Measuring Product and Packaging Flows for Sustainability

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

The importance of product-focused measurement to sustainable materials management

 
EPA’s Municipal Solid Waste Characterization reports have been invaluable to the development of both Sustainable Materials Management and Extended Producer Responsibility alternatives to traditional waste management approaches.  What has made the data so valuable is the distinction between manufactured (product) and non-product (organic and inorganic) wastes – a distinction that is possible through the materials flow method used by EPA but missing from the traditional end-of-pipe waste characterization perspective.  To be sure, aspects of EPA’s reporting methodology and scope can and should be improved.  But it is critical to continue and expand the use of production and life-cycle data to track the quantities of products and packaging generated and discarded for recycling, landfilling and incineration each year. 

The distinction between product and non-product waste lines up pretty well with the concept of technical industrial and biological nutrients used by McDonough and Braungart in the book, Cradle to Cradle.  It creates the possibility of talking about producer responsibility for manufactured discards and community responsibility for management of non-manufactured discards.  Product Policy Institute used those data in a 2005 report to produce the influential graph above, which makes apparent the contribution of products and packaging (red bars) to the dramatic change in composition of “municipal solid waste” over the last century.

The EPA Municipal Waste Characterization Reports prepared by Franklin Associates track production statistics, adjusted for product lifespans as well as imports and exports. This product-focused approach is best suited to measuring product and packaging flows – recycling as well as waste disposal – as well as critically important industrial waste flows.  Annual reports published by BioCycle magazine, in partnership since 2003 with Columbia University’s Earth Engineering Center, use state reports and questionnaires to waste managers to estimate amounts of material that is received at landfills and incinerators, as well as estimates on collection for recycling.  The wastes tracked in the BioCycle reports include materials not covered in the EPA reports, such as construction and demolition debris, biosolids, special waste, household hazardous waste, alternative daily cover, and auto body scrap. Tracking for these materials varies markedly by state and jurisdiction. 

The EPA and BioCycle approaches reflect different perspectives on the waste stream.  The EPA/Franklin methodology focuses “upstream” and relies on Franklin Associates’ close association with industry trade associations.  By contrast, the BioCycle/Columbia methodology is grounded in the waste management end of the waste stream and relies on a “robust network” of waste managers (Kaufman and Themelis, 2010).  BioCycle is a trade journal for composters.

Is one approach more important to sustainable materials management?  I contend that the EPA/Franklin product-focused approach is the more important of the two, for two reasons.  First, the EPA approach opens the door to the study of  industrial manufacturing solid waste, which is far more significant in impact than “municipal solid waste.”  The last government attempt to measure U.S. industrial waste flows was done in the 1980s under the Department of Energy’s Waste Material Management Program (which sensibly looked at materials and energy together).  A 1993 DOE booklet estimated that municipal solid wastes comprised only 1.5% of all “industrial” waste streams.  Nonhazardous manufacturing wastes have a greater potential impact on sustainability than MSW yet industrial reporting requirements are largely lacking.  This is an area in which EPA should do more.  The EPA/Franklin product-focused approach can and should be expanded further “upstream” to include manufacturing wastes.

Second, the most problematic materials in the MSW stream are manufactured discards – products and packaging -- because they are the fastest-growing component of MSW and they are often designed for disposal or contain toxic components.  The proliferation of toxic and throw-away products has been accommodated by an expanding municipal solid waste management infrastructure operating independently from the decision-makers that design, market and use products and packaging (Product Policy Institute 2005).  Put another way, the separation of the costs of waste management from product prices is a market failure driving social costs associated with waste.  Modern materials management policies, such as Extended Producer Responsibility, aim to correct this market failure.  While accurate measurement of disposal is important, in a sustainable materials economy management of manufactured discards will increasingly become a producer responsibility, and less of a public sector responsibility.  For those wastes, product-focused measurement approaches will become increasingly important.

The EPA/Franklin methodology should be more transparent, include the vast universe of hidden industrial waste flows and construction and demolition discards, and include reuse.  However, it should be expanded, not abandoned.  Governmental and non-governmental organizations developing effective policy measures to prevent waste at the source rely on US EPA’s valuable tracking reports. 

Go beyond the blog, keep up with PPI on our Facebook page and follow our tweets @ProductPolicy.

From Green Consumers to Green Citizens

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

An opinion piece in the New York Times on September 7, “Going Green but Getting Nowhere,” questions the value of individual actions like recycling in combating global warming:  “The reality is that we cannot overcome the global threats posed by greenhouse gases without speaking the ultimate inconvenient truth: getting people excited about making individual environmental sacrifices is doomed to fail.”

Sound like an anti-recycling rant from a right-wing free marketer?  But it’s not. The author, economist Gernot Wagner from the Environmental Defense Fund, is on to something important.

As someone trained in ecology, I find Wagner’s basic question to be spot on: What actions will the planet notice?  He’s right in stating that the magnitude of changes necessary to avert climate catastrophe are “so large and profound that they are beyond the reach of individual action.”  And he points us to a key problem: “individual action … distracts us from the need for collective action.”

I’d go further.  I believe that we have become so immersed in our consumer culture that our civic personas have atrophied.  We see ourselves as consumers first and increasingly powerless as citizens.  We don’t see that recycling, to take a prominent example of individual consumer action, has been embraced over reuse and source reduction by corporations because it doesn’t threaten profits and growth.  Changing those priorities requires concerted civic action.

Wagner is correct that we need collective action to solve -- or even adapt effectively to -- global warming.  That’s why I work with citizens for policies that require corporations to be responsible and bear the cost of the environmental impacts of the products they design and from which they profit. Called extended producer responsibility, these policies aim to send price signals to consumers that make the greenest products the less expensive ones.  Collective action is needed for such planet-saving government policies.  The public voice also needs to be at the policy-making table, along with the private sector voices of "stakeholders," to protect the public interest.

Where Wagner comes up a little short, I believe, is in not articulating the potential connection between individual lifestyle actions, like recycling, and collective action.  Individual lifestyle actions need not distract us from collective action if the message is promoted and understood that lifestyle changes are necessary but not sufficient.  Responsible consumerism will only make a difference in slowing global warming if it is a springboard to the collective actions that individuals must take to get governments to adopt policies that address fundamental problems.

Taking EPR to the airwaves

 By Bill Sheehan, PPI Executive Director

Recently I had the opportunity to speak on the radio show True South on WGAU (Athens, Georgia).  The topic was waste, manufacturer responsibility and the work of the Product Policy Institute.  I have done a lot of speaking about waste, extended producer responsibility (EPR), product stewardship, and PPI, but this was not my usual audience: WGAU also hosts programs by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz and Sean Hannity.  

Have a listen at the link below, my segment starts around minute 24:00: http://www.1340wgau.com/Player/101055521/

Got Jobs? Maine Company Grows with Passage of Expanded Manufacturer Responsibility Law

By Representative Melissa Walsh Innes, Yarmouth, Maine

Being an elected public official, it's my duty to stay up to date on what's happening in my state and around the world.  Time is short, so surfing web headlines is my way of staying connected.  In these tough times, jobs are on every public servant's mind and that goes double for me.  I'm especially looking for good news and fresh ideas to bring to the Maine State House.

Photo by Amber Waterman, Sun Journal

Unfortunately, for this optimist, most headlines are bad news and dour predictions of what's to come next.  So you can understand how excited I was last week to see this headline, "New law enables Auburn, Maine recycling firm to expand."

The article describes the implementation of a new Maine law, which I sponsored, titled "An Act to Increase Recycling Jobs in Maine and Lower Costs for Maine Businesses Concerning Recycled Electronics."  This law creates cost savings for all Maine businesses with under 100 employees by allowing them to participate in Maine's electronic waste (e-waste) recycling program.  

This initiative began over five years ago and was the first extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for electronics in the United States.  Just like bottle bills (container deposit laws) - which most people know about - EPR laws direct manufacturers to fund the collection and recycling of their products at the end of the product's useful life, promoting the sustainable reuse of materials and preventing the release of hazardous chemicals into the environment.  In addition, they reduce costs for local governments and taxpayers and create jobs through the collection and recycling of formerly discarded products. 

According to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental advocacy organization that worked with me to expand the law, Maine has recycled over 30 million pounds of e-waste, saved taxpayers more than $20 million, and prevented more than 6 million pounds of lead and other toxics from entering our environment, since the law's inception in 2006.  Today, 23 other states have also enacted producer responsibility laws to recycle unwanted electronics and many more are working on bills this year.

Up to this point, only Maine households could participate, so this increase in electronics recycling will allow Maine businesses to recycle their old electronics at no cost.  In addition, it will help Maine-based and regional recycling businesses to prosper.  With the increased volume expected, and with enabling rules allowing them to also "demanufacture" the discarded electronics, the Auburn, Maine facility expects to create almost 20 new jobs in the next two months.  Given that I'm from a small state without a whole lot of industry, the EPR law expansion is the best kind of news for those looking for work in central Maine.

On a final note, I'm happy to report that the passage of this law was a bipartisan effort.  Republicans and Democrats came together to overwhelmingly pass it - every sitting legislator voted for it!  Creating jobs was priority number one this year, and the Maine Legislature made progress by expanding one of their EPR recycling programs. 


In Maine, we know that recycling products at their end-of-life creates ten times more jobs than land-filling or incinerating them.  Given the job-growth potential, this can and should be duplicated elsewhere.  The question now is, why aren't we doing this with all of the other products we throw away every day?

About Our Guest Blogger:

Melissa Walsh Innes is an elected State Representative in the Maine Legislature, and serves on Maine’s Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.  Melissa focuses on the sustainable management of materials through product stewardship policy and initiatives, and was the sponsor of Maine’s first-in-the-nation Product Stewardship Framework Law of 2010.  She currently works with legislators, businesses, NGO’s and consultants around the world to help foster a constructive dialogue in this policy area.

Melissa lives in Yarmouth, Maine with her husband Shawn, and three daughters.  Melissa blogs at The Innes EPR Report, tweets at repmelissainnes, and can be found on Facebook at Melissa Walsh Innes.

Legislators' Interest in Producer Responsibility Grows

Industry "All Over the Map"

By Matt Prindiville, Associate Director
Product Policy Institute

I just returned from the National Conference of State Legislatures in San Antonio, Texas, where I was asked to present alongside four representatives from industry on extended producer responsibility.  There were about 70 people in attendance - the majority of them state legislators - with about 10 or 15 folks from private companies and industry trade associations.  I was asked to speak at the last minute to "balance out" what was perceived as an "anti-EPR" industry panel by some involved in the planning for the session.

What I heard from the presentations was not that industry is "anti-EPR".  Different industries and companies are all over the map when it comes to producer responsibility.  While most of us working on sustainable consumption and production issues are aware of this, it is helpful for state legislators - who may assume that industry speaks with one voice on EPR - to know that there are a variety of nuanced perspectives on EPR within and across affected industries.

For example, while the representative from PhRMA was clearly opposed to drug companies paying for stewardship programs (the title of his talk was, "Why Pharmaceuticals don't fit the EPR Model"), the representative from the Consumer Electronics Association and Nestle Waters were advocating for EPR "that fits into company business models," as Walter Acorn, CEA's VP for Environmental Affairs said.

Here are my cliff notes versions of the presentations with comments:

• PhRMA - EPR doesn't fit our products.  Most of the envirionmental problems are from excretion; not flushing or landfilling of pills.  The accidental poisoning and prescription drug crime issues are the result of people disobeying their doctors (i.e. not taking all their medication).

Despite the flood of pharmaceutical EPR legislation, PhRMA clearly has not budged at all from their previous position of "No way.  No how."  The representative played on the dramatic by asserting that the levels of drugs in waterways are barely detectable - in parts per billion or parts per trillion, which is like, "dropping a sugar cube into an Olympic sized swimming pool."  What he didn't say was that many drugs are engineered to have effects on the human body at precisely those levels.  Environmental Working Group also released a study demonstrating that 13% of the 200 most commonly prescribed medications have harmful effects at 100 ppb or less.  As more legislators become aware that drug companies pay for EPR programs throughout Canada at relatively low costs to industry, PhRMA will most likely have a difficult time defeating additional state legislation.

• International Paper - We are doing EPR voluntarily; don't put new EPR mandates on us.  (How would you figure out who the producer is anyway? - i.e. too many "manufacturer" publications).  We're working to ensure curbside collection is expanded throughout the country.  More could be done to collect paper food packaging.

While the rates for printed paper collected for recycling are high (72%), and paper packaging collection rates (50%) are better than for other packaging, we still landfill 26 million tons of paper each year (according to US EPA data).  When you take into account that 98 tons of materials are required to make one ton of paper, it's critical that consumer product manufacturers and the paper industry get involved to boost recycling rates to take the stress off our world's forests and waterways.

• Consumer Electronics Association - There's a patchwork of state regulations which are difficult for industry to navigate; needs a national solution.  Infrastructure through private retailers and municipal collection sites is increasing.  We like EPR, just want it built into the way our companies do business.  Voluntary EPR initiatives may help as well.

The electronics industry has come a long way from 2004, when I worked as an advocate with the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and we teamed up with Hewlett Packard - against pretty much the rest of the industry - to pass the first EPR law for electronics.  Now, they're working together on compliance and implementation for the 24 state e-waste EPR laws.  Moving forward, I think it's key for CEA to work proactively with government and NGOs to harmonize state e-waste legislation, and make a plan to move beyond monitors and TV sets to recycle all the other electronics not covered by most state laws.

• Nestle - We support and are advocating for EPR; just not those pesky inefficient, costly bottle bills.  We want to pay government to collect our bottles from consumers, and expand collection infrastructure to deal with containers consumed away from home.  We want the rest of the food and beverage industry to get involved as well.  Nestle has set a company goal (and aspirational industry goal) of collecting 60% of their containers by 2018.

While it's laudable that Nestle supports EPR and is working to move their industry toward accepting producer responsibility, it's disappointing that they consistently badmouth container-deposit laws (bottle bills), which are the original EPR laws in the US.  As I've previously pointed out to Brian Flaherty, Government Affairs for Nestle and presenter at the conference, Nestle already meets their 60% aspirational goal - as do all other beverage companies - in states with bottle bills.  It seems like the issue for the beverage industry should be making bottle bills more efficient to reduce or eliminate handling fees, not attacking the bottle bills.

My primary takeaway is that these industries and others are trying to make sense of the growing US movement for producer responsibility.  As Canada and the European Union expand EPR programs for more and more of the waste stream, companies are struggling to make sense of what their obligations are - and the potential impact to their bottom line.  Hopefully, they will see that incorporating the costs of green design and responsible recycling into the costs of doing business is the right thing to do, and will significantly reduce the environmental impacts of consumer products and packaging.  As more of the world begins to develop their consumer markets, it's critical that we begin to transition to a much more materials and energy efficient economy.  As the NCSL forum demonstrates, EPR will continue to have a big role to play.

Vancouver Strives for Zero Waste Using EPR and Proactive Actions

British Columbia has the most comprehensive, industry-supported EPR approach in Canada.  Now Vancouver BC has adopted a Zero Waste Strategy with multiple components.  Below you can read about their focus on being a catalyst for more takeback programs.  

Vancouver BC’s Zero Waste / Takeback Strategy
Strategies for Zero Waste
1.         Nurture a Zero Waste Culture
2.         Make Reducing and Reusing a Priority
3.         Capture the Organics
4.         Be a Catalyst for More Takeback Programs
5.         Keep Recyclables Out of Landfills and Incinerators
6.         Enhance Construction, Renovation & Demolition Recycling
7.         Foster a Local Closed-Loop Economy


Be a Catalyst for More Takeback Programs 
Almost 70% of garbage consists of thrown-away products and packaging. To address this problem, waste management is evolving in a way that makes companies responsible for taking back and recycling their products once they become waste. These takeback programs are the cornerstone of our zero waste plan and key to achieving a green economy. 


Takeback programs are based on the principle of extended producer responsibility (EPR), also known as industry product stewardship. EPR shifts the responsibility for managing discarded products to the companies that produce them, rather than local governments. EPR is fostering a new wave of corporate responsibility, where companies extend their responsibility past the factory gates and deal with their discarded products. Connecting brand names to waste can motivate companies to redesign their products and make them less wasteful from the start.


The best-known example in British Columbia is the deposit-refund system for beverage containers.The program started in 1970 to tackle the problem of litter. Today, with a 92% return rate, the beer program achieves the kind of recycling rates needed to reach our longterm goal of creating zero waste.

British Columbia also has takeback programs for electronics (like computers, TVs, audio-visual equipment, cell phones, batteries), paint, pesticides, solvents, gasoline, used oil and empty oil containers, oil filters,tires, lead acid batteries, compact fluorescent bulbs, thermostats and unused medications. Programs forantifreeze and empty antifreeze containers, as well as small appliances will be introduced this year. In 2012, all electronics will be covered.
These takeback programs inject $125 million into BC's economy, creating 1,600 direct and 500 indirect green jobs. By recirculating resources that have already been harvested, the programs save as much greenhouse gas emissions as taking 73,000 cars off the road for a year.

Over the life of the Greenest City Action Plan, the number of takeback programs will expand significantly thanks to a national plan for extended producer responsibility. Under this plan, the government of British Columbia is committed to working towards mandatory takeback programs for packaging, printed paper, and hazardous waste by 2015. Construction and demolition waste (or building products), carpet, furniture and textiles will follow by 2017. Together, these product categories cover more than 60% of garbage going to landfill or incinerator.


ACTIONS for Be a Catalyst for More Takeback Programs 

Advocate for New Takeback Programs
Working with Metro Vancouver and other local governments, advocate for the province to introduce producer responsibility (or takeback) programs as recommended in the national plan for producer responsibility. Industry would then be responsible for managing packaging (including shopping bags), printed paper (newsprint, magazines, etc.) and hazardous waste by 2015. Construction and demolition waste (building products), carpet, furniture and textiles would follow by 2017. Together, these categories make up about 60% of garbage.
Encourage Coffee Companies to Set Up Takeback Programs for Coffee Cups
Form a task force with coffee companies and community stakeholders to explore and test-run takeback models for coffee cups. This would address a litter problem, reduce street cleaning costs, and could help shape a province-wide takeback program for disposable cups and fast food packaging. (Under a national plan, the government of British Columbia is committed to working towards requiring industry to provide takeback programs for packaging by 2015.)
Co-Sponsor a Zero Waste Food Court
Develop partnerships to co-sponsor a local food court to go Zero Waste. A waste-free food court would showcase reusable dishes for eating on-site, which could be returned through refundable deposits. All take-away dishes and utensils would be converted to compostable or recyclable materials. The program could be a model for a province-wide takeback program for fast food packaging. (Under a national plan, the government of British Columbia is committed to working towards requiring industry to provide takeback programs for packaging by 2015.)
Help Expand the Collection Network for Existing Takeback Programs
Use the City's zoning authority and development approval processes to expand the collection network for existing takeback programs, including privately-operated recycling depots and in-store return locations.
Facilitate a Voluntary Takeback Network for More Products
Facilitate and promote a voluntary Takeback Network to encourage retailers to take back their products for reuse and recycling. Target products that are abandonned in laneways, as well as products that are recommended in the national plan for new takeback programs. These include mattresses, couches, other furniture, carpet, electronics, large appliances and packaging.
Build a Coalition of West Coast Cities to Advocate for New Takeback Programs
Build a coalition of mayors in major cities in the Pacific Northwest to call for new takeback programs. The more provinces and states with mandatory takeback programs, the greater the market share, and the greater the incentive for companies to redesign their products and stop waste at the source. A coordinated effort in the Pacific Northwest could also stimulate investment in recycling technologies and infrastructure.
###

Shareholders Ask Major Packaged Goods Companies to Adopt EPR

Press Release from As You Sow:

SAN FRANCISCO, April 27 – The shareholder advocacy group As You Sow will file shareholder resolutions this week with consumer packaged goods giants Procter & Gamble (P&G) and General Mills to adopt Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs aimed at elimination of post‐consumer waste. The proposals are the first to be filed by shareholders on this issue and will press the companies to take a first step toward this goal by collecting and recycling product packaging (plastic, glass, metals, paper) in their U.S. operations.

These new proposals follow As You Sow’s successful efforts in pressing Coca‐Cola Co., PepsiCo and Nestle Waters North America to take responsibility for more than 50% of their U.S. product packaging.

The P&G and General Mills proposals ask the companies to report to shareholders on how taking responsibility for post‐consumer product packaging can reduce carbon emissions as well as air and water pollution and lead to re‐evaluating the way they design, use and re‐use the resources and materials that go into their packaging. The proposals also ask the companies to take the lead in emerging public policy debates under way in several states on how to manage and finance EPR policies.

The shareholder proposals to General Mills and P&G were co‐filed by Green Century Capital Management and Walden Asset Management; the proposal to P&G was also co‐filed by Trillium Asset Management.

“We’re burning and landfilling 40 million tons of recyclable packaging materials estimated to be worth $15 to $23 billion every year.” said Conrad MacKerron, As You Sow’s Senior Director for Corporate Responsibility. “We can no longer afford to discard packaging containing valuable resources. As shareholders we see this as throwing away revenue and we need to stop it immediately. ”

EPR has already proven a success in Canada and the EU on a broad range of products and for electronics recycling in the U.S. with 23 states adopting laws making producers responsible for collection and recycling. As You Sow has been at the forefront of these efforts working with HP, Dell, Apple and Best Buy one‐waste recycling programs.

“We believe it’s time for companies to manage the full life cycle of packaging as efficiently as they manage design and marketing of products,” said MacKerron. Taking responsibility for environmental externalities is a core goal of As You Sow’s Corporate Social Responsibility Program and EPR is a key step towards an industrial system of sustainable production and consumption. EPR commitments can provide a triple benefit of: 1) more efficient and sustainable use of materials; 2) reduced pollution emissions; and 3) a stronger product stewardship profile for stakeholders.

“For decades companies have passed the costs of onerous environmental externalities onto U.S. taxpayers. Increasingly an essential component of environmental leadership is taking responsibility for post‐consumer packaging and end‐of‐use waste," said Tim Smith, Senior Vice President of Walden Asset Management, a co‐filer of both proposals. "Electronics companies are now addressing this challenge.

We're asking P&G and General Mills to constructively engage with stakeholders to identify how successful EPR laws in Europe and Canada can be best applied to the U.S."

EPR laws in Europe have led to some impressive successes. In 2007 the average packaging recycling rate across 27 participating EU countries reached 59%. Belgium's FOST Plus system recycled 93% of consumer packaging in 2009. 32 million tons of packaging was recovered by EPR programs in EU countries in 2009 saving 25 million tons of CO2. EPR has shown it can decouple packaging growth from economic growth. Between 1998 and 2007, four main elements of the packaging waste stream‐‐glass, metals, paper and cardboard, plastics grew at just half the rate of GDP, according to the European Environmental Agency.

Several factors suggest that the time is right for companies to take responsibility for packaging:

·       Coca‐Cola and Nestle are Early Endorsers: Coca‐Cola and Nestle Waters NA are supporting EPR state legislation that would make them responsible for post‐consumer collection and recycling; and the companies are urging peers to support it as well.

·       Reducing Our Carbon Footprint: A recent analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data concludes that the energy needed to produce, use and dispose of products and packaging accounts for 44% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling post‐consumer packaging can therefore have a substantial impact on carbon footprint reduction. For example, making cans from recycled aluminum instead of virgin ore uses 95% less energy and creates 95% less greenhouse gas emissions.

·       Reducing Waste Collection Costs: States and municipalities are looking favorably at EPR systems as a way to reduce municipal solid waste collection costs at a time of record state and local budget pressures.

·       State EPR Laws Already in Place: EPR laws are already in effect in 23 states for electronic waste recycling and in a smaller number of states for collection of hazardous items like paint, pesticides and mercury thermometers.

As You Sow is asking companies to:

·       Acknowledge responsibility for post‐consumer packaging collection and recycling;

·       Report to shareholders on costs and benefits of existing EPR mandates companies are subject to in other countries, including the benefits of more sustainable packaging design, more efficient use of materials, and reduction in air and water pollution emissions;

·       Work with stakeholders to determine what actions the company can take to independently promote EPR for packaging systems;

·       Actively engage with stakeholders in the public policy debate on the best way to implement EPR for packaging legislation in the U.S.; and

·       Integrate EPR concepts into in corporate and public policy initiatives that are producer financed and managed, subject to aggressive recycling goals set by government, and not specifically aimed at repealing existing container deposit laws.

###

As You Sow is a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies. For more information visit www.asyousow.org. 

Rethinking Single-Stream Curbside Collection

Guest blog by Helen Spiegelman, Board President Product Policy Institute

I think it's time to put forward the fundamental question of what materials are suited to curbside collection and what are not.  The widespread introduction of single-stream collection (collecting all recyclable materials mixed together at curbside, to be sorted out at a sorting facility) brought us face-to-face with the challenge of collecting glass with other commodities.  I think this is the thin edge of a wedge.

Some communities and haulers are now trying to get customers NOT to put glass in the cart.  Nevertheless, in practice lots of people continue to put glass in, either because they don't know about the new rule or because they really want to recycle glass...just like they put all sorts of other stuff that they really want to recycle into the cart, which must be pulled out at the other end and sent to landfill.  Bottom line, once you open the Pandora's box of "multi-material" curbside recycling you build in inefficiencies and problems (glass is just the beginning).

I think responsible operators of curbside programs should take a hard look at their actual operations and answer these questions:
-what commodities deliver the highest payload in the system?
-what commodities incur the lowest direct costs to the system?
-what commodities create the least problems (contamination, confusion, etc.) in the system?

My strong sense is that the answers to these questions will make a good case for operating curbside programs that collect PAPER ONLY.  As soon as you introduce other stuff, you have problems.  Problems for the customer knowing what's in and what's not.  Problems for the sorting facility (usually called the materials recovery facility, or MRF) cleaning up the materials.  Problems for the markets using the commodities.

I think municipal and commercial haulers need to be really clear about who their customers are.  You are supplying paper mills and plastic convertors with feedstock -- this is recycling's bottom line.  It is time to tailor the collection system to the needs of this market - not the so-called "convenience" of residents and institutional, commercial and industrial (ICI) customers.

It will be challenging to withdraw services to residents and ICI customers that they have become accustomed to -- especially when these services have been possible because they are seen as a community service, like libraries and public parks.  But the bottom line is that trying to be all things to all people has a cost and it's time we stopped ignoring that cost.  Curbside is a good system -- for some commodities.  Let's use it for what it's good for, and find something else for the other commodities.

British Columbia Trip Report: A Window into EPR in Canada

By Bill Sheehan, Executive Director, Product Policy Institute

I spent week of March 6-12, 2011, in British Columbia -- in Vancouver, the largest city, and Victoria, the provincial capital.  My mission was to see first-hand how the BC approach to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is working.  PPI has been promoting the BC approach since our founding in 2003 and I think it is accurate to say that we had an influence in getting California to adopt the essence of the BC results-based approach to EPR, and through California, helped set the terms of debate for the rest of the US.  Although we have been promoting the BC approach, I had only caught glimpses of the programs on the ground over the years.

I came away energized.  The core of the BC results-based approach to EPR is the idea that environmental product stewardship should be based on producer and user responsibility (those who design and benefit from products), and it is governments role to regulate and industry’s role to do.  Although it is still a work in progress, what I saw evolving is a rich, market-based system in which the key word is diversity -- diversity of product categories separately and carefully regulated, diversity of stewardship organizations, and diversity of consumer-tailored options for collecting products and packaging.  It may be PPI's important role to research and communicate the BC approach to EPR, with all its warts, and translate it to an American audience.  Ontario and Manitoba are getting most of the attention as examples of Canadian EPR programs for packaging and hazardous products.  I think BC has invented something unique that is working better than the Canadian and Manitoba programs and that improves on even European programs.

During the week I had meetings with: two of the provincial regulators who originated the approach in the mid 1990s; the current BC Environment Ministry EPR team including two department heads; key contacts at two industry stewardship organizations and a consultant to one of them; a retired plastics industry executive; members of local government; the head of a depot association; several NGOs and citizen activists; and an academic (the originator of the ecological footprint concept).  I stayed at Helen and George Spiegelman’s house and Helen accompanied me on some of the outings.

My most interesting meeting was with Dennis Kinsey.  He developed a model for taking back beverage containers and other packaging at one of the big supermarket chains.  Mr. Kinsey’s work has been carried forward since he left several years ago. What he saw was an opportunity for the retail industry to get customers to return packaging to their stores. He created clean, well-lit, in-store return centers called Changes.  They service a certain demographic of customer: those who shop weekly and like to return 10 or 20 containers at a time to a clean place. The customers are incentivized by refunds on deposit containers and by receiving “points” that can be redeemed in the store for specific other packaging that is returned (based on agreements with participating brand-owners).  The owner of the chain was able to see this opportunity to build relationships with his customers.

The interesting part of the story is the fact that Changes is just one of a rich diversity of return options available in many BC localities, options that are customer-specific and that have evolved organically. The major stewardship organization for non-milk beverage containers, Encorp Pacific, contracts with Return It depots that people generally drive to and deliver large quantities of containers.  The one Return It depot we visited was rather grubby compared to the Changes center we visited, and I was struck by the inefficiency of not crushing the thousands of soft drink containers full of air, which are then trucked to their next stop.  Beer containers returned to the depot under a separate contract with the beer industry, by comparison, are crushed before shipping (800 to 1,000 aluminum beer cans into a brick the size of a shoe box). 
 
Here’s a description by Mr. Kinsey of the diversified system of take-back opportunities for containers that has evolved in his suburban community of Maple Ridge.  He concludes: Maple Ridge is serviced by a combination of Return to Retail, Municipal Blue Box, Centralized Depot and Encorp large volume Return It Centres, each catering to a specific consumer demographic in the area.

I am a resident of Maple Ridge BC and also sit on the board of the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society http://www.rmrecycling.org/, so I have a very good knowledge of the area. Currently there are several systems for Residents of Maple Ridge to choose when recycling both their deposit containers and recyclables. I will offer a brief description of the options and what they provide:
Two (2) Changes Recycling Centres - these centres are part of the Overwaitea Food Group Save On Foods stores http://www.owfg.com/. These centres pay full deposit for all non alcohol beverage containers and offer incentives for non deposit packaging from participating brand owners.   The centres cater to medium to small volume consumer returns.

Two (2) Encorp Return It Centres  www.encorp.ca  - These centres offer full deposit paid on all beverage containers both alcoholic and non alcoholic. These centres tend to cater to consumers with larger volume returns. They also cater to commercial accounts such as bars and restaurants. They also accept electronics.

One Safeway retail store - which accepts limited returns on non alcoholic containers.

One Coopers Foods store - part of the Overwaitea Food Group, does not have a Changes Centre attached but accepts limited returns.

One government liquor store which accepts alcoholic beverage containers ( wine and spirits and beer.

Six private liquor stores - which accept limited returns on alcoholic containers.

A blue box curbside program, operated by the municipality in conjunction with the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society, which services approx 80% of Maple Ridge Residents and accepts all types of recyclable materials.

One centralized Drop Off Depot, again operated by the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society - open seven days a week and services Maple Ridge residents which don't have access to blue box. It also services residents with large volumes of recycling and provides a commercial service as well.
 
Another striking thing about BC is how rapidly new product categories and new stewardship organizations are coming on-line.  The excellent BC Recycling Handbook (aimed at consumers) is barely a year old and is already out of date, as there are four new industry stewardship organizations (12 total) that have been created since it was produced.  Encorp’s Neil Hastie says the Handbook will be updated this summer.  On March 16^th the 12 BC stewards released a 14-minute video explaining the BC approach: see http://www.encorp.ca/bcstewardship/

PPI plans to organize a workshop in British Columbia for key American contacts working on EPR.  In addition to hearing directly from some of the people I met with, we’ll take them to a community like Maple Ridge, and we’ll go through a department store and point out what products are currently under EPR stewardship programs, what products will be coming online in the next two years, in four years, etc. 

But there are warts in the BC system.  A big one is governance of stewardship programs, where the neighboring province of Alberta may have some instructive experience  It will be useful to tell these stories also.


Below is info from the BC Environment Ministry’s website indicating the breadth of EPR programs -- http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/ipsp.htm


Stay tuned to this blog and our Facebook page, PPI plans to continue to keep EPR advocates updated on the happenings in British Columbia, and across Canada.


 

"Spotlight on EPR" in eMagazine.com

An Interview With Bill Sheehan

March 1, 2011 | Jim Motavalli |

Bill Sheehan cofounded the Product Policy Institute (PPI) with Helen Spiegelman in 2003, and serves as its executive director. In his work at PPI, he tackles waste from every angle—from championing waste-reduction methods to promoting cleaner manufacturing processes and the use of less-toxic materials. Sheehan has been a major supporter of bringing extended producer responsibility (EPR) to the U.S., and his work has led to the formation of Product Stewardship Councils in California, New York, Texas, Vermont and other states. Here, he talks to E about the promise for widespread adoption of EPR in the U.S.

E Magazine: Is EPR reaching a tipping point in the U.S.?

Bill Sheehan: Yes. EPR is in a high legislative phase. The question now is what kind of EPR recycling we will have. The danger is that powerful corporations—in concert with the garbage industry and public sector waste departments—will water down EPR so that it does little to move the needle towards sustainability. If all EPR does is throw industry funding at programs that collect masses of mixed material that are sold on low-grade global commodities markets, we won’t get meaningful change.

E: What kinds of EPR schemes are being advocated for packaging?

B.S.: Two camps are squaring off. One approach is the mixed-basket-of-goods approach proposed by the beverage industry in Vermont as an alternative to beverage container deposits. This employs industry financing for a “comprehensive” material-based program for all packaging and printed paper. In practice, it relies on industry financing of government-delivered curbside programs. In Canada, this approach has been implemented in Ontario and Manitoba and has delivered poor results.
The second approach, pioneered in western Canada, is phased and targeted EPR. Government targets specific product categories—such as soft drinks, fast food, detergents and cleaners, and lets producers engage with consumers to innovate new programs. That’s how it has worked with the successful EPR programs for household hazardous products that are underway.

E: Should local and state governments pay part of the cost of EPR programs, or should corporations bear the burden alone?

B.S.: The central principle of EPR is that those who design, market and use products and packaging—producers and consumers—should pay for all of the environmental management costs. Experience shows that good EPR programs do not require any further subsidies from state or local governments. In fact, they work better when government sets the bar and then lets industry design and operate the most effective programs. One of the opportunities in EPR is that it offers brand owners an opportunity to build a relationship of trust with the consumer.

E: How do you view the beverage industry’s proposal for EPR for packaging in the Vermont legislation?

B.S.: Coca-Cola and Nestlé have made a fundamental concession: They admit that they have a moral responsibility to provide stewardship of their empty containers. But repealing effective, industry-managed container deposit programs makes no sense from a sustainability perspective.
Deposits get more than double the recovery rates of mixed curbside collection, they yield clean material that is used to make new products, they work for beverages consumed away from home and they engage consumers rather than taxpayers or garbage ratepayers. Industry-managed bottle deposits are the grandmother of North American EPR programs—they should be improved and expanded, not abandoned.

E: Is the Maine law a model for the rest of the U.S.?

B.S.: Maine’s first-in-the-nation framework law establishes the principles of EPR in policy, and also a process for identifying priority products in the waste stream for new product stewardship programs. Maine has more EPR laws than any other state, a strong state environmental agency and, not insignificantly, a campaign finance reform law.
Maine also has a collegial culture that allowed the bill’s author to get support from the business community through the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. States with less experience and capacity than Maine may need to first pass several product-specific EPR bills. Those can ultimately be rolled into a framework regulation as British Columbia did in 2004.

E: Why is Congress so unfriendly toward EPR?

B.S.: I think it’s more a matter of neglect. Recycling has never been a major focus of our federal government. In Europe and Canada, they’ve moved beyond debating whether EPR is the right policy and are asking how to make it work. Ultimately, harmonized federal or national EPR policies make sense. But brand owners are more powerful in Congress than in the state legislatures.

E: How does the Product Policy Institute see its role?

B.S.: PPI was the first environmental organization in the U.S. to raise the fundamental question of whether local communities should be bearing the burden of cleaning up after the throwaway economy. We told the story of the history of waste: how the provision of convenient municipal garbage collection, at no cost to those who design and market consumer goods, encouraged the proliferation of toxic and throw-away products and packaging.
We challenged—and still challenge—end-of-pipe services by local governments and waste haulers that don’t solve the waste problem, but perpetuate it. We think it’s time for the public to demand “cradle-to-cradle” product stewardship from the companies they do business with, so that consumers can return products and packaging rather than resorting to garbage trucks, landfills and incinerators.


http://www.emagazine.com/magazine/spotlight-on-epr

A Collection of Responses to Kim Jeffries, Nestle CEO

An article by Nestle CEO, Kim Jefferies, Why It's Time to Rethink Recycling in the US, was posted to greenbiz.com right before Christmas and has been widely circulated.  Jefferies embraces a version of Extended Producer Responsibility that would do away with industry-managed beverage container deposit-refund laws and replace them with industry-managed, government-delivered curbside programs.  Jefferies’ description of “EPR” as an alternative to deposit-refund systems is echoed in a recent report funded by Coca-Cola, noted below.  It seems to be part of a coordinated beverage industry campaign to co-opt EPR rather than fixing bottle bills and making container deposits the cornerstone of EPR for packaging.

A few comments from greenbiz.com pasted below highlight inaccuracies in Jefferies’ description of bottle bills.  Read the article and all comments at: It's Time to Rethink Recycling

Peter Spendelow, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality -- December 23, 2010 - 15:41

It is unfortunate that Mr. Jeffrey states that "the problem with bottle bills is they create an enormous government bureaucracy," because that certainly is not the case here in Oregon. Oregon was the first state to pass a bottle bill (in 1971) and the bill has been enormously successful since then. Yet there is no employee of the State of Oregon whose main job is to administer the bottle bill. In my work for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality as a solid waste policy analyst since 1985, less than 5% of my time has been spent on bottle bill issues, yet I am the person who has done the most work on these issues for the State of Oregon. In fact, the bulk of implementation of the Oregon Bottle Bill is done by an industry group - the very capable Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative (OBRC). OBRC is a cooperative representing almost all of the distributors and beverage companies operating in Oregon, including Nestle. An industry group taking care to make sure that beverage containers get recycled - that is really what extended producer responsibility is all about, and that is what the industry cooperative OBRC does in Oregon under the auspices of the bottle bill.

Mr. Jeffrey also stated that bottle bills do nothing to address the paper recycling infrastructure. Actually, indirectly they do, by making the recycled paper supply much cleaner. In states without bottle bills, much of the curbside recycling is collected commingled, which means that all those glass and plastic containers are mixed in with the paper. Broken glass is a major contaminant in the paper, costing our paper mills millions of dollars in damage to equipment and forcing them to install additional cleaning technology. Much of the glass collected in those curbside programs also ends up being too contaminated and broken to be used to make new glass containers, and so it ends up being used as landfill cover or fill. In contrast, most of the glass collected in Oregon is collected under our bottle bill, and that glass goes back to a glass plant to be made into new bottles. Our paper recycling industry is thankful that we have a bottle bill in Oregon that helps keep all those bottles and cans out of their recycled paper. This may be one reason why Oregon has always been a leading state in curbside and other forms of recycling, as well as the first state with a bottle bill.

Stephen M Bantillo, Former Director of California’s Beverage Container Deposit Program -- December 28, 2010 - 15:40

Mr. Jeffery stated on NPR a couple years ago, “"Everybody that sells a plastic container that's recyclable should have some deposit on it if we're going to do this thing the right way." It appears somewhat disingenuous now for Mr. Jeffery to flog beverage container deposit programs where consumers have their deposit refunded if they recycle, and instead promote an industry-designed system of Producer Responsibility that assesses a fee on the consumer to pay for government systems. Mr. Jeffery also states that the government bureaucracy only does “a reasonable job of diverting a very small portion of the waste stream”, yet he wants to implement a system funded by the consumer that achieves a lower recycling rate than the average of the 11 bottle deposit states. In fact, the beverage container recycling rates in bottle deposit states are two to three times higher than the national average! And Mr. Jeffery wants us to Rethink Recycling? Hmmm...

Laura Haight, NYPIRG, December 23, 2010 - 14:58

My jaw dropped when I came to the line "The problem with bottle bills is they create an enormous government bureaucracy". Here in NY we have less than one fulltime staff person in the DEC overseeing the program; is this what Nestle's calls "enormous?" With an average return rate of over 70% and more than 6 billion bottles and cans recycled each year in NY alone, the bottle bill is a great example of how effective EPR can be -- all at virtually no cost to taxpayers. The states with the highest recycling rates have both curbside recycling programs AND bottle bills. We have ample documentation in NY on how deposits reduce litter - something curbside programs are not designed for or effective at. If Nestle's is trying to project an image of being an environmentally responsible company, this article fails dismally.

Bill Shireman, Future500, January 3, 2011 - 06:08

I agree - bottle bills actually create tiny bureaucracies. It's one of their best features. California is the only exception, and that's because the savings under that model - due to the central fund - can be used for other purposes. The recent abuses by the states of CA, NY, and CT make a good case for a third-party fund.

It would be nice to see some fresh thinking on the pro-deposit side. It would sure make life easier for those of us sincerely working to find solutions that can bring the two sides together. It's comforting to assume there's no possibility of a genuinely better approach, and just keep losing, but it's better to win.

Ben C  --  December 23, 2010 - 08:07

Rethink bottled water.... This is all an effort to pass the buck on to the consumer. Now waiting for Keep America Beautiful to sign on. It's not time for Extended Producer Responsibility, it's time for FULL producer responsibility. How about being fully responsible for litter clean up, fully responsible for the pollution of making your products, fully responsible for the health impacts of your products on consumers and communities where your products are made. Interesting to note that Nestle's consultant and likely ghostwriter of this simplistic and self-serving piece is likely, Bill Shireman, the father of California's highly successful bottle bill.  Also, Natural Logic... how about disclosing your client in this effort to kill bottle bills is Coke?  

Gil Friend, Natural Logic  --  December 24, 2010 - 14:37

I hope the people who reference the Natural Logic's EPR white paper have actually read it. (http://www.natlogic.com/EPR) It doesn't oppose bottle deposit policies (which several commenters have correctly called "the first EPR").  It does propose extending the effectiveness of well-designed financial mechanisms to a more comprehensive materials management solution.

Bottle bills work -- for bottles. Deposits on computers, tires, car batteries, etc work -- for those commodities. But though recovery rates are high, these are a small fraction of the waste stream; the challenge we face is to reduce, reuse, recover and recycle _most_ of that waste stream, not just subsets.  EPR can put the responsibility for effective recovery and recycling of materials that will become "waste" on the producer (or first importer) of those materials. That financial responsibility can provide: financial incentive to producers to redesign products and packaging to be less resource intensive, less toxic and more recyclable; financial incentives to support or create effective end-of-life recycling; and financial relief to local government that bear much of that burden today.

The good news is that there's momentum for EPR around the country. Here in California, CalRecycle "seeks a comprehensive approach for advancing EPR" and its predecessor, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, "adopted a set of Strategic Directives that included Strategic Directive 5: Producer Responsibility: This policy directs staff to seek statutory authority to foster "cradle-to-cradle" producer responsibility and develop producer-financed and producer-managed systems for product discards. Numerous local governments in California have demonstrated their support by adopting producer responsibility resolutions (hosted by the California Product Stewardship Council)."   But it can't succeed fast enough if it proceeds only product by product. We need "framework" legislation that greatly broadens the reach of the Extended Producer Responsibility / Product Steward approach.

To Sara Ost and Ben C's comments on putting the costs on the consumers: We disagree with Mr Jeffery's suggestion that consumers pay fees associated with their purchases, and tend to favor having producers pay fees associated with their production. There are arguments for both approaches, and we have not yet done the modeling to assess their relative merits. But it's not a simple either/or. If the fees are borne by producers, they may choose to pass costs on to consumers; on the other hand, producers that do a good job of lightening their footprints would pay less, and thus gain a market advantage. (By the way, to Ben C's call for "full" not "extended" producer responsibility, we completely agree; we just used the currently familiar term.)

There are many questions to be resolved -- some of them technically or logistically difficult, and some which require challenges to long-held and comfortable habits. But that's how innovation happens, and that's the kind of dialog we hoped to contribute to in producing our White Paper.

Yes, our work was conducted under contract to Coca-Cola -- and we made clear at the start that while our brains are for hire, our integrity and opinions are never for sale. We listened to Coke, to the stakeholders who participated in our Innovation Charrette, and various other reviewers. We took all their perspectives into account, and we drew our own conclusions (as we do in all out efforts to help companies and communities design, implement and measure profitable, effective sustainability strategies). And we made the recommendations that we thought best.  We look forward to further exploration, and we're happy to participate in any forum in which our perspective and experience might be helpful.

Tex Corley, Strategic Materials  --  December 24, 2010 - 06:26

Mr. Jeffery points in the right direction? 

Years ago Jeffery said Deposits were the answer.  The Natural Logic Paper was paid for by the Beverage industry to support their position against deposits.  Deposits --- the first EPR --- work --- period.

So you think throwing everything into one bucket then crushing the heck out of it is the answer? The question must be --- How do you make junk?  Talk to the companies that, either use or process that junk --- they all know Single Stream is the problem, not the answer.   Can single stream get better? Maybe, but once the egg is scrambled it is very difficult and costly to unscramble it.