Plastic World

November 7, 2017

November 7, 2017


Plastics are ubiquitous; this fact cannot be denied. Many plastics are needed to support our happy modern day lifestyles. But where do we draw the line on our ever-growing production of plastics; and even more importantly, the ever-increasing environmental impacts of plastic materials?


According to the nonprofit Plastic Oceans, the world produces almost 300 million tons of plastic each year. Adding to the environmental burden, fully one-half of the plastics produced are for single use.


For years, the growing Chinese economy provided a reliable market for recycled plastics and other materials. However, in large part because of changes in domestic recycling practices, U.S. exports to China (and other countries) of “recyclable material” increasingly contained dirty and poorly sorted materials, or even materials contaminated with hazardous substances such as lead or mercury. In 2013, China went on the offensive to clean up these imports with its “Operation Green Fence.”


This past July, China notified the World Trade Organization (WTO) of its intention to ban 24 types of solid waste imports, most notably plastics, paper, and textiles. Considering that $5.6 billion in scrap commodities were exported from the United States to China in 2016, one can imagine how the impact on the recycling industry could seem unsurmountable. Just last year, almost a quarter of our country’s largest exporters (by volume) were recyclers of paper, plastic, or metal.


Municipalities and processors are now scrambling to find markets for collected plastics. Many are finding that they will receive no revenue; indeed, they may even have to pay to get rid of materials. Communities are scaling their collection back to accepting only #1 PET or #2 HDPE bottles and containers. Markets for plastic bags and other film plastic, as well as rigid plastics like plastic lids, bins, or crates, and mixed plastics (a category that includes plastic cups and a range of food containers) are particularly constrained.


North America has processing capacity for clean, sorted streams of PET and HDPE bottles, and even polypropylene resins. For films and non-bottle rigids, China’s ban presents more of an issue. End markets for these materials have depended on exports as there isn’t enough domestic processing capacity. The limitation of North American processing capacity is, however, only one facet of the plastic issue.


Exporting our plastics to China allowed us to put a false happy face…a “plastic facade”, if you will, on our overuse of this valuable resource. While our industry voices its opposition to China’s ban, we are all nonetheless culpable for the current situation. We are all responsible for polluted communities in China and other countries that have imported the packaging and remnants of our consumer culture.


I recently viewed “Plastic China,” a movingly poignant film that puts a real face on the people processing so much of our plastic scrap. When the film was made in 2016, China was the world’s biggest plastic waste importer, receiving ten million tons of recycled material per year. Much of this material was processed at small, “plastic waste household-recycling workshops.”


The impact on the local environment, as well as the health of workers and their families that live with them, is staggering. Yes, some of these materials were recycled into new clothing, toys, or other items to satiate consumer habits around the world. Much of this plastic, however, cannot be reprocessed and lives on, polluting the environment and communities surrounding these recycling shops.


Should China be doing more to protect its environment? Yes, of course. Should China be doing more to raise its people out of the cycle of poverty? Yes. However, we as a nation need to also examine the role we have in exporting waste around the world.


As an ever changing, global nation, each of us has a role to play in keeping all of the world’s environments healthy. Our role in exporting unsorted, dirty materials to China and other nations has now come back to haunt us. The fact that we ignored the realities of how our materials were being processed by adults and children in environmentally devastating circumstances is what should truly be haunting us.


The global flow of recycled scrap plastic, which ends up in mountains of burning piles and contaminated waterways, is an image we don’t want to face. 


The more than 8 million tons of plastic that ends up in our oceans every year is another image that troubles some, but hasn’t made a dent in our global production and use of plastics.


We are all responsible for a world which consumes more than one million bags every minute, and the 101 billion plastic beverage bottles sold in just one year in the U.S.


We are all responsible for embracing single-stream recycling without a vetted plan to ensure clean loads of recyclable materials that can be used in the manufacture of new products. We accept government agencies trying to save money by eliminating recycling positions, and thus failing to provide the consumer education needed to clean up the materials destined for processing.



Plastic is a valuable resource, one that needs to be used responsibly and with greater consciousness.


By Athena Lee Bradley

Share Post

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.