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 • November 4, 2026
What We Learned in Princeton
By Keith Loria | Resource Recycling • October 30, 2026
Recycled commodity values at Northeast MRFs increased for the second consecutive quarter as Q2 2026 figures show gains across most materials outweighed a 61% drop in PET, according to the Northeast Recycling Council. In the latest report, average blended values reached $93.03/ton without residuals, up 11.1% from Q1. Including residuals, the value climbed 15.24% to $76.37/ton, NERC said. The gains extended a recovery from Q4 2025, when average values fell to five-year lows of $68.41/ton without residuals and $52.49/ton with them. Values rebounded 22.37% and 26.26%, respectively, in Q1 2026 , though the latest increases came at a slower pace. That late-2025 trough followed declines in OCC, mixed paper, aluminum cans and several plastics grades. Natural and color HDPE were among the exceptions, posting gains during Q4. The new results therefore show a broader recovery in commodity pricing, though PET has continued moving lower through the first half of 2026. PET averaged $40.48/ton in Q2, with reported prices ranging from $8.47 to $70. The resin also declined in Q1, when most other commodities began recovering. Other plastics posted substantial increases. Color HDPE rose 122% to $293.63/ton, while natural HDPE increased 10% to $1,471.31/ton. Polypropylene climbed 72% to $345.37/ton, and mixed plastics Nos. 3-7 advanced 39% to $186.52/ton. OCC increased 17% to $99.21/ton, while mixed paper fell 5% to $45.57/ton. Aluminum cans gained 5% to $2,171.29/ton, and steel cans rose 4% to $221.29/ton. Glass remained mixed. Clear and green container prices declined, brown glass held steady, and three-mix glass carried a negative average value of $37.71/ton, meaning MRFs paid to move the material. The quarterly survey collected commodity pricing from 19 MRFs across 12 states. Two facilities were excluded from the blended average because they marketed insufficient material during Q2 to provide a representative comparison. That calculation included 13 single-stream and four dual-stream or source-separated facilities. Single-stream values rose 12.3% to $91.28/ton without residuals and 11.37% to $74.74/ton with residuals. Dual-stream and source-separated values increased 8.04% to $98.65/ton without residuals and 28.33% to $81.62/ton with residuals, remaining above single-stream values on both measures. Residuals are incoming materials that cannot be marketed and require disposal. The measure without residuals reflects a ton of marketed recyclables; the measure including residuals accounts for managing unmarketable material in each ton processed. Disposal costs increased during Q2, although facilities may calculate those costs differently, NERC noted. The report covers Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. Collection systems and state policies affect which materials reach participating facilities. Beverage container deposit programs, for example, divert some glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans away from MRFs, reducing potential revenue from those materials. Single-stream collection remains the most common approach represented in the survey. NERC cautioned that differences in collection programs, market access and operating conditions limit how the regional averages can be applied locally. “This data is not intended to serve as a price guide for MRF contracts,” the organization said. Read on Resource Recycling.
By Megan Fontes • October 29, 2026
NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for April – June 2026 reflects the continuing rise of commodity values across the Northeast after several quarters of decline. Dual stream/source-separated MRFs continued to report higher average commodity values than single stream MRFs. The average blended commodity value increased by 11.1% to $93.03 per ton without residuals and by 15.24% to $76.37 per ton with residuals in Q2 2026 compared to Q1 2026. Single stream values increased by 12.3% to $91.28 per ton without residuals and by 11.37% to $74.74 per ton with residuals. Dual stream values increased by 8.04% to $98.65 per ton without residuals and by 28.33% to $81.62 per ton with residuals.