

The city loads its trash into tractor-trailers that truck the waste to a commercial incinerator in Fairfax, Virginia; the heat and steam turn turbines that produce electricity. For every ton of trash that is burned, 670 kilowatts of electricity are created, Brown said. After incineration, any remaining metals are recycled.

Some Ocean City residents didn’t like the idea at first, “but most understood that it was a cost-saving venture for us,” Brown said. Those who wish to recycle still have the option of taking recyclables to county facilities, and Ocean City still recycles the more profitable white metals, and offers bulky item pickup for its residents.

Fired up

Recycling costs cities and towns in dual collection and sorting. Sometimes there is a payoff in the sale of recyclables, but that small profit shrinks further as oil prices diminish. When oil prices are low, it’s cheaper to make new plastic than recycle, leading one New York recycler to complain to a reporter for Crain’s, “Prices for recycled plastic are so low now, it’s not worth stealing anymore.” New plastic now costs 67 cents per pound, compared to 72 percent for recycled, Crain’s Plastics News says.

Of course, there’s another way that cities can profit from recycling: Charge for it. The town of Worcester, Massachusetts, grappling with how to pay for its recycling program, recently proposed monthly fees for it. While the goal, ironically, is to keep more recyclables out of landfills, one councilman told the Worcester Telegram, “It bothers me that the people who will hurt the most are the ones who faithfully and conscientiously recycle.” The matter is scheduled for a vote on May 20, but many Worcester residents are lobbying against it.

It’s unlikely the nation will ever enter a post-recycling age, but with many towns considering incineration, one Florida county is emerging as a model with its three-pronged approach to solid waste. Palm Beach County made headlines when it proposed opening a massive incinerator that would also accept waste from outside the county. It is part of an integrated program that also includes landfills and recycling, said Willie Puz, director of public relations and recycling for the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County.

The county chose to build the $670 million incinerator when the local residents rejected its alternative: a new and larger landfill near the Everglades. When it fires up in June, it is expected to burn a million tons of garbage each year and add 30 years to the life of the existing landfill.

In addition, the county operates seven household hazardous waste drop-off sites and a biosolids processing facility that convers wastewater sludge to fertilizer, leaving the landfill as a “last resort” for waste.

As for the nation’s seemingly lackluster rates, Puz offers a sliver of hope: that reduced tonnage could reflect, however, small, a society-wide reduction in consumption. For example, with more people reading online, fewer print newspapers are published, and many of those that are have smaller dimensions. As manufacturers look to find ways to shrink packaging, even plastic bottles and aluminum cans take up less space. Ten years ago, Puz said, 31 bottles made a pound of glass; now 49 do.

Jennifer Graham is an East Coast journalist and author. On Twitter, she’s @grahamtoday.

Read more at http://national.deseretnews.com/article/4492/The-state-of-recycling-in-America.html#57TT1m6HcCtEtbYD.99