Recycling...Challenges and Successes

September 15, 2015

September 15, 2015


Today’s Guest Blog is by Susan Robinson, Director of Public Affairs for Waste Management.


Lately there has been a lot of discussion about the “stagnant” recycling rate. Yet, since 2000, per person waste generation in the U.S. is down by 8%, bottles and cans weigh 30% less, and we generate 20% less paper packaging. We are successfully achieving the goals of the waste hierarchy by reducing waste, and we are recycling more volume than we have in the past, even though our recycling weight has not increased. 


As long as we measure success by the percentage recycled, and as long as we only focus on end-of-life recycling, we will miss the true meaning behind sustainability materials management. Further, we are striving to achieve recycling goals that will only become more elusive as our waste stream becomes lighter.  What should our waste management goals be, and how should we measure success?   


Challenges of Recycling – higher processing costs and lower commodity values.


Recycling logistics and economics have become complicated by ongoing changes to the waste stream, with more plastic and less paper. These changes result in increased recycling processing costs and decreased value per ton of recyclables. Further, commodity prices are down, due to slower growth in China and lower oil prices. This trend toward higher cost and lower commodity revenue is not a recipe for economically sustainable recycling success.


Life Cycle Thinking – the challenge ahead


When recycling conserves natural resources and reduces GHG emissions, everyone benefits. But those global benefits aren’t always apparent in the economic cycles of the recycling market. To really hit the ball out of the park, we need to encourage local communities to make recycling a larger part of their value system. Consumers must value the environmental stewardship they create by recycling all of the commodities the market will embrace.


In short, policies should encourage “recycling with integrity” which means “no diversion merely for the sake of diversion.” The best way to do this is by establishing community policies that embrace Life Cycle Thinking, whereby we evaluate materials at a broader level to determine their optimal disposition. 


Instead of setting goals that rely on the percentage recycled, programs should be developed based on energy and GHG emissions reduced, as well as the highest and best use of a product or package through its entire life cycle. For example, we should appreciate the GHG emissions saved by recycling every aluminum can. We should also appreciate that some kinds of plastic cannot currently be recycled, but through light-weighting still significantly reduce energy use and GHG emissions -- putting them in the recycling bin only adds processing emissions for material that ultimately will be landfilled. 


Finally, let’s celebrate our successes along the way rather than setting unrealistic goals that set us up for failure.


Like many of the most important things in life, the highest levels of success will take time and hard work. Setting realistic goals, with milestones along the way, will help maintain motivation and community commitment for the long haul.


Waste Management is working to reconcile these issues. We recognize the importance of getting the economic models right, improving the quality of recyclables collected and “recycling with integrity.”  Importantly, we are committed to the principles of the Waste Hierarchy in concert with the concepts of Life Cycle Thinking – and measuring success accordingly.


And the solution is……


This brings us back to the question of the right goal, and how to measure it.   It is time to change our paradigm from setting unrealistic recycling goals that are increasingly difficult to achieve as our waste stream moves towards light-weighted and energy efficient materials design.  Rather, it’s time to shift our solid waste management goals to a “per capita disposal goal” (proposed in Massachusetts this year) that will capture the value of waste reduction, the highest priority on the waste hierarchy.  A measurement of per capita disposal in concert with a move towards a life cycle thinking approach will establish the right signals for truly sustainable materials management practices.


Ms. Robinson is the Director of Public Affairs for Waste Management. She has worked in the environmental industry for 30 years in roles that span the public sector, non-profit, consultancy, and over twenty years in the private sector. Her experience includes global commodity marketing, research and analysis of industry trends, and twenty years managing municipal solid waste and recycling contracts. She currently works with Waste Management’s recycling, innovative technology and fleet teams, supporting the company’s transformation from disposal to a materials management and renewable energy company. She is responsible for the company’s public policy efforts to support this transition.

 

NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Megan Schulz-Fontes. 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.