Beyond Plastics: The Myths and Truths About Recycling, and Potential Solutions
By Christopher Marquis | July 12, 2022 | Forbes
The pervasiveness of plastic has become a global concern. An estimated 242 million metric tons of it is generated every year, and the United States is one of the top generators. While recycling sounds like a simple solution, it’s not. Plastic recycling has proven to be ineffective, as evidenced by a shocking statistic from Our World in Data: Out of the 5.8 billion metric tons of plastic waste generated between 1950 and 2015, only about 9% of it has been recycled. The rest has been left to be incinerated, landfilled, or littered. On top of that, a more recent report from nonprofit The Last Beach Cleanup and advocacy group Beyond Plastics found that number to be even lower, with only 5% to 6% of the U.S.’s plastic waste converted into new products in 2021.
It can be hard to believe that so little plastic has actually been recycled, considering how commonplace recycling has become. But the truth is, plastic is not easy to recycle. Plastic products are usually made up of a mixture of chemicals that can create difficulties in the recycling process, and it’s harder to isolate the base materials that can be recovered and reused. So how come environmental campaigns frame recycling as such a simple solution?
The plastic problem isn’t new, of course, but I learned more about its wide-ranging consequences during a recent conversation with Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics. The nationwide project based at Bennington College in Bennington, Vermont, pairs the experience of environmental policy experts with creative college students to achieve the institutional, economic, and societal changes needed to combat the plastic pollution crisis.
During our conversation, Enck addressed the crucial need for companies to be held accountable for the environmental impacts their products make, as well as the major problem with chemical recycling and the abundance of greenwashing among companies taking “environmental action.”
Extended Producer Responsibility
As I shared in my first article from my conversation with Enck, the first step she suggests to combat the plastic problem is to create clear and measurable requirements in extended producer responsibility (EPR) policies, with an emphasis on reduction. EPR is the concept that manufacturers and importers should be held responsible for the environmental impacts of their products throughout their life-cycle.
Although many environmental groups agree that putting these policies into place is important, many special interest groups have taken advantage of legislators who lack policy depth on such a complicated issue, and as such have developed their own EPR bills. Take, for example, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is known for writing model legislation with the major corporations — typically the same companies that fund ALEC — then encouraging their introduction through legislative partners nationwide. “They drafted an alternative EPR bill on the topic of plastics, but these model bills are coming directly from the packaging industry,” Enck says.
Many EPR proponents argue that putting fees on packaging will result in packaging changes and improvements. And although that’s a well-intentioned theory, Enck says companies will likely pass on those fees to consumers. Some of the bills currently being proposed give too much control to companies, which tend to find ways around their responsibilities if they are not meticulously defined. Enck says it’s even more problematic that many of these bills allow for chemical recycling.
