THE PLEASURES AND SORROWS OF RECYCLING
The Problem, or “Sorrows”
We’ve all been there: standing in front of the trash with some kind of plastic container, turned it over to see those three little arrows with a number in the middle, and thought, “This must be recyclable, right?”. In the recycle bin it goes, somewhat proud to have done our part. While we should all be applauded for this, in most cases, sadly, while our intentions were good, our decision was not. As counterintuitive as it may seem, that symbol did not in fact indicate whether that container was recyclable.
There is a lot of confusion out there, and it’s not an accident. Like much of our modern material world, it is something the fossil fuel and plastics industries have very keenly designed and are quite keen to maintain. The symbol was originally designed back in the 1970s by the Container Corporation of America to raise awareness about cardboard recycling. By the 1980s it had been subverted by the Society of Plastics Institute as a means of coding their own products, known as a Resign Identification Code or RIC (1). It was perfect really. People were starting to catch on that plastics were becoming a problem, and so this symbol, with its chasing arrows in a closed loop, perfectly implied recyclability without actually indicating as much. The objective? To keep us buying plastic without worrying about the consequences. As fossil fuels in transportation continues its slow and painful, yet necessary, decline, the aforementioned industries are tripling down on plastic. All to keep their engines of production belching and their wallets fat. But the veil is lifting yet again, and an educated populace is a conscientious one. So for those who don’t already know, here’s what those RIC numbers actually mean:
It is merely an indication of the type of polymer used to make that product, and that’s it. It has nothing to do with whether it is recyclable or not, and in fact the fossil fuel industry is pushing hard to muddy the waters and define “recyclable” as anything that could be recycled, not necessarily whether it can or will be (3). Commence exasperated moan.
So how do we know which of these numbers actually is safe for the blue bin? To understand this, it's helpful to shine a little light on what recycling a plastic bottle actually means [Spoiler: Recycling plastic is really hard, and quite toxic over time, and only about 5% is actually turned into new plastic (2)]. I recently had the privilege of attending a lecture from the Alliance of Mission Based Recyclers (AMBR), a nationwide, nonprofit organization hoping to achieve a truly zero waste future, where they talked about this process and what makes something recyclable. It boils down to essentially two factors: sortability and usability. According to AMBR, when plastics are recycled they are sent to one of the over 300 Material Recovery Facilities (MRF’s) around the US, and sorted by size, weight, shape, composition, quantity, and market prevalence. This is where the numbers on the containers matter, as plastics must be sorted with like polymers in order to be broken down into a clean, pellet-like product, or feedstock, that is sold to manufacturers as a raw material to be molded into new plastic. The challenge is that most plastic products are not a single material. One plastic soda bottle, for example, can have 3 different types of plastic; the bottle, the cap, and the label, each with their own chemical composition. So to create a truly closed loop, a clear plastic soda bottle can only be made from other clear plastic soda bottles. In theory, anyway.
But how many of us actually spend the time to rip off the label and detach the cap before throwing that bottle in the blue bin?
Not many, I'd imagine. The burden then is put on the MRF’s to find ways to clean, sort, or remove those products not suitable for reclamation.
But the numbers are only part of the recycling equation. This is where the usability of the feedstock comes in, as the raw materials must be clean and dry and free of contaminants, including food. The greater the purity, the greater the value of the commodity being sold. It’s pure economics, as with any industry.
But how many of us actually spend the time to rinse and dry our take-out trays? Let alone let a jar of peanut butter soak overnight so it’s actually washable?
Dyes and colors can also contaminate this raw feedstock, making the product toxic when melted down and potentially creating hazards both for manufacturers and consumers (3). These types of products, like Tide bottles, are often separated out and then down-cycled into other products like carpet, composite decking, car parts, or paint cans; anything that can be dyed dark brown or black. While having a longer shelf life, they are invariably still single use. And even if a product is introduced that is recyclable on its own, such as Colgate’s new fully recyclable toothpaste tubes, other like products may not be, and there’s no way of sorting by brand at these facilities so it all just ends up in landfill anyway.
Purity is a major issue with many products sold today, not just plastic bottles. Even in the fast fashion industry there is a glaring problem of recyclability with blended fabrics (arguably still plastic). While I know we all appreciate a little stretch after a hearty meal, that 5% lycra or spandex thread woven into those denim jeans cannot be separated at end-of-life, so unless the garment is still wearable or re-sellable, once it has grown tattered it is essentially garbage. The same is true of the epidemic of sachet bags (think chip bags or candy bar wrappers). These are aluminum lined plastic bags; two materials adhered together that cannot be separated for individual recycling so are therefore together just waste.
So at the end of the day, for a product to be recyclable it must be as clean and simple as possible. The next time you’re holding that plastic tray full of food with some adhesive film over the top, consider whether these things can be pulled apart and cleaned. If the answer is no, then, sadly, it’s trash.
A Path to Solutions, or “Pleasures”
As is often touted, the first and most important step is reducing what we consume and moving to a model of re-use and refill.
The less plastic we use the less of a problem this will become, which of course the fossil fuel industry is vehemently pushing against. The world currently produces about 460 million tons of plastic waste annually (4), of which about 40% is plastic film packaging and only about 9% is recycled. Recycling is the last step, yet AMBR claimed quite proudly that it is not broken. Aluminum cans, paper, glass bottles, and cardboard are robust material reclamation streams, and in fact still make up the majority of all the material collected across their partner organizations (a trend i’m sure scales nationally). It is plastic that is broken, and it even impacts the other waste streams. Large scale sorting machines have trouble distinguishing plastic bags from paper, so when the giant bales of paper are created for recycling they are often rejected and thrown in landfill due to plastic contamination. So when collecting recyclables in a bag, ALWAYS empty the bag and put it in separate film collection bins or the trash.
A breakdown of recyclables, per household, within AMBR service areas. Suprising to see the bulk, over 50%, is still paper and cardboard. I’ll write about the trees who gave their lives in a future post.
I’ve written about some of these solutions before, but truly effective solutions will tackle the problem at its source by forcing manufacturers to stop making non-recyclable products and take responsibility for their reclamation.
It is not our fault that plastic bottles are cheap and abundant and made of various polymers in a fabulous array of colors. But here still we have agency to choose alternatives where budget and selection allow. We also need more top-down support for proper collection and sorting, making it convenient and accessible for all people to participate. Like so many problems the world faces, the biggest positive changes will come from policy. CA recently introduced a bill, SB-343, that pushes back against confusing labeling and prohibits manufacturers from using the three arrows unless their products are actually recyclable (hence their push to change the definition). The state also recently passed SB-54, which creates Extended Producer Responsibility and mandates that products must meet certain thresholds of actual recyclability by 2032. Steps in the right direction, but more work is needed and in many more places.
The plastics industry is quick to claim that advanced recycling and chemical recycling, such as purification, depolymerization, and conversion, are going to fix everything. But they are, not surprisingly, false solutions. These processes are incredibly energy intensive and polluting, nowhere near scalable to meet the current global need, and often require incredibly pure feedstocks in order to be effective. As we’ve discussed here already, most products are not designed with this end-of-life market in mind, so meeting the requirements for these processes today is rarely achieved. Composting is often seen as a solution, with bio-plastics now making the rounds in many grocery stores. But here again, there is a lot of misinformation. A product that says ‘made from plants’ may in fact have natural derivatives, but it is still made of synthetic plastic polymers, and it does not mean it’s recyclable. In fact, it’s usually not. Only products that say “biodegradable” or “compostable” will break down, but only in industrial composting facilities under incredibly high heat, and even then only into microplastics, which are the most damaging and insidious (5). The infrastructure to manage the volume of plastic as a biological process also simply does not exist, and often these bioplastics are just a means of moving the problem from the blue bin to the green one.
Real solutions involve turning off the tap of over-production, designing products that actually CAN be recycled, and promoting re-use and refill as viable, accessible, and inexpensive alternatives to over-consumption of single use plastics.
A Joyful Reference Guide to Recycling
The system we have is frustrating and inefficient. Every year we seem to be drowning in more packages, containers, wrappers, and protective coatings then ever before. It is not about protecting our food or our health. It is about making money and increasing our reliance on fossil fuels. But, it is the system we have, and while good work is happening around the world to push back, we are not quite there yet. The good news is we all have a lot of power through our actions and choices. And hopefully by understanding a little more about the the full life cycle of the materials we are connected to, we can make better choices as a consumer. So below I offer a not-so-comprehensive but hopefully helpful summary of how to manage plastic properly until the system changes. And always remember, you don’t waste what you don’t buy. Refuse first, then reduce, then reuse or refill, then:
HOW TO RECYCLE PLASTIC:
#1 clear bottles and containers - OK
#2 bottles (clear and translucent colored) - OK
#5 white containers - OK
But varies by region. Check locally.
Everything else - NOT OK
Bio-plastics - NOT OK
Plastic film/bags/wrappers - NOT OK
When in doubt, throw it out.
Separate mixed materials where you can.
Throw it out if you can’t.
Make sure it’s clean and dry.
Think of recycling a container like doing the dishes. You don’t put them away dirty and wet.
Refer to the HowToRecycle label for guidance on specific products, if available.
Check out this short video from AMBR to learn more.
References:
https://www.goodstartpackaging.com/the-history-of-recycling-symbols/?srsltid=AfmBOoptnhifpEcN8ElPo5wPWfxeUm47H6G5oS5OIwIsgzxAC6oza2fI
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/24/1131131088/recycling-plastic-is-practically-impossible-and-the-problem-is-getting-worse
https://www.propublica.org/article/plastics-industry-redefine-recyclable-ftc-grocery-bags
https://iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/plastic-pollution#:~:text=Over%20460%20million%20metric%20tons,to%20increase%20significantly%20by%202040.
https://action.storyofstuff.org/survey/bioplastics-quiz?t=69&utm_medium=email&akid=442087%2E82718%2Etul3bX