What’ll happen when China no longer buys our Waste?

Apr 9, 2017 by

The U.S. recycling market will be faced with a massive issue in the coming years.  The number one U.S. export to China is  the waste:  scrap metal and waste paper.  China also buys an incredible amount of our recycled plastics, well over 50% of it.  China is now establishing much stricter regulations on imports of recycled materials.  Beginning by the end of this year…

  • They will strictly enforce regulations that prohibit the import of unwashed, post-consumer plastics and they are banning plastics waste in all food-contact plastic bags.
  • Processing of plastics waste in residential areas will be prohibited.
  • They will not allow companies to sell unwashed leftover plastic from sorting of imported plastic and paper and they are banning the transfer of imported waste to a company other than that allowed by the import license.
  • They are inspecting plastic recycling companies and publishing a list of qualified recyclers, as well as publishing a list of companies that fail inspections.  Companies who fail the test for environmental protection will not be allowed to import plastic waste.

By tightly regulating their recycling market, which no doubt is needed for their environmental and social preservation, there will surely be some Chinese recyclers that close down and the remaining ones will be burdened with increased costs and requiring higher standards for their imports.

Bails of Mixed Plastics

The implication on the U.S.? This could substantially reduce the market demand for U.S. recycled materials in China which means that recyclers here will have a harder time getting rid of the bails of mixed rigid plastics (strawberry containers, spinach tubs, other odd-shaped containers).

All of this is bad news for U.S. recyclers in the near term.

Here’s my early prediction for how it will go down:

  • Short-term: U.S. recyclers will be negatively impacted.  They’ll have to find another market to sell the materials they normally send to China.  That could mean that they send more to landfills in the near-term because there aren’t any other strong, viable markets for those materials right now.
  • Long-term: U.S. regulation and industry groups need to step up their efforts for pushing for the recycling of non-bottle rigid plastics.  The Association for Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers has been doing a great job leading the effort with the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and the Foodservice Packaging Institute also contributing to the cause.  Regulation and action by the government are needed though.  What’s also needed is an end-market for recycled materials.  Essentially, more manufacturers need to demand recycled plastics to use in their products.  That means that the economics need to be in favor of choosing a recycled plastic vs a virgin plastic.  Regulation can impact that as well as better, more widespread technology for recyclers.  If this can be accomplished, we’ll be okay in the long-term.

This is going to be a challenging journey and my guess is that it’s going to get harder before it gets easier.

How consumers can help…

The best thing that the average consumer can do to help the cause is to be vocal with companies about asking for products made from recycled materials.  The other thing you can do is be vocal with your local municipality about asking for better recycling programs.  Recycling regulation and market demand for recycled materials need to occur in unison for the quickest path towards solving this problem.

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Say goodbye to the chasing arrows recycling symbol on packaging

Jun 26, 2013 by

Surprisingly to most consumers, the recycling symbol on a product – the one with a little number inside of the chasing arrows –  doesn’t mean that the product can be recycled.

It’s incredibly frustrating (and confusing), but all the symbol does is indicate what kind of plastic (i.e. PET, PP, PS, HPDE, LDPE, PVC, etc.) the product is made from.  And not all plastic products are required by law to have the symbol.  Only containers that hold more than 8 ounces and only in certain states.

That symbol, formally known as the Resin Identification Code has been under fire from packaging companies and recyclers for years.  A couple of years ago, ASTM engaged in a multi-year project to revise resin symbology.

Progress has finally been made and I’m going to share with you the direction it looks like the ASTM is heading as well as my opinion on the resolution.
The proposed symbols will do away with the chasing arrows and replace them with a solid line triangle.  The same numbering system will apply to denote the resin type.

While I am in agreement with the ASTM’s decision to eliminate the chasing arrows, and I’m hopeful that they will eliminate some consumer confusion, I think it will take many years for consumers to start realizing that the new solid triangle doesn’t translate to recyclable.

Chasing arrows compared to a solid triangle don’t look all that different in the eyes of a fast-moving consumer.  I don’t have a better solution to propose, but I think this will highlight the need for further education about what is and what isn’t recyclable which is largely dictated locally by regional waste haulers.

Unfortunately, the ASTM and the industry missed a huge opportunity to clear up the confusion for labeling compostable plastics.

Today, compostable plastics fall under #7 (“Other”) resin code.  That provides no indication of if the material is PLA or PHA or Polycarbonate or some other type of material that doesn’t fall under #1-6.
Knowing if a product is compostable or not depends entirely on the manufacturer to truthfully label the product (separately from the resin symbol) as compostable.  That label could be in the form of the word “Compostable” embossed or printed on the product, printing the Biodegradable Products Institute symbol, printing a brown or green stripe, or some other method that manufacturer is clever.

The major challenge in the compostable products industry is that there isn’t a uniform label that companies use.

That’s where the ASTM could have solved this challenge by creating a new resin number (i.e. #8) and used it for compostable plastics.  Granted, any company could emboss the symbol on their product and deceive consumers which are a concern, but companies already do that with various compostable labeling already in play.

Unfortunately, now compostable plastics will continue to be labeled as #7 and a ubiquitous compostable labeling scheme will be nonexistent.  A complete missed the opportunity to eliminate confusion.  Bummer.

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Recyclers: If you’re not innovating, you’re dying

Apr 12, 2013 by

On the heels of my previous post about the need for improved recycling and sorting technology comes more news about the major issues US recyclers are now facing with the increased regulations in China on “recycled” waste the country imports.

China has formed an “Operation Green Fence” with support from China’s new President to inspect every shipment of paper and plastic waste imported into the country.  They are rejecting shipments that have too much contamination, waste, or non-spec materials.

This is a major issue in the short term, but I believe it will benefit US recycling over the long term.  If US recyclers don’t innovate, they will become the walking dead and so will our country’s recycling rate.

In the short term, bales of mixed #3-7 rigid plastics are under more scrutiny in China since there is a higher likelihood of contamination in those bales.  To my knowledge, there is currently no other robust market for US recyclers to sell #3-7 mixed bales, so the alternative is for recyclers to send them to the landfill.  Major bummer.

In the long run, a shift like this theoretically should improve the recycling infrastructure in the U.S.  If the Chinese market becomes a less viable market for reclaimed materials be sold to, it should drive innovation in the U.S. by way of encouraging more recyclers to add sorting technology that helps sort #3-7 rigid plastics as well as other reclaimed materials.  Ultimately, that should make each of those reclaimed resin types more valuable and legitimate for purchasers of recycled materials.  However, that also hinges on needing a robust marketplace of recycled resin buyers who want to buy those types of materials.

What will drive more manufacturers and resin buyers of recycled materials is regulations and consumers who demand/require products made with recycled content.

So as a consumer, you now know your job… keep asking for products made from recycled materials.

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

Why All Plastic Containers Can’t be Recycled

Feb 23, 2011 by

I frequently get asked 2 important questions about recycling.

  1. If a plastic container has a recycling symbol on the bottom of it, doesn’t that mean it’s recyclable?
  2. Why can some plastic containers be recycled and others can’t?

Both are very good questions.  Unfortunately, the answers aren’t as simple as people would like.

If a container has a recycling symbol on the bottom, doesn’t that mean it’s recyclable?

No.  Believe it or not, the recycling symbol on the bottom of plastic containers has nothing to do with if the container is recyclable or not.  The numbered symbol on the bottom is an ASTM (formerly known as American Society for Testing and Materials) resin identification code that is used to help sort the type of plastic a product or package is made from – it doesn’t mean that it is actually recycled though.

Most Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs – where trash haulers take the stuff people recycle) are manually-operated and the line employees sometimes look at the bottom of containers to see what number they are and to sort them into the proper like-resin bin.  However, that’s not their primary method of sorting.  Just because a container is made from a certain resin doesn’t mean it actually gets recycled.  There are other factors involved that I’ll discuss in a minute.  Having seen MRF operations, the resin code isn’t even looked at the majority of the time by the laborers who manually sort the reclaimed materials.  (This is where questions usually start flying like “why even have the symbol then?”)

 

So let’s say a container has a #1 on the bottom (PETE) which is one of the most widely accepted plastics for recycling.  That doesn’t necessarily mean the container is going to be recycled which leads to the second question.

Why can some containers be recycled and others can’t?

At the MRF level, a container’s recyclability is determined by two non-mutually exclusive factors: (1) what resin it is made from (indicated by the ASTM code and triangle symbol on the bottom), and (2) the shape of the container.  However, at the macro-level, a container’s recyclability is determined by the market demand for that specific type of reclaimed product (taking into consideration both resin type and shape).

MRFs have two primary functions.  They sort collected materials and then they bale (and sell) those materials.  They can sort all the materials in the world, but if there isn’t a market to sell the materials they sort, then they are sorting just to sort – there’s nothing to do with the materials once they are nicely organized.

Since MRFs rely on people to buy the sorted materials, they are paid on the quality of the bales they produce.  The higher the quality (READ:  less contamination), the more they can typically get.  With limited resources that MRFs have, they don’t have the time or bandwidth to carefully sort every type of resin/container that comes in.  So they have to pick and choose.  And one thing they do know is that nearly all water bottles and clear narrow-neck bottles (i.e. soda bottles) are made with PETE.  They have come to trust that as near fact which also means their buyers of bales also trust it as fact.

For efficiency reasons, they collect, bale and sell all of the narrow-neck PETE bottles, but most MRFs do not do the same for odd-shaped containers even if they are made from the same PETE (i.e. plastic containers that spinach or mixed greens come in). The simple reason is that there are so many containers made from so many different types of resins that the manual laborers on the sorting lines at MRFs can’t sort every single container.  The lines move too fast and there are too many types of containers.  Even further, the economics aren’t as good for bales of containers even if a MRF claims to have a bale of just PETE containers.  The reason is because the contamination of other materials is likely to be higher in “container” bales than “bottle” bales so MRFs (1) can’t get as much money for them and (2) there aren’t as many buyers for them since buyers want clean, uncontaminated bales.

What This All Means to You the Consumer

We can put all the containers we want into our recycling bins, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be recycled when they get to the MRF.  In fact, if a container actually can’t be recycled but is sent to a MRF, it will end up being sorted by the MRF and sent to a landfill which ends up costing the MRF money (they have to pay to dump the stuff instead of getting paid to sell good quality reclaimed materials).  What’s driving this is two things:  (1) lack of widespread optical sorting technology to better sort resins and materials at MRFs, and (2) the nonexistence of a market that is willing to pay more for mixed bales.

Ultimately, however, the major driver in all of this is not enough demand for recycled materials.  If greater demand for recycled materials existed, better sorting technology would be developed at a lower cost and there would be a market willing to buy mixed bales at good economic prices.

What does this mean for consumers?  Plain and simple, BUY PRODUCTS MADE FROM RECYCLED MATERIALS! And ask retailers to carry more recycled products.  Be an activist with your wallet.  Consumers ultimately dictate what retailers sell and we need to let them know that we want more recycled materials.  The long-term effect will be that you’ll be able to recycle every shaped container in the future.

read more

Related Posts

Tags

Share This