Examining the Barriers in Plastic Recycling Rates in the United States.

A little outdate memo I wrote back in 2013, but still relevant today.

As the world’s population begins to soar, the question on how we deal with our waste is becoming ever more crucial. According to a 2012 study by the World Bank, the 34 wealthiest countries categorized as the Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) were responsible for 44% of the global waste which is approximately 572 million tons.1 It was how OECD countries addressed this waste was startling. A meager 1% of waste was recycled while the majority of it (59%) was sent to landfills.2 In the United States alone, the EPA estimated that in 2009 Americans produced approximately 243 million tons of trash. A single person generating on average 4.34 pounds of waste each day.3 Encouragingly, trends in recycling are on the rise. The EPA reported that recycling rates have increased in the U.S. from less than 10% in 1980 to 34% in 2009. While paper and cans have experienced increased rates of recycling, the rates of recycling plastics are among the lowest (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Rates of Recycling in 2009 reported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.3

Next to food scraps, plastics are the next most abundant material found in our municipal waste streams. In 2010, the total amount of plastic products discarded in the municipal solid waste stream was 10,810 thousand tons, an order of magnitude higher than the amount of aluminum products discarded. 4 Their long and strong polymeric chains don’t readily degrade into their elemental components causing much of it to settle in landfills or be transported via waterways into ocean gyres creating plastic havens such as “Garbage Island”. As citizens in the U.S. are becoming more aware of these environmental issues, their attitude towards recycling plastic is stagnant. In this brief study, we will attempt to understand what factors cause plastics to have the lowest recycling rates.

The plastic resin identification code #1-#7 was designed to help consumers distinguish the different types of plastics. Many manufacturers have printed these codes inside the recycling symbol onto their products to help consumers recycle them. Unfortunately, these plastic resin identification codes are outdated and confuse the public. In a study conducted by Moore Recycling, they observed that when resin codes were not printed on a product it led consumers to believe these products could not be recycled.5 The study also suggested that there is ‘too much room for personal interpretation’ and recyclable items often end up into the trashcan.5 Instead, providing a picture with examples of recyclable items was determined to be more effective for increasing recycling rates. An example can be observed in an outreach program administered by the Department of Environmental Services in Arlington County, Virginia. They decided to use images of recyclable materials as part of their recycling campaign. After the first 3 weeks of mailing out the information, they experienced a 286% increase in the number of requests for recycling bins.6

The lack of emphasis or enforcement from state leadership seems to be the main barrier for poor plastic recycling habits. As of today, there is no national recycling law and prior to the 1970’s the market forces drove recycling.7 Currently, the only federal recycling law is the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Manangement Act and not surprisingly, the most highly recycled material in the U.S. is the car battery with a rate of 96% .8 Unlike the car battery, plastic recycling lacks any federal mandate and is left up to the discretion of the states to decide the stringency of their legislation. Since no federal law dictates states to recycle plastics, the educational level of the citizens and amount of resources allocated for recycling vary widely. One trend showed that regionally southern states had the lowest access to plastic recycling.5 As expected, several of these southern states also had the poorest outreach. When communities invested in outreach education and/or passed out recycling bins they observed an increase in rates demonstrating a need for both education and resources. For instance, Burlington County, New Jersey ran a 3-month program by passing out 2000 bins. They experienced a 4.4% increase in participation.6 In Indian River, Florida, city officials developed a 3-month program where monthly fliers were sent out about recycling facts. Officials saw a 36.8 % increase in materials collected.6

In states where leadership passed stringent state recycling laws, there is more of an effort to educate and recycle. For example, Wisconsin had passed laws banning the disposal and incineration of recyclable or compostable materials since the 1990’s. This includes a ban on the disposal of plastic containers of resin #1 and #2.9 Because of these stricter state laws, leadership has made a better effort to educate and provided resources such as recycling bins and programs to the citizens of Wisconsin. Now, the average Wisconsin resident recycles 0.5 pounds more than the average American a year.10
In the years to come, we will no longer be able to ignore the adverse affect of sending plastics to landfills. As with many things, change needs to happen from the top-down. Overall, convincing leadership on the importance of recycling plastics is the main obstacle to overcome. Often it is state or municipal leaders who supply the funding that is needed to operate recycling services, provide bins, as well as implement educational and outreach programs. States that have stricter recycling laws generally have higher participation in recycling overall as well as better educational programs and more resources allocated resulting in less plastic waste in their landfills.

References
1. What a Waste: Global Review of Solid Waste Management, Chapter 3: Waste Generation. The World Bank. Retrieved 18 October 2013 from http://go.worldbank.org/BCQEP0TMO0.
2. What a Waste: Global Review of Solid Waste Management, Chapter 6: Waste Disposal. The World Bank. Retrieved 18 October 2013 from http://go.worldbank.org/BCQEP0TMO0
3. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2009 (December 2011). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 18 October 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2009-fs.pdf
4. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Tables and Figures for 2010 (December 2011). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 18 October 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2010_MSW_Tables_and_Figures_508.pdf
5. Plastic Recycling Collection: National Reach Study (May 2011). Moore Recycling Associates Inc. http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/national-reach-study. Retrieved 21 October, 2013.
6. Education campaigns. Curbside Value Partnership. http://www.recyclecurbside.org/content/u/education_campaigns Retrieved 21 October, 2013.
7. Miller, Chaz. States Lead the Way: Pioneering Recycling Efforts in the U.S. Waste Management World. Retrieved 22 October 2013 from, http://www.waste-management- world.com/articles/print/volume-7/issue-5/recycling-special/states-lead-the-way-pioneering- recycling-efforts-in-the-us.html
8. Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 21 October 2013 from, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/battery.htm and http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws- regs/state/policy/p1104.pdf
9. What to Recycle in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved 21 October 2013, from http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/recycling/banned.html
10. April 22nd is Earth Day (10 April 2012). RecycleMOREWisconsin. Retrieved 21 October 2013, from http://www.recyclemorewisconsin.org/2012/04/10/recycling-conserves-natural-resources-saves- energy-and-creates-jobs/