Category — Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash

That’s a question I’ll probably answer another day. For now, I present yet another mockumentary on low-density polyethylene containers,  “The Majestic Plastic Bag,” narrated without irony by Jeremy Irons and presented by Heal the Bay.  (“Over the course of its miraculous migration…”) Best watched in conjunction with Ramin Bahrani’s short, “Plastic Bag” (about which I posted on March 26, 2010), voiced by the inimitable Werner Herzog.

Seattle Public Utilities just announced that by July 1st, 2010, “all food service products designed for one-time-use must be replaced with one-time use products that are either compostable or recyclable.” Yahoo. The rule covers restaurants, grocery stores, delis, coffee shops and institutional cafeterias. But since many Seattle recyclers already accept plastic clam shells, yogurt cups, berry boxes, and so on, I wonder how many food outlets will go to the additional expense of purchasing compostable containers.

The city collects food waste already, so the service ware and food scraps will now go into the same bin. Is collecting and processing biodegradable material less energy and water intensive than collecting and processing materials for recycling? I don’t know. But the end product – fertilizer or mulch – seems like an unmitigated good (so long as there’s an outlet for the material), while the consumer products made from mixed plastics (T-shirts, carpeting, strapping, sleeping bag filling, etc.) will merely be landfilled at the end of their useful lives.

Still, the recycled plastic is replacing virgin plastic…. Have you checked out the live feed from the BP spill lately? Start here.

If you live in or near New York City, you may want to check out a show opening April 22 at the Gallery RIVAA on Roosevelt Island, entitled Fast Trash: Roosevelt Island’s Pneumatic Tubes and the Future of Cities. (The show runs through May 23, and there’s a symposium on “Comparative Garbage Collection Strategy and Urban Planning” at NYU on May 6.) The show asks:

“What if we radically changed the way we move garbage through the city?

Fast Trash explores this question through the lens of a novel approach to garbage collection that has served Roosevelt Island since 1975. Part infrastructure portrait, part urban history, the exhibition draws on archival materials, original maps, photographs, drawings, diagrams and video interviews to bring an invisible system to the surface, and asks what a community built around progressive policies and technologies can teach us about how we choose our infrastructure.”

I ask: Is whisking trash away through pneumatic tubes a good idea? Certainly it removes garbage trucks from the streets, but I wonder if it makes waste disposal a little too easy. I’m just playing an annoying devil’s advocate here, but sometimes I wonder if getting a glimpse of the enormity of our wastefulness, and listening to the voices of those who deal with that waste (along its path to a landfill or incinerator, or downwind from those facilities), might help us to slow our pace of consumption — an approach that will pay far more dividends, environmentally, than techno fixes on the back end.

For more information on the show and the symposium, contact info@trashtrash.org.

Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has a lengthy report out on the environmental impacts of oxodegradable plastics, which are made of polyethylene along with additives that cause it to degrade by a process initiated by light and/or heat. It concludes: “the incorporation of additives into petroleum-based plastics that cause those plastics to undergo accelerated degradation does not improve their environmental impact and potentially gives rise to certain negative effects.” Read the full report, or check out this take from Plastics News.

Here’s an editorial from Resource Recycling magazine for December 2009, by Jerry Powell, that explains how Extended Producer Responsibility works and why it’s a great idea. To learn more about EPR, check out the Product Policy Institute.

Do Americans need to look north?

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am
continually intrigued with what are recycling’s
hottest topics at any given point. On far too
many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem
to resonate as strongly with others in the
industry. The most recent example is a brand
new term in municipal recycling collection and
processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page
what this is and why it should be among recycling’s
hottest issues.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a
management system for obsolete, recoverable
products. In this scheme, the makers of these
products have a financial and managerial
responsibility to get the used items collected,
processed and recycled. EPR is typically put
into place through legislation. The most
widely known EPR systems are those now
approved in about 20 states, and nearly
every Canadian province, for the recycling
of selected electronics, such as computers,
televisions and monitors.
Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live
in states that have adopted the EPR approach for
electronics. In this programs, such producers as
Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must
establish and maintain a recovery system in the
state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly
to other materials as well. For example, my home
state of Oregon is the first state to use this
concept for the recovery of post-consumer
architectural paint.
Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited
to fairly small portions of the waste stream, and
often to those portions that are hard to handle and
recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs,
carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target
common residential recyclables, such as paper, metals
and plastics. Can it?
The answer is yes, given the experience in several
Canadian provinces, where the makers of the things
that end up in the residential recycling stream
(think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must
pay a portion of the local-government costs of
collecting and processing these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive resi-
dential recycling system in Ontario is funded
by these companies. In addition, these pro-
ducers – called stewards – have put up $40 mil-
lion ($Cn) to fund localrecovery system improve-
ments, so that residents are provided cost-
effective and efficient recycling service. I
happen to sit on an advisory body that develops
policies for the distribution of those funds.
And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment
has decreed that the stewards will soon be required
to fund all of the costs of curbside recycling.
Yes, all.
In a few years, local governments will be reim-
bursed for the costs of collecting and handling
recyclables. One of municipal recycling’s greatest
barriers is that it costs money. City and county
leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling
when they are being pressured to buy new fire
trucks, repair school buildings, fix roads and
aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in
Ontario, provides a way to address this funding
problem.
And, I’m surprised that full EPR for residential
recycling has not received more attention among
recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would
think that governmental recycling officials
would be very interested in taking a long, hard
look at this option.

Do Americans need to look north?
Resource Recycling
Jerry Powell
December 2009
Editorial Perspective

As a magazine editor for nearly 30 years, I am continually intrigued
with what are recycling’s hottest topics at any given point. On far
too many occasions, what intrigues me doesn’t seem to resonate as
strongly with others in the industry.
The most recent example is a brand new term in municipal recycling
collection and processing: full EPR. Let me explain on this page what
this is and why it should be among recycling’s hottest issues.
Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is a management system for
obsolete, recoverable products. In this scheme, the makers of these
products have a financial and managerial responsibility to get the
used items collected, processed and recycled. EPR is typically put
into place through legislation.
The most widely known EPR systems are those now approved in about 20
states, and nearly every Canadian province, for the recycling of
selected electronics, such as computers, televisions and monitors.
Over half of Americans (55.1 percent) now live in states that have
adopted the EPR approach for electronics. In this programs, such
producers as Dell, Hewlett Packard, Sony and Panasonic must establish
and maintain a recovery system in the state or province.
EPR is an approach that is being expanded quickly to other materials
as well. For example, my home state of Oregon is the first state to
use this concept for the recovery of post-consumer architectural
paint.
Even with the rising interest, EPR has been limited to fairly small
portions of the waste stream, and often to those portions that are
hard to handle and recover (e.g., pharmaceuticals, paint, light bulbs,
carpet, etc.). EPR in the U.S. doesn’t target common residential
recyclables, such as paper, metals and plastics. Can it?
The answer is yes, given the experience in several Canadian provinces,
where the makers of the things that end up in the residential
recycling stream (think Coke, Heinz, Procter & Gamble, etc.) must pay
a portion of the local-government costs of collecting and processing
these materials.
For example, half the cost of the massive residential recycling system
in Ontario is funded by these companies. In addition, these producers
– called stewards – have put up $40 million ($Cn) to fund local
recovery system improvements, so that residents are provided cost-
effective and efficient recycling service. I happen to sit on an
advisory body that develops policies for the distribution of those
funds.
And now, the Ontario Minister of the Environment has decreed that the
stewards will soon be required to fund all of the costs of curbside
recycling.   Yes, all. In a few years, local governments will be
reimbursed for the costs of collecting and handling recyclables.
One of municipal recycling’s greatest barriers is that it costs money.
City and county leaders are reluctant to spend more on recycling when
they are being pressured to buy new fire trucks, repair school
buildings, fix roads and aid the poor. Full EPR, as it’s called in
Ontario, provides a way to address this funding problem. And, I’m
surprised that full EPR for residential recycling has not received
more attention among recycling’s most fervent advocates. You would
think that governmental recycling officials would be very interested
in taking a long, hard look at this option.

The Times, as part of its ongoing water series, had a devastating front-page feature on Clean Water Act violations and contaminated drinking water yesterday. Read it for yourself; it’s chock full of slams against the EPA for lax regulation and utility managers for under-reporting violations, looking the other way, and slapping hands that should have been chopped off.  (Read the comments too – there are many gems among the more than 400.)

A couple thoughts: Just because industry violates the Clean Water Act with unlawful dumping doesn’t mean a utility isn’t cleaning up the drinking water it serves to customers (the featured family, with rotting teeth and rashes from bath water, drank from a private well). Run water through enough money, they say, and you can filter anything out (no, it’s not an excuse to pollute — the less bad stuff that goes in, the less money we need to spend taking it out. But how far will ratepayers go to remove industrial pollutants? What ever happened to polluter pays?) The story also doesn’t quantify how many of the drinking-water violations were for illegal levels of contaminants versus violations of reporting requirements. (Then again, operators who fail to report test results or file other paperwork often have something to hide.) The story’s bottom line: inadequate funding threatens our municipal water supplies. Watersheds are unprotected (not enough state inspections, enforcement, or spine), pipes are breaking, underfunded treatment plants are failing to remove contaminants.

Finally, I just want to say thank dog for the New York Times, a free (and adequately funded) press,  and the Freedom of Information Act. Double my subscription.

Nestle Waters has a new-ish product on the market called “re-source” spring water, which comes in bottles made with 25 percent recycled content. Until October 2010, Whole Foods has the exclusive right to sell re-source in supermarkets. As part of the initiative, 26 Whole Foods stores in California and Arizona have been kitted out with reverse vending machines that accept plastic, glass, and aluminum containers for recycling and let users claim bottle deposits (too bad Arizona doesn’t have a bottle bill) or receive coupons. The recycling program will extend to 200 stores this fall.

Here’s the interesting part: for every plastic container recycled during the promotional period, Nestle Waters will donate 5 cents to Keep America Beautiful. Nestle Waters CEO Kim Jeffery has repeatedly said he believes in stronger recycling programs (and using 25 percent recycled PET is a good first step). And breaking with other bottlers, he’s even come out in favor of bottle bills — if they apply to a broader range of containers. But why give that nickel to KAB? The group isn’t really an environmental organization. Yes, it works “to engage and inspire millions of Americans to take personal responsibility for improving their local community environments” (that is, it gets citizens to assume responsibility for picking up waste). But it’s funded by industries –packaging, bottling, chemical, and forest-products companies — that have historically opposed legislative solutions,  such as bottle bills and other producer-responsibility measures, to garbage problems. KAB is currently proposing to take over the moribund National Recycling Coalition, against the wishes of many former members, independent recyclers, nonprofits, and environmental groups who’ve expressed their views on the subject here.

There are many groups out there working to reduce the amount of packaging waste foisted upon taxpayers and the environment. Nestle’s nickels may have done more good working on upstream solutions to the single-use scourge. Whether those groups would have accepted the corporation’s donations is a whole ‘nother question.

To learn more about KAB, try this article by Ginger Strand in Orion, this piece from the Container Recycling Institute, or skip directly to my website, order a copy of Garbage Land, and then read chapter 9.

A team of researchers at MIT’s SENSEable City Lab is attaching electronic tags to random pieces of trash in New York City and Seattle, hoping to track where they end up (click here for MIT’s news release). The researchers hope the project will raise awareness of the impact of trash on our environment. Does anyone think it’s odd that we need fancy technology to find out where our waste ends up? Believe me, picking up the phone and asking the person in charge of a transfer station, landfill, or recycling center rarely brings complete satisfaction (self promotion alert: read Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash to learn why). Also, isn’t this electronic tag itself going to contribute to the waste stream (a toxic part, if it contains any heavy metals)?

I’m all in favor of learning more about where things go after they leave our curbs, but an important next step is learning what happens to our waste after it’s buried or burned, recycled or composted. There is more to the story (see Annie Leonard’s The Story of Stuff for an excellent primer). Perhaps even more important is making the upstream connection to the materials that went into this so-briefly-used consumer product (the MIT site features a Starbucks cup). That’s when things get interesting. We may have enough room to landfill all our waste (ignore, for a moment, the actual and social costs of doing such a thing), but do we have enough natural resources (trees, oil, metals, minerals, water) to continue to make disposable, single-use, unrepairable, unrecyclable consumer goods? The MIT project wasn’t designed to answer this question. I think we already know the answer.

Last week Nestle Waters North America, the International Bottled Water Association, and Bobby Kennedy, chief prosecuting attorney for the environmental group Riverkeeper, sued New York State to block it from expanding its bottle bill to include bottled water — a bill twenty years in the making and an enormous win for the environmental community. The legislation is far from perfect (it has some onerous labeling requirements and deadlines, and it covers unsweetened beverages and beverages with artificial sweeteners, but NOT beverages that contain actual sugar — go figure), but there’s no doubt  it would have resulted in cleaner streets, parks, forests, and waterways and lessened the demand for oil and gas to make new plastic. (The New York Public Interest Research Group estimates the expansion would result in the recycling of an additional 3.2 billion bottles a year.)

So why did Kennedy side with industry — and against Riverkeeper, which supported the bill — to fight the expansion? He claims the bill will hurt existing curbside recycling programs, but it may also hurt him financially, as owner of Keeper Springs water. Why does an environmentalist sell bottled water? Because “it’s a permanent fact of our society,” says Kennedy, who funnels all Keeper Springs profits to the Waterkeeper Alliance, which protects and improves local waterways. Funnily enough, most of the money Keeper Springs has passed to the Alliance comes not from selling product (it has miniscule distribution) but from settling a lawsuit with –wait for it — Poland Spring, owned by Nestle. (It’s a complicated story – a lawsuit over a lawsuit; this piece and its many links will get you started.)

How might the bottle bill hurt curbside programs? Well, every bottle that’s returned to a retailer (or redemption site) is a bottle that’s lost to the curbside program. Right now, a ton of PET bottles (the ubiquitous single-serve bottle) collected at curbside fetches $240 on the open market — more than twice as much as a ton of paper or a ton of metal. That’s a big chunk of change in a time when recycling markets are down and recycling programs are faltering. Still, the majority of water bottles don’t make it into any recycling program at all – at least 80 percent of them are buried in landfills, burned in incinerators, or littered.  In California, where the bottle bill covers all kinds of single-serve beverages, a portion of the unclaimed deposits goes to recycling centers, to help make them whole for losses to bottle scavengers. Perhaps New York State could follow part of that model (as the law stands, unclaimed nickels will go into the state’s general fund)? The legislation, crafted behind closed doors, is certainly flawed, but the numbers tell the story: states with bottle bills recycle up to three times as many bottles as states that don’t have them.

Read Kennedy’s brief here, Nestle’s take here, and the New York Times’ summary of the situation here.

I posted on Mai Iskander’s film, Garbage Dreams, a few weeks ago (it had just won the Reel Current Award). The movie is about Cairo’s zabaleen, who collect and process 6,000 tons of Cairo’s waste each day. Yesterday the New York Times reported on Cairo officials who, worried about swine flu (which hasn’t actually hit Egypt), are rounding up and slaughtering the pigs that consume the city’s organic waste, painstakingly sorted from recyclable waste by the zabaleen. Some think swine flu is an excuse to get pigs out of Egypt, a predominantly Muslim country. Where will all that food waste go now? From the piece:

“They expect me to pay to have a carter take this away,” said Faris Samir, 22, whose extended family of 33 men, women and children lost their income when the police came and forced them to give up their 125 pigs. “Forget it. I will throw it anywhere.”