Municipalities and taxpayers in the United States have been footing the bill for recycling programs for too long. It is a funding model that is rooted in a time when our wastes were much simpler. The problem today is that our waste stream is more complex than it has ever been. It is filled with high-tech materials that are not made locally. Materials that are loaded with chemicals and that don’t biodegrade. As a result, we are trying to manage waste in an outdated way. It is hurting our environment and our communities, and keeping our recycling rates low.
We need to reform the way we manage the nation’s complex waste stream, and thankfully we can look to other countries for an effective solution. Many countries around the world such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, all 28 countries in the EU, and Russia, use a system called Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging. EPR is a state of the art policy solution that has helped boost their recycling rates well above 50% and encouraged corporations to develop more environmentally responsible products.
EPR policies are effective at dealing with complicated waste materials because they give the manufacturers a financial stake in making sure recycling programs are robust. Maine already has eight successful EPR policies for hard-to-manage products like batteries, mercury thermostats, mercury auto switches, paint, mercury lamps, electronic waste (e-waste), cell phones, and beverage containers.
Using an EPR model for recyclable materials makes sense because the power to fix the problems with our recycling economy largely lies with governments and large brand owners. Consumers and taxpayers have little choice or control over the recyclability of the packaging materials that accompany the products they must purchase.
Under the current system, brand owners and the producers of packaging benefit greatly because taxpayers fund 100% of local recycling programs. These companies are free to sell any kind of product into our economy without taking any responsibility for helping communities manage the product at the end of its life. Brand owners will say that they are voluntarily helping communities by setting environmental goals for their businesses, but experience shows that self-imposed goals often fall short and don’t make a meaningful impact. It is time brand owners get involved and help us manage the waste products they profit from.
The amount of waste polluting our lands and waters grows every day. The plastic pollution crisis is a direct result of poorly managed recyclables and wasteful packaging design. We need to take bigger steps and fix the fundamental flaws in the way we plan for recycling to avoid irreversible effects of excessive waste.
It’s time to think about waste in a new way; to see that our waste and recycling problems are not the fault of the consumer, and that there are systemic problems that can only be fixed by strong government policies that incentivize businesses who benefit from putting recyclables into our communities, to engage in waste reduction and create a circular economy for their products.
Hello,
I recently resigned from my town’s “citizens” recycling committee because there was no interest in engaging residents for input on policy decisions; no enthusiasm for changing citizen household behaviors such as waste reduction or using less plastic; no interest in outreach to local businesses and organizations; and, no support for understanding up-and-coming concepts such as manufacturer stewardship. Further, the committee chair had cozily occupied his position for many years, the meeting agendas were prepared by the (paid) manager of the town’s transfer station & recycling center, and the overarching, perennial concern of town administration (thus, the committee’s) was cost management, not any concern beyond the town itself. In other words, to my mind, the committee was useless in terms of changing any citizen’s behavior when it comes to waste management.
What no one in my town’s administration seemed to realize is that there can be no recycling or any other waste management behavior if citizens don’t buy in and don’t engage in it. As desirable but unregulated behaviors, they don’t happen magically.
I believe any new policy or re-structuring of waste management solutions must include citizen groups at the top and at the bottom of the decision process. At the bottom, I mean people who are the actual implementers, who reside in an area, have friends there, can write in the local paper (if there is one), can pull people together, hold focus groups, can learn and teach. At the top (state or town administrators), there needs to be wholesale support for the creation, wisdom and survival of such citizen groups … as long as the groups are fulfilling their mandates … which they should be part of creating in the first place.
Legislation, regulations, memos, pamphlets, top-down directives, by themselves, don’t change behavior in a sustainable way. They are only the start of a process that we all should be allowed to own and be part of.
Sincerely,
Susan Littlefield
Hi Susan,
Thank you for writing and working in your community to improve recycling. One reason we are so excited about Recycling Reform is that it would provide communities the resources they need to do outreach and education adequately. It would also incentivize more ecofriendly design of our recyclables so that it is easier for our friends and neighbors to recycle. Right now recycling is confusing and so complex, it is extremely hard to change the behavior of individuals because the messaging seems to change regularly and varies town by town. Recycling Reform would provide consistency in messaging across the state, and provide community groups resources to help get the message out. This would make it easier so that when community groups do education, their efforts are supported and pay off.
Thanks again for being involved with recycling in your community. Please stay informed on recycling reform!