September 4, 2018

Banning Straws and Bags Won’t Solve our Plastic Problem

September 4, 2018


Today’s article was written by Mathy Stanislaus. It was originally posted on the World Resources Institute’s Blog on August 16, 2018.


It seems to be the summer of plastic bans. Starbucks, Hyatt, the city of Seattle and others have all committed to phase out plastic straws. Stafford Township in New Jersey passed a plastic bag ban just last month, joining dozens of other American cities and states imposing taxes or bans on single-use plastics.


But is this a good thing?


Not if that’s all we do.


The Case for Banning Plastic


Use of single-use plastics (think wrappers, straws and bags) has skyrocketed over the last few decades. But as I explained recently, our ability to recycle these plastics at scale remains poor. Globally, 8 million metric tons of plastic trash leak into our natural spaces each year, harming wildlife, mucking up the ocean and jeopardizing people’s livelihoods.


So it’s understandable why bans are becoming popular. The beaches of New Jersey, for example, bring in billions of tourism dollars each year, creating jobs and funding local municipal needs. These sprawling, sandy spaces and the busy boardwalks that line them are an important part of local life. There are clear personal and economic incentives to keep these beaches clean, which make plastic bans politically palatable despite the inconvenience.


Monmouth County, New Jersey, which earned nearly $2.5 billion in tourism revenue in 2016, adopted what Clean Ocean Action called the most comprehensive plastic ban in the United States. The law was passed in May 2018, just before the start of beach season, and prohibits local businesses from distributing plastic bags, straws and Styrofoam containers. Local coverage of the ban indicates that it was well-received by residents and business owners. Monmouth Beach Mayor Sue Howard explained that, “If you live on the Shore, and you walk on the beach, and you see plastic straws and Styrofoam containers, you know what the damage is.”


Where Plastic Bans Fall Short


It’s encouraging that local governments are focusing on passing laws to fight plastic litter. Unfortunately, while these laws may reduce the most visible form of plastic pollution, it could be at the expense of other environmental impacts. That’s because, somewhat ironically, disposable plastic bags require fewer resources (land, water, CO2 emissions, etc.) to produce than paper, cotton or reusable plastic bags—by a wide margin.


For example, Denmark’s Ministry of Environment and Food found that you would need to reuse a paper bag at least 43 times for its per-use environmental impacts to be equal to or less than that of a typical disposable plastic bag used one time. An organic cotton bag must be reused 20,000 times to produce less of an environmental impact than a single-use plastic bag. That would be like using a cotton bag every day for nearly 55 years. (Note that these figures aggregate the bags’ impact on water use, CO2 emissions, land use and more, but they do not include their impact on plastic pollution.)


Banning plastic straws is also increasingly popular. Starbucks recently announced that it would phase out use of plastic straws by the year 2020. Straws don’t provide as much utility as bags, so for many this is an easy adjustment.


But these bans leave the impression that they solve the plastics pollution problem without much discussion of systematic solutions. As a society, we should think holistically about the products we use and their impacts. We can’t just ban bad products—we must invest in alternatives.


How Consumers, Governments and Businesses Can Beat Plastic Pollution


That same Danish study suggests that the most eco-friendly bag option for consumers is polyester, reused at least 35 times. This keeps plastic pollution out of our natural spaces and reduces the per-use environmental impacts of the bag to the lowest-possible levels. However, it will take a lot more than reusable bags to solve the plastics pollution problem. Right now, only about 9 percent of plastics are recycled globally.


As of January 1, China refused to import most recyclable materials from the United States and other developed countries, claiming the materials exceeded acceptable contamination levels. This has backed up the flow of disposed paper and plastic, causing serious problems for local waste management companies. However, there may be an ironic upside to China’s decision. For too long, the easy option of shipping excess recyclables to China has resulted in underinvestment in in optimizing plastics, maximizing their recovery and reducing waste.


Governments at the state and federal levels need to team up with private industry to address more systemic issues. We need to invest in redesigning plastics so that they can be readily broken down into their molecular units and remanufactured into new plastics of the same quality, the essence of a closed loop system. We need better recycling technology that can address the major obstacle of recycling plastics: about 25 percent of plastics collected are contaminated and therefore unusable. We need to reinvest government budgets in the infrastructure and associated policies needed for these systemic solutions. Once these technologies are deployed at a large scale, we can start recapturing the economic value of plastics, incentivizing their recovery and recycling, while minimizing plastic pollution and overconsumption of natural resources.


We need a wider array of smart public policies, a recycling infrastructure that’s right-sized for the problem, better recycling technology and new business models. Banning single-use plastic bags and straws without significant further action is putting a finger on a spigot at a time when we need to suppress the tidal wave.


Mathy Stanislaus serves as a Circular Economy Fellow at the World Resource Institute (WRI). His role is advance WRI’s consideration of circular economy in its programs and WRI’s role in assisting its partners to develop strategies to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. Prior to his current role, Mr. Stanislaus served in the Obama Administration as Assistant Administrator for US EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management.


The mission of the World Resources Institute is to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth’s environment and its capacity to provide for the needs and aspirations of current and future generations. The article is reposted by permission.

 

NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Athena Lee Bradley, Projects Manager at athena(at)nerc.org. Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Sophie Leone • September 24, 2026
The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division represents America’s Plastic Makers and the hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians who develop plastics essential to modern life. From healthcare and clean energy to transportation and safe food and water, plastics drive innovation and strengthen the U.S. economy by supporting key industries and creating well-paying jobs. Companies are investing billions annually in U.S. production and recycling, advancing manufacturing and efficiency across economic sectors. We envision a future where all plastic products are reused or recycled, conserving resources and creating a cleaner, safer and more resilient world. Ross Eisenberg, president of America’s Plastic Makers at ACC said “we’re committed to ending plastic waste and advancing a circular economy for plastics, because frankly, we need plastics and modern life does rely on them.” NERC is excited to welcome the American Chemistry Council Plastics Division. We look forward to supporting their mission of advocacy for people and policy. For more information on ACC visit .
By Arlene Karidis | Waste360 • September 14, 2026
A new report on glass recycling in the Northeast shows that while a few front-running states have unlocked high recovery rates, there is plenty of room for the rest of the region to grow. To replicate the top achievements and scale up, the region must invest heavily in collection systems, processing infrastructure, and end-market development, according to the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) study. A new report on glass recycling in the Northeast shows that while a few front-running states have unlocked high recovery rates, there is plenty of room for the rest of the region to grow. To replicate the top achievements and scale up, the region must invest heavily in collection systems, processing infrastructure, and end-market development, according to the Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) study. Read on to discover which states are leading the pack, where they excel, which regions are lagging, and what key industry and government insiders say about this evolving landscape. Some key findings: Vermont and Connecticut recycled the most glass containers relative to total waste generated. Connecticut led the region in per capita glass collection. New York State collected the greatest total tonnage of glass containers for recycling. Five Northeast states operate deposit return systems that include glass beverage containers. All Northeast states offer residential curbside and/or drop-off recycling programs. Vermont and Connecticut's standout glass container recovery rates are about 79.9% and 77.0%, respectively, with a common denominator being that they both operate deposit return systems (DRS) for these containers. They join a larger group whose recycling success is largely attributed to DRS programs. The Glass Packaging Institute reports that these states recover up to triple the glass captured in commingled streams, yielding more clean cullet for new containers than can be used. New York ranks as the top glass recycler with over 281,000 tons annually, followed by New Jersey at about 197,000 tons. With a population of nearly 8.6 million, New York City is the state’s largest municipality by far and plays a heavy-lifting role in driving up those statewide recovery numbers. Joshua Goodman, deputy commissioner, NYC Department of Sanitation (DSNY), says the key to healthy citywide participation has been keeping recycling simple and universal. “We pick up from every residence in the city – high-rise, low-rise, and single-family homes – and no one has to guess whether a particular piece of glass is recyclable – we take it all,” Goodman says. Building on residential success, DSNY is exploring targeting glass from construction waste next, a key strategy outlined in the draft 2026 Solid Waste Management Plan. While every Northeast state offers curbside and/or drop-off glass collection, their systems vary widely. They range from the DRS schemes like in Vermont and Connecticut to source-separated drop-off programs and, in some Pennsylvania communities, source-separated curbside collection. These system differences, along with reporting differences, complicate cross-state performance comparisons, underscoring the need for better data consistency and transparency, the authors say. To address these issues, NERC convenes a Glass Committee—a diverse group of stakeholders—regulators, municipalities, and glass processors among others—who help member states in standardizing tracking practices. “By engaging in projects through our [glass] committee, states can find paths to implement new programs or means of data collection,” says Megan Schulz-Fontes, executive director, Northeast Recycling Council. The organization is focusing on multiple areas with ambitions to strengthen the system. “Right now, we're working on developing resources and tools to support actors across the value chain in removing inefficient redundancies in collection and processing, developing a cleaner stream of recycled glass for long-term economic benefits, and identifying existing or emerging end markets for specific supply streams,” Schulz-Fontes says. New England holds the greatest promise for growth. Between municipal collections and bottle bills, the region generates massive volumes of recyclable glass. “We have made great strides in alternative end markets such as glass pozzolan [a sustainable replacement for cement in concrete]. “But what’s missing is dedicated processing facilities that clean and sort glass to achieve the necessary quality for new bottles. Historically, New England had these facilities. But, today, curbside glass often must be hauled hundreds of miles out of state just to reach a beneficiation plant,” Schulz-Fontes says, adding that re-establishing New England’s processing capacity will be a key lever to scaling glass recycling, regionwide. The idea is to eliminate long-distance transport costs, slash emissions, and keep the full lifecycle of bottle recycling local. Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority (HRRA) is working to take its Connecticut-based corner of New England further. The HRRA runs a regional glass-separation recycling program across 14 municipalities, serving roughly 265,000 residents. Since the initiative's 2019 launch, the authority has collected and sent over 2,000 tons of source-separated glass on for processing. Jennifer A. Heaton-Jones, executive director, Housatonic Resources Recovery Authority, points to another program plus. The operation has improved the quality of the whole mixed recycling stream by reducing glass contamination in paper, cardboard, and other recyclables. This helps increase the value of recyclable commodities and supports a more efficient recycling system overall, she says. Leadership credits the program's success largely to transparency and resident education. “We focused on helping residents understand what happens to glass when it is placed in a mixed recycling bin and why separating it creates better environmental and economic outcomes. “Once they learned that much of the glass collected through mixed recycling was not being recycled back into new bottles and jars due to contamination issues, they were very willing to change their behavior,” Heaton-Jones observes. The partnership with local glass recyclers helps—it is giving residents visible proof that their glass is being transformed to new products. “When people know their efforts make a measurable difference, participation follows,” she says. Casella processes approximately 100,000 tons of glass annually across Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. According to Jeff Weld, the company’s vice president of communications, they have access to several viable end markets. He cites bottle-to-bottle recycling, fiberglass manufacturing, processed glass aggregate, and additives for concrete and other construction applications. Building a diverse network of regional outlets has been a key strategy. Because glass is heavy and carries a lower commodity value, regional processing is essential to cutting transportation distances and keeping processing costs manageable, Weld says. That’s what’s most needed, he advises—more local and regional outlets to make logistics more efficient while improving the long-term economics and resiliency of glass recycling. In the broader picture, economic factors favor glass recycling, according to market research platform Worldmetric’s data . Nationwide, U.S. recycling costs $35 to $50 per ton while landfilling costs $20 to $30, according to Worldmetric’s 2026 report. The authors cite a national selling price of $80 to $100 per ton and claim recycled content saves manufacturers $10 to $15 per ton. But regional realities paint a more nuanced picture. NERC’s market value figures for the Northeast show the region faces a tighter squeeze, other than for clear glass, likely attributed to the referenced processing challenges compounded by single-stream contamination. Just the same, opportunities exist across the region. But closing the loop will require a dual approach: building robust, updated infrastructure and aggressively driving the long-term market demand to sustain it. Read on Waste360.
By Sophie Leone • August 25, 2026
Circular Action Alliance (CAA) was founded in 2022 and is a U.S. Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO). As a PRO they are dedicated to the implementation of effective Extended Producer Responsibility laws for paper and packaging. CAA operates as the single PRO in California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington. Additionally, they are the only organization that is approved to implement U.S. EPR laws for paper and packaging. CAA's dedicated and important work is built off a comprehensive list of strategic operating principles. These principles include delivering cost effective services, supporting and incentivizing innovation in packaging design, supporting responsible end markets, and enhancing the collection of covered materials. CAA not only works with the producers but with the greater industry as well, providing free webinars, public resources, state updates, and more. "We're excited to join NERC and contribute to its long legacy of regional collaboration," said Bridget Anderson, Director of Emerging States at Circular Action Alliance. "As we implement EPR programs in multiple states, organizations like NERC help us better understand regional nuances and trends in the recycling system." NERC is excited to welcome the Circular Action Alliance. As a fellow non-profit, we look forward to supporting their growing impact and the important work they do with EPR. For more information on CAA visit.