If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Is Legislation to Help with Recycling Efforts Really Necessary?

thompson, laura, sappi fine paperRecently, two separate state laws were passed to support recycling programs for paint and mattresses.   These types of laws are known generally as extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation, wherein manufacturers are required to pay fees to support recovery and recycling efforts for their products.  To date, the laws have focused on products that are hazardous or have low recycling rates (e.g. batteries, mercury switches, fluorescent lamps).

At first, I was somewhat surprised to see Maine joining six other states to enact this type of law for paint.   As a taxpaying resident of Portland, Maine I am allowed to drop up to 10 gallons per year of oil or enamel paint at my local recycling facility – at no charge.  For latex paint, there is clear guidance on how to solidify and dispose of leftovers.  A quick search revealed several other options within driving distance, most of which are free for local residents.  And there are many additional facilities in Maine where consumers (including non-residents) can pay for proper disposal of paint.

In looking at the evolution of EPR it becomes clear that the driving force for the change is not just to provide access for recovery.  Rather the primary incentive is to shift the cost burden from municipalities to the producer.  And what will producers do?  Most likely they will pass the cost along to consumers. In fact a paint law in Connecticut has resulted in a $0.75 per gallon fee for consumers. I do anticipate that paint disposal will become more accessible if every store that sells paint must also take it back, however it remains to be seen as to whether this is a cost effective solution.

Meanwhile people are studying two programs in Canada (Ontario and British Columbia) that have used this type of legislation to cover commonly recycled materials including packaging and printed materials. And there are efforts underway to look at similar legislation in the US.  Our trade association is monitoring the development of these laws closely in an effort to understand how this may affect the pulp and paper industry.  It is arguable that we simply don’t need EPR for paper products. The recovery rate for paper has exceeded 60% since 2009.  And nearly 70% of US households have access to paper recycling facilities (either curbside or drop off).

Of course, a strong recovery rate alone doesn’t prevent a municipality from looking for ways to cut costs of recycling programs.  But, for paper, municipalities should be reaping benefits as the markets for recovered paper are very strong.  In fact paper markets are so competitive that roughly 40% of recovered paper is exported to meet the high demands of overseas customers.

There are still paper products destined for landfills and much effort underway to identify and expand solutions for “hard to recycle” products such as wax coated board or soiled paper (like napkins or food contaminated packing).  There are a host of alternatives to recycling, including composting programs and waste-to-energy solutions.  The key is to maximize recycling where possible and continue to develop a portfolio of solutions for other products or hard to reach locations.

Laura M. Thompson, Phd, is director of sustainable development and technical marketing at Sappi Fine Paper North America. She has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of New Hampshire and an M.S. and PhD in Paper Science from the Institute of Paper Science and Technology. Since 1995, she has held a variety of positions within the paper industry including R&D, mill environmental, product development for specialties and coated fine paper, and, most recently, sustainability. Since joining Sappi in 2006, Laura has quickly emerged as an industry leader in the field of sustainable development. This article is republished from The Environmental Quotient with permission from Sappi Fine Paper North America. For more information, please visit Sappi’s eQ Microsite. You can also follow @eQLauraThompson on Twitter.

The EHS Guidebook: Selecting, Implementing, and Using EHS Software Solutions
Sponsored By: EtQ

  
10 Tactics of Successful Energy Managers
Sponsored By: EnergyCap, Inc.

  
Financing Environmental Resiliency and a Low-Carbon Future with Green Bonds
Sponsored By: NSF International

  
Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  

2 thoughts on “Is Legislation to Help with Recycling Efforts Really Necessary?

  1. I believe the goal of EPR is not just to bump up recycling rates. There are plenty of cute recycling initiatives (like residential dropoff sites for paint) that bump up recycling rates bit by bit and catch the attention of the especially eco-conscious folks like Laura here. What EPR seeks to do is infuse the entire system with a clear cost signal in favor of material recovery and reuse or recycling. EPR seeks to hit recovery rates far above the 60% mentioned above. The paper EPR program in BC aims to begin at 75% recovery and go up from there! I don’t think we should be treating EPR as if they were a double-tax on citizens who already have curbside and dropoff programs to participate in. These are systems-level policies to drive change at every level.

  2. Yes, legislation for recycling efforts IS INDEED necessary.
    In the USA, from state and academic studies, there has been found a STRONG research correlation between states lacking comprehensive recycling (covering all cities and counties), those having high daily garbage disposal poundages per person, and high death rates from vehicle crashes with unremoved debris. That debris could have been collected and recycled quicker, resulting in fewer deaths and safer, cleaner public spaces and less thrown away garbage, if comprehensive recycling was in place in those states.

Leave a Comment