Californians utilize and dispose of a vast quantity of paper, plastic, and cardboard products daily. Practically every food item, beverage, appliance, toy, or electronic is coupled with some form of disposable material. For many, these disposable items ultimately end up being thrown into the trash. People take throwing garbage in the trash for granted. They should think more carefully about what happens after something is thrown away. For the environmentally conscious, the idea of recycling provides the perception of a beneficial alternative to the disposing of items in the trash. Granted, recycling may provide a substitute that feels good. However, it hasn’t been as effective as necessary given recent changes to the foreign markets for exporting trash. California needs to focus on smarter waste reduction strategies.
One of the critical components in California’s recycling program involves the export of recyclable material to foreign markets. According to CalRecycle, 62 percent of all exported recyclable material goes to China. While India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries have a market for exported recyclables, China has historically been the world’s largest importer of foreign waste and recyclable material, including 55% of global scrap paper. As of January 1st, 2018, China began enforcing a policy called “national sword.”
While China has previously leveraged the world’s recyclables to supply its booming manufacturing sector, it has been determined that waste from foreign countries too often includes non-recyclable and hazardous materials. As the Chinese government feels that the country is no longer able to accept the world’s garbage due to an anti-pollution campaign, the “national sword” policy bans the import of 24 different types of waste including plastics and mixed paper.
Over the last several years, California has seen a decrease in the rate of recycling by its citizens. The state’s recycling rate fell from 50 percent in 2014 to 44 percent in 2016. The decreasing rates of recycling alone have resulted in the increase of more waste products ending up in landfills. Now with China no longer accepting imports of waste products, thousands of tons of recycled material are being redirected to landfills. Alternatively, some of the waste is being stockpiled in warehouses while awaiting a viable market for export. This stockpiling of waste, however, is not a long-term viable solution.
Despite declining rates of recycling, Governor Jerry Brown has put forth an executive order outlining a statewide goal of 75 percent reduction of solid waste through recycling and composting by 2020. Based on an 80-million-ton solid waste projection for 2020, accomplishing this goal would require the composting, recycling, or reduction of an additional 23 million tons of waste based on current levels. The Governor’s proposed strategy is based on 5 major pillars. This strategy includes the relocation of organics out of landfill, the expansion of infrastructure that facilitates recycling, identifying new sources of funding for materials management, promoting state procurement of postconsumer recycled content, and promoting extended producer responsibility. While California’s 75 percent waste reduction goal is ambitious, it is uncertain whether this will come to fruition in 2020 amidst the many challenges faced by the recycling industry.
The problem with the recycling industry is that it is economically inefficient to operate and lacks sufficient incentives to perpetuate. In many areas, the cost of landfilling waste is significantly less expensive than recycling. One reason for this is due to the relationship between the cost of oil and the demand for recycled plastic. Comparable to other commodities, the price of oil fluctuates in accordance with the law of supply and demand. When the price of oil is low, the demand for recycled plastic materials decreases accordingly. The demand for recycled goods decreases because when oil prices are low, “it’s cheaper for manufacturers to buy virgin plastic than to pay for recycled plastic.” The only way a recycling center could compete in this instance is through slashing the prices of recycled goods to more closely align with the cost of virgin plastic.
Photo Credit: LA Times
Lowering prices is not sustainable, however, as recycling centers still need to offset the costs associated with sorting and processing. Therefore, recycling centers are forced to lay off staff or sometimes close altogether due to the inability to compete. Furthermore, when a customer cannot be identified for the recycled material, it will likely go to a landfill. This waste of recycled materials defeats the entire supposed good of recycling to begin with.
Decreases in the value of recycled plastic, glass, and aluminum have led to the closure of many California recycling plants. The state does offer a subsidy program to help these plants survive fluctuations within the market. However, the program has failed to keep up with the sharp drops in value of recycled goods. This has led to the closure of over one fifth of recycling redemption centers throughout the state. As a result, hundreds of employees lost their jobs. California charges consumers an upfront fee when purchasing cans. This fee is refunded when consumers return the cans to the redemption center. Lawmakers think this encourages consumers to recycle. The closure of redemption centers not only exacerbates the risk of further decreases in recycling. It also prevents people from getting back the deposit money to which they are entitled.
Despite the pressing problems with California’s recycling program, lawmakers have thus far failed to provide any meaningful fix. Accordingly, the Governor’s office opposed the legislature’s initial attempt and called for a more comprehensive reform approach. State senator Steve Glazer (D-Orinda) has proposed increasing current levels of fees paid to people for recycled goods to encourage material redemption. Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) proposed a bill passed by the general assembly that requires all beverage containers to possess a minimum amount of recycled material. Governor Jerry Brown has used his new 2018 state budget to provide 15 million dollars in incentives to private companies to purchase and process recycled material. None of these efforts, however, will provide anything more than a temporary stop gap. A long-term solution in necessary that would fix the otherwise unsustainable recycling industry in California.
The circular economy involving waste management and the reuse of materials has become a major industry. Many think that recycling is critical to an environmentally friendly agenda. Recycling has been lauded for having a positive impact on the environment and for being a means by which to preserve the earth for future generations. Unfortunately, this is not completely true. Certain materials can pass through the circular economy a limited number of times. Once that limit has been reached, the material is necessarily destined for a landfill. The only material in which repeated recycling is possible without downgrading is metal such as aluminum. For all other material, recycling simply prolongs the inevitable trip to a landfill.
The most obvious answer to the recycling crisis is waste reduction. California needs to stop recycling all materials except for aluminum and metal. All other materials should be landfilled, and the focus should shift to waste reduction rather than recycling. Recycling requires large amounts of energy. It demands vast expenditures of resources for collection sites as well as the recycling process itself. In the end, it proves economically unsound. Waste reduction and landfilling are cheap solutions whose viability are not contingent upon needing a buyer on the other side of the equation. Furthermore, recycling has a vast waste footprint and reduction does not. Therefore, waste reduction ought to be the primary goal in a truly environmentally friendly agenda.
Phasing out single use plastic is one waste reduction strategy approach that would significantly decrease landfilled waste. This strategy would involve the elimination of single use plastics such as disposable grocery bags, cutlery, plates, straws, and takeout containers in favor of reusable items. The practical application of this is the enacting of legislation that enforces the use of reusable materials in hotels and restaurants. One hotel chain that has already sought to reduce waste by its own volition is Marriott International. Effective July 19 of 2019, the hotel chain will no longer offer plastic straws and coffee stirs. Other planned measures include the replacement of toiletry bottles with mechanical dispensers. This reduction of plastic disposables benefits the environment by reducing landfilled waste. It also saves money by eliminating expenditures on single use items.
For waste that does end up in landfills, investment in infrastructure is needed for facilities that provide for the conversion of waste to energy. Waste to energy (WTE) plants provide for the generation of electricity through the incineration of garbage. For each ton of garbage, waste to energy generates 500 kilowatt hours of electricity. This amount of electricity would otherwise require a third of a ton of coal to produce. By converting trash into electricity, these facilities dramatically reduce the land requirements for landfilled waste. They also serve as an energy source that is both renewable and sustainable.
Waste to energy also provides a means to reduce dangerous greenhouse gasses like methane and carbon. When trash decomposes in a landfill, it releases methane. Some believe this gas is a primary contributor to global warming. However, waste to energy eliminates this by converting the gas to energy. By equipping waste to energy plants with pollution control devices, these facilities are better for the environment than landfills. As far as carbon dioxide, “if CO2 emissions from WTE plants were captured and stored underground, these plants could lead to carbon negative credits.” The reduction of dangerous gasses coupled with the production of sustainable energy makes investment in waste to energy plants an ideal component in an intelligent waste reduction plan.
California is experiencing a waste management and recycling crisis. Declining recycling rates and economic problems are problematic in and of themselves. China’s new import policy on waste may provide the catalyst that creates sufficient motivation for meaningful and necessary change. The time has come for lawmakers and citizens to shift away from a focus on recycling. Instead, they should take measures to reduce waste. Furthermore, California must act to invest in environmentally friendly waste to energy facilities that would exchange the waste in landfills for sustainable and renewable energy. By pursuing a sensible waste management agenda that includes the aforementioned measures, California’s recycling crisis will be eliminated.
***
Jennifer Pezzulo is a California native currently residing in Colorado. She is pursuing a BS in Computer Science while employed as an information technology subject matter expert. She enjoys spending time with her loved one, bike riding, and working on personal software development projects.
