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

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.