Advanced Search
March 23, 2020
In the decades since the modern environmental movement began, few solutions have been embraced as broadly as recycling. Fifty years after the debut of the iconic recycling symbol, recycling has moved from an aspirational concept to an instinctual habit for many people around the world. However, the consensus that recycling is an important environmental protection strategy has not prevented industry from limiting recycling’s effectiveness. On March 4, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change held a hearing on the challenges facing the nation’s recycling industry and heard recommendations from experts in the recycling, plastics, and waste management fields.
Industry Problems
The global plastic waste crisis is a point of concern among consumers, lawmakers, and experts. According to testimony submitted by University of Georgia Professor Jenna Jambeck, plastic waste is a growing problem. “We’re really finding plastic everywhere we look,” Jambeck said in the hearing, referring to research that has found plastic particles everywhere, from drinking water to seafood and even in the atmosphere. In 2019 alone, the global annual production of plastic rose to 360 million metric tons. Of this, approximately 79 percent ends up in landfills or the environment. Americans are significant contributors to global waste: The United States represents 4.3 percent of the world’s population, but 16.4 percent of its waste generation.
Although the health effects of consuming these particles are not yet known, Denise Patel of the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives testified that there are empirically demonstrated health risks to living near landfills and waste incinerators, including exposure to particulate matter, lead, and mercury. These risks are disproportionately felt by low-income communities and communities of color—Patel cited that of the top 12 lead-producing incinerators, ten are in environmental justice communities.
To many consumers, recycling represents a solution to this waste problem. However, Jambeck and William Johnson of the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) warned Committee members that recycling has challenges and is not a silver bullet. Lynn Hoffman of Eureka Recycling agreed with this sentiment, testifying that “we cannot recycle our way out of our consumption and climate crisis.”
One fundamental problem with the U.S. recycling system is its dependence on recycling facilities in China. The U.S. recycling system lost profitability as a result of China’s 2018 “National Sword” policy, which ended Chinese imports of international recyclable waste. Losing access to Chinese recycling facilities created a major challenge for domestic recyclers, as they do not have the capacity to process all the recyclable material they receive. Domestic recyclers also tend to be more expensive than Chinese ones, making recycling a cost for communities, instead of a source of revenue. For example, the General Manager of the Los Angeles Sanitation and Environment Bureau, Enrique Zaldivar, testified that the city’s recycling program had moved from generating over $4 million in revenue annually to costing the city over $12 million. Hoffman similarly reported that local recyclers have begun seeing significantly smaller profit margins.
Policy Recommendations
Jambeck, Johnson, Hoffman, and Patel recommended a variety of policy actions aimed at resolving issues at all steps of the recycling process, from initial material manufacturing to the end-use of recycled material. Their recommendations are compiled below:
Materials and product design
Reducing waste generation
Waste management and processing infrastructure
End-market use
All witnesses agreed on the recommendations aimed at improving recycling infrastructure and the domestic recycling market. However, the witnesses and members of the Committee disagreed on recommendations that involved limiting plastic manufacturing. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act was the most controversial proposed piece of legislation among witnesses and Committee members. For example, while Subcommittee Chair Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) and Committee Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) expressed interest in reducing plastic production and limiting or banning certain materials, Republican Committee members including Subcommittee Ranking Member John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Representative David McKinley (R-W.V.) spoke in opposition to any federal regulation on producers.
Despite differences in opinion over specific legislation, all Committee members and witnesses agreed on the importance of recycling as a tool in the toolbox of environmental protection. Although the hearing highlighted many of the weaknesses in the domestic recycling industry, it is clear that reforms to make recycling more effective and profitable would create both environmental and economic benefits.
Author: Abby Neal
Top-Rated Climate Nonprofit – 4-Star Charity