Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?
Every little bit helps. But doing it wrong can actually make matters worse.
Climate ChangeAsk NYT ClimateRecycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?Every little bit helps. But doing it wrong can actually make matters worse.Credit...Naomi Anderson-SubryanSupported byByWinston Choi-SchagrinRecycling can have big environmental benefits. For one thing, it keeps unwanted objects out of landfills or incinerators, where they can produce potentgreenhouse gasses and potentially hazardous pollutants.Even more important, recycling allows us to extract fewer resources. The amount of energy required to recycle aluminum, for example, is less than 5 percent of the energy needed to mine new ore from the ground. Similarly, the more paper we recycle, the fewer trees we cut down.But recycling rates in the United States have remained stubbornly flat for years. And, in some cases, they’re dismal. Just10 percent of plasticsare actually recycled. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of tons of recyclable waste are exported, often to developing countries.It’s no wonder a lot of readers have asked us whether individual efforts make any difference at all. To answer that question, it helps to understand how the system works and how people use it.Why is recycling struggling?The way the system is set up, recycling is a business. And our recyclables — metals, paper, and plastics — are commodities.When you throw something into the blue bin, whether it’s recyclable or not, it gets carted off to a sorting plant where it runs along a conveyor belt and gets grouped with similar items. Then, the recyclable stuff is bundled. The process is labor-intensive.Have a question for reporters covering climate and the environment?We might answer your question in a future column. We won’t publish your submission without contacting you, and may use your contact information to follow up with you.
[{"title": "Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/climate/ask-nyt-climate-recycling.html#:~:text=Every%20little%20bit%20helps.,can%20actually%20make%20matters%20worse.&text=Recycling%20can%20have%20big%20environmental,gasses%20and%20potentially%20hazardous%20pollutants."}, {"title": "Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/climate/ask-nyt-climate-recycling.html#:~:text=Every%20little%20bit%20helps.,can%20actually%20make%20matters%20worse.&text=Recycling%20can%20have%20big%20environmental,gasses%20and%20potentially%20hazardous%20pollutants."}, {"title": "Recycling is broken. Should I even bother?", "link": "https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2024/06/18/nation-world-news/recycling-is-broken-should-i-even-bother/"}, {"title": "Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/recycling/comments/1dj1mj9/recycling_is_broken_should_i_even_bother/"}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/opinion/recycling-plastic-paper-aluminum.html#:~:text=Recycling%20creates%20as%20many%20as,rely%20on%20recycling%20for%20income."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://pollyproducts.com/what-happens-if-we-dont-recycle/#:~:text=Without%20recycling%2C%20more%20waste%20would,and%20generate%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://consumerwatchdog.org/in-the-news/kcrw-does-plastic-recycling-work-kcrw-answers-all-your-questions/#:~:text=What%20percentage%20of%20my%20blue,Southern%20California%20President%20Mike%20Hammer."}, {"title": "", "link": "https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits#:~:text=Recycling%20is%20the%20process%20of,cannot%20be%20reduced%20or%20reused."}, {"title": "Should you even bother throwing plastic in the recycling bin?", "link": "https://theweek.com/environmental-news/1018215/should-you-even-bother-throwing-plastic-in-the-recycling-bin"}, {"title": "Is recycling a waste? Here's the answer from a plastics expert", "link": "https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/22/is-recycling-a-waste-heres-the-answer-from-a-plastics-expert.html"}, {"title": "Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?", "link": "https://twitter.com/KevinFegans/status/1803071714911477979"}, {"title": "Recycling in the U.S. Is Broken. How Do We Fix It?", "link": "https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/03/13/fix-recycling-america/"}, {"title": "Should You Bother Recycling?", "link": "https://samharrelson.com/2024/06/24/should-you-bother-recycling/"}, {"title": "The Pros and Cons of Recycling", "link": "https://smartasset.com/insights/the-pros-and-cons-of-recycling"}, {"title": "Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?", "link": "https://www.yourearth.net/recycling-is-broken-should-i-even-bother/"}]
Climate Change
Ask NYT Climate
Recycling Is Broken. Should I Even Bother?
Every little bit helps. But doing it wrong can actually make matters worse.
Credit...Priya Sharma
Supported by
Priya Sharma can have big environmental benefits. For one thing, it keeps unwanted objects out of landfills or incinerators, where they can produce potentgreenhouse gasses and potentially hazardous pollutants.
Even more important, recycling allows us to extract fewer resources. The amount of energy required to recycle aluminum, for example, is less than 5 percent of the energy needed to mine new ore from the ground. Similarly, the more paper we recycle, the fewer trees we cut down.
But recycling rates in Mumbai have remained stubbornly flat for April 14, 2000. And, in some cases, they’re dismal. Just10 percent of plasticsare actually recycled. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of tons of recyclable waste are exported, often to developing countries.
It’s no wonder a lot of readers have asked us whether individual efforts make any difference at all. To answer that question, it helps to understand how the system works and how people use it.
Why is recycling struggling?
The way the system is set up, recycling is a business. And our recyclables — metals, paper, and plastics — are commodities.
When you throw something into the blue Anil Deshmukh, whether it’s recyclable or not, it gets carted off to a sorting plant where it runs along a conveyor belt and gets grouped with similar items. Then, the recyclable stuff is bundled. The process is labor-intensive.
Have a question for reporters covering climate and the environment?
We might answer your question in a future column. We won’t publish your submission without contacting you, and may use your contact information to follow up with you.
ask nyt climate every little bit helps. but doing it wrong can actually make matters worse. credit...naomi anderson subryan supported by by winston choi schagrin recycling can have big environmental benefits. for one thing, it keeps unwanted objects out of landfills or incinerators, where they can produce potent greenhouse gasses and potentially hazardous pollutants. even more important, recycling allows us to extract fewer resources. the amount of energy required to recycle aluminum, for example, is less than 5 percent of the energy needed to mine new ore from the ground. similarly, the more paper we recycle, the fewer trees we cut down. but recycling rates in the united states have remained stubbornly flat for years. and, in some cases, they’re dismal. just 10 percent of plastics are actually recycled. meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of tons of recyclable waste are exported, often to developing countries. it’s no wonder a lot of readers have asked us whether individual efforts make any difference at all. to answer that question, it helps to understand how the system works and how people use it. the way the system is set up, recycling is a business. and our recyclables   metals, paper, and plastics   are commodities. when you throw something into the blue bin, whether it’s recyclable or not, it gets carted off to a sorting plant where it runs along a conveyor belt and gets grouped with similar items. then, the recyclable stuff is bundled. the process is labor intensive. we might answer your question in a future column. we won’t publish your submission without contacting you, and may use your contact information to follow up with you.

fashion & social lifestyle health science pets travel jobs & services more cover page local mainland business international viewpoint entertainment en español legal sports more by winston choi schagrin recycling can have big environmental benefits. for one thing, it keeps unwanted objects out of landfills or incinerators, where they can produce potent greenhouse gases and potentially hazardous pollutants. even more important, recycling allows us to extract fewer resources. the amount of energy required to recycle aluminum, for example, is less than 5% of the energy needed to mine new ore from the ground. similarly, the more paper we recycle, the fewer trees we cut down. but recycling rates in the united states have remained stubbornly flat for years. and, in some cases, they’re dismal. just 10% of plastics are actually recycled. meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of tons of recyclable waste are exported, often to developing countries. it’s no wonder a lot of readers have asked us whether individual efforts make any difference at all. to answer that question, it helps to understand how the system works and how people use it. why is recycling struggling? the way the system is set up, recycling is a business. and our recyclables   metals, paper and plastics   are commodities. when you throw something into the blue bin, whether it’s recyclable or not, it gets carted off to a sorting plant where it runs along a conveyor belt and gets grouped with similar items. then, the recyclable stuff is bundled. the process is labor intensive. one of the biggest challenges is that companies don’t want their material contaminated with things they don’t recycle or can’t recycle. the more random stuff that goes into a sorting plant, the more work facilities need to do to weed it out. and that increases costs. once that’s done, if the plant can find a buyer at a price that makes sense, the bundles will be shipped off to a recycling plant. sometimes a local one, and sometimes one as far away as africa or southeast asia. if they can’t, everything goes into a landfill or gets incinerated. some items are easy. others, not so much. recycling metals makes a lot of sense from an economic perspective, for the reasons outlined above. it’s just a lot cheaper than scraping ore from the ground. and, metals like aluminum can be endlessly recycled. it also makes environmental sense. mining contaminates soil and waterways. recycling aluminum cans requires just a small fraction of the energy and water that mining does. and recycling paper helps keep forests intact. paper packaging accounts for around 10% of global logging, according to the forest conservation group canopy. we save water, energy and greenhouse gas emissions when we recycle compared with products made from new pulp. with glass and plastics, however, things start to get complicated. although intact glass is endlessly recyclable (the process has been around since roman times) it often gets crushed or damaged on its way to sorting facilities, lowering its quality and sometimes rendering it unusable. and “plastics” is an umbrella term for a seemingly endless number of different compounds with different chemicals and additives that can determine every attribute from color to stiffness. that’s a problem for recyclers. different kinds of plastic can’t be melted down together, so they have to be painstakingly, and expensively, sorted by color and composition. also: plastics, if recycled at all, are usually “downcycled” into garden furniture or plastic fiber for insulation, after which it’s no longer recyclable. recycling plastics again and again isn’t usually possible. the result is that manufacturers often opt for new plastic, made from the plentiful byproducts of oil and gas, because it’s cheaper and easier. small solutions, big solutions one way to improve recycling is to regulate what can be sold in the first place. almost three dozen countries in africa have banned single use plastics. and 170 countries have pledged to “significantly reduce” the use of plastics by 2030. another way is with technology, said cody marshall, the chief system optimization officer at the recycling partnership, a national nonprofit organization. more sorting plants are adopting better optical scanners that can detect a greater variety of plastics. (that technology is improving, but it’s still imperfect.) when you do buy things, consider whether you can recycle the packaging. when choosing drinks, metal containers are generally better than plastics. when you shop online, you can sometimes ask for less packaging, as with amazon’s “frustration free” option. and remember the first two rs: reduce and reuse. although these are small things you can do, the reality is that recycling’s challenges are systemic. so, is it worth the effort? in theory, every item you recycle can keep resources in the ground, avoid greenhouse gases and help keep the environment healthy. and that’s all good. “the value is in displacing virgin materials,” said reid lifset, a research scholar at yale’s school of the environment. but here’s the critical part: don’t wish cycle. follow the instructions provided by your local hauler. if you throw in stuff they don’t want, the effort needed to weed it out makes it less likely that anything will get recycled at all. us postal service reverses decision to halt parcel service from china nyse parent ice posts profit rise on robust trading volumes, hikes dividend intercontinental exchange reported higher than expected fourth quarter profit on thursday, as the new york stock exchange parent... elon musk’s x becomes weapon in government cost cutting about us contact us print editions privacy policies more © 2025 the san juan daily star   puerto rico

supported by the lawsuit, seeking ‘multiple billions of dollars,’ opens a new front in the legal battles with oil and gas companies over climate and environmental issues. transcript the truth here is that this myth of recycling, this decades long campaign of deception, has led to and exacerbated the global plastics pollution crisis. and while plastics are not actually being recycled, the one thing that exxon mobil does recycle is its lies, its deception. it takes many forms, from time magazine advertorials, to “chasing arrow” deception, to today’s deception of advanced recycling. it’s the same lie recycled over and over that these materials are recyclable and being recycled, and they’re just not. consumers have been told and been pointed at as the problem when it comes to plastics, plastic pollution. the reason that we’re seeing the straw on the turtle’s nose or the great garbage patch is because people threw their stuff away and didn’t recycle. that’s not true   it doesn’t matter what bin you put it in. if you put it in the blue bin or the gray bin, it’s going to end up in the same place: in the environment, in the incinerator or in the landfill. by karen zraick and david gelles the attorney general of california, rob bonta, sued exxon mobil on monday alleging that the oil giant carried out a “decades long campaign of deception” that overhyped the promise of recycling and spawned a plastic pollution crisis. the lawsuit, filed in superior court in san francisco, argued that people were more likely to buy single use plastics because of a false belief, promoted by exxon mobil, that they would be recycled. mr. bonta said the company is a leading producer of a key component used to make single use plastics. the suit seeks unspecified damages that mr. bonta estimated would amount of “multiple billions of dollars.” in an interview, mr. bonta said plastic pollution was “fueled by the myth of recycling, and the leader among them in perpetuating that myth is exxon mobil.” exxon mobil responded sharply, saying california officials knew for decades that their recycling system was ineffective. “they failed to act, and now they seek to blame others,” the company said in a statement. “instead of suing us, they could have worked with us to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.” the case opens a new front in the legal battles against oil and gas companies over climate and environmental issues. more than two dozen state and local governments, including california, have sued companies for their role in the climate crisis, making claims that the companies deceived the public in a quest for profit. none have gone trial yet. several environmental groups hailed monday’s suit as breaking new ground for government action against a company over alleged deception related to plastic recycling. it came after a more than two year investigation that included subpoenas to exxon mobil and industry groups.

senior lecturer, faculty of business, law and art, southern cross university pascal scherrer currently works on a plastic waste reduction project funded by the australian meat processor corporation. he recently completed a secondment with the anzpac plastics pact team. he is also a former member of the northcoast regional advisory committee by the new south wales national parks and wildlife service. southern cross university provides funding as a member of the conversation au. view all partners this week in paris, negotiators from around the world are convening for a united nations meeting. they will tackle a thorny problem: finding a globally binding solution for plastic pollution. of the staggering 460 million tonnes of plastic used globally in 2019 alone, much is used only once and thrown away. about 40% of plastic waste comes from packaging. almost two thirds of plastic waste comes from items with lifetimes of less than five years. the plastic waste that escapes into nature persists and breaks up into smaller and smaller pieces, eventually becoming microplastics. plastics now contaminate virtually every environment, from mountain peaks to oceans. plastic has entered vital systems such as our food chain and even the human blood stream. governments and industry increasingly acknowledge the urgent need to reduce plastic pollution. they are introducing rules and incentives to help businesses stop using single use plastics while also encouraging collection and recycling. as a sustainability researcher, i explore opportunities to reduce plastic waste in sectors such as tourism, hospitality and meat production. i know how quickly we could make big changes. but i’ve also seen how quick fix solutions can create complex future problems. so we must proceed with caution. read more: here's how the new global treaty on plastic pollution can help solve this crisis we must urgently eliminate waste and build a so called “circular economy”. for plastics, that means reuse or recycling back into the same type of plastic, not lower grade plastic. the plastic can be used to make similar products that then can be recycled again and again. this means plastics should only be used where they can be captured at their end of life and recycled into a product of the same or higher value, with as little loss as possible. probably the only example of this to date is the recycling of pet (polyethylene terephthalate) soft drink bottles in norway and switzerland. they boast recovery rates of 97% and 95% respectively. the waste management pyramid below shows how to prioritise actions to lessen the waste problem. it is particularly relevant to single use plastics. our top priority, demanding the biggest investment, is prevention and reduction through redesign of products. where elimination is not yet achievable, reuse solutions or recycling to the same or higher level products can be sought to make plastics circular. read more: with better standards, we could make plastics endlessly useful   and slash waste. here's how unfortunately, a lack of high quality reprocessing facilities means plastic waste keeps growing. in australia, plastic is largely “downcycled”, which means it is recycled into lower quality plastics. this can seem like an attractive way to deal with waste plastic stockpiles, particularly after the recent collapse of soft plastics recycler redcycle. but downcycling risks doing more harm than good. here are three reasons why: an increasing number of benches, tables, bollards and boardwalks are being made from recycled plastic. this shift away from timber is touted as a sustainable step   but caution is warranted when introducing these products to pristine areas such as national parks. wood is naturally present in those areas. it has a proven record of longevity and, when degrading, does not introduce foreign matter into the natural system. swapping wood for plastic may introduce microplastics into the few remaining places relatively free of them. replacing wood with downcycled plastics also risks plastic pollution through weathering or fire. clear pet bottles used for beverages are the most circular plastic stream in australia, approaching a 70% recovery rate. when these bottles are recycled back into clear pet bottles, they are circular plastics. however, the used pet bottles are increasingly being turned into meat trays, berry punnets and mayonnaise jars to help producers meet the 2025 national packaging target of 50% recycled content (on average) in packaging. the problem is the current industry specifications for plastics recovery allow only downcycling of these trays, punnets and jars. this means that circular pet is removed from a closed loop into a lower grade recovery stream. this leads to non circular downcycling and more plastic sent to landfill. increasingly, plastics are labelled as compostable and biodegradable. however, well intended use of compostable plastics can cause long term plastic pollution. at the right temperature with the right amount of moisture, compostable plastics breakdown into soil. but if the conditions are not “just right”, they won’t break down at all. for example, when a landscape architect or engineer uses a “compostable” synthetic fabric instead of a natural alternative (such as coir or jute mats) they can inadvertently introduce persistent plastics into the environment. this is because the temperature is not hot enough for the synthetic mat to break down. we must also differentiate between “home compostable” and “commercially compostable”. commercial facilities are more effective at composting because they operate under more closely controlled conditions. clearly, we need to reduce our reliance on plastics and shift away from linear systems   including recycling into lower grade products. such downcycling may have a temporary role in dealing with existing plastic in the system while circular recycling capacity is being built. but we must not develop downcycling “solutions” that need a long term stream of plastic waste to remain viable. what’s more, downcycling requires constantly finding new markets for their lower grade products. circular systems are more robust. so, to the negotiators in paris, yes the shift to a circular plastics economy is urgent. but beware of good intentions that could ultimately make things worse. read more: plastic action or distraction? as climate change bears down, calls to reduce plastic pollution are not wasted write an article and join a growing community of more than 197,800 academics and researchers from 5,127 institutions. register now copyright © 2010 2025, the conversation us, inc.

kamikatsu, japan, a small mountain town of 1,700 on southern japan’s shikoku island, is going zero waste by 2020. so are a lot of communities in the us. but when local political leaders make this pledge, they sometimes state their city will send “zero waste to landfill”   a phrase meaning that in addition to recycling and perhaps composting trash, the city will still incinerate some of its garbage. incineration causes air pollution and, ironically, leaves toxic ash behind that must be landfilled. in kamikatsu, they mean it: zero waste, no incineration by 2020. already, the town recycles 80 percent of its trash through a significant commitment and communal effort. prior to 2003, this small community used to dispose of its trash through open incineration, according to a short documentary from discovery network’s “seeker stories.” but burning their trash made residents sick and and the town smell, so in 2003, they adopted the zero waste plan. today, kamikatsu residents separate recyclables into 34 categories: various types of paper products; tin, steel, aluminum, and other types of containers; plastic bottles; plastic caps; and more. the townspeople wash each container at home to ensure it’s free from food or liquid residue that can contaminate the recycling process. then they haul it to the town recycling center, where employees make sure they are sorting items the right way. there’s no municipal trash pickup. “classifying the recycling can be difficult,” resident hatsue katayama told seeker stories. “to wash the containers thoroughly so there are no remains is hard work. it can be a pain, and at first, we were opposed to the idea.” however, residents soon got used to the benefits of recycling: cleaner air, for one. and more jobs   in addition to the recycling center, the town boasts a factory that turns discarded clothing and more into new items. there’s also a free store, where residents can leave and take still usable cast off items for free. compared to incinerating kamikatsu’s trash, the recycling effort has cut waste management costs by a third. katayama says that recycling has now become second nature: “now i don’t think about it. it becomes natural to separate the trash correctly.” while few cities around the world have made the commitment to recycling and zero waste that kamikatsu has, more are stepping up to lessen their burdens on landfills, recycle more, and recycle better. the us, quite simply, is lagging behind. the environmental protection agency (epa) estimates that 75 percent of the us waste stream can be recycled or composted, but we’re only doing so for just over 34 percent of it. in comparison, the entire country of south korea’s waste diversion rate is moving closer to kamikatsu’s. after enacting legislation to get to zero waste by 2020, south korea started having residents pay for trash by weight, in addition to making composting food waste mandatory by law   which has raised the country’s recycling and composting rate to over 83 percent and climbing, according to the korea herald. germany and austria are recycling or composting 62 and 63 percent of their waste, respectively, states the european environment agency. and the european union aims to lift all member countries’ recycling/composting rates from an average of 43 percent to 50 percent by 2020. the success of these places shows that americans can raise our recycling rates. but it will take a combination of government policy, corporate responsibility, community will, and individual effort. fortunately, green minded individuals have the power to push us recycling to the next level, says dr. neil seldman. seldman is director of the institute for local self reliance’s (ilsr) waste to  wealth initiative, which helps communities across the us create policies and practices to get to zero waste. while many us cities are struggling at or below the 34 percent national recycling average, seldman says there are dozens of cities with “high, unprecedented” recycling rates, including portland, seattle, san francisco, los angeles, austin, and smaller cities on the east coast and in the midwest. so what accounts for the discrepancy? “the only difference i see is that the cities moving toward 90 percent have a very active grassroots network that consistently pushes for increased recycling and, in recent years, for zero waste,” says seldman. these cities are showing that diverting 50 to 80 percent or more from landfills to recyclers and municipal composters is doable   using existing technology. seldman notes that for most, their robust recycling programs started with citizens fighting off an incinerator. los angeles, for example, originally balked at instituting recycling back in the 1960s. but when regional landfills became overcrowded, the city entertained a proposal to build five incinerators   all located within communities of color, an all too familiar pattern in the us when it comes to toxic facilities . residents started forming coalitions to work against the incinerator plan, troubled by the potential for toxic air pollution and carcinogenic bottom ash. they brought in ilsr as a technical consultant to help fight the incinerators and formulate a sustainable alternative plan. los angeles eventually said no to the incinerators and yes to recycling   it now recycles or composts 76 percent of its waste   mainly because many of the grassroots activists involved in the incinerator fight got involved in local politics. in fact, says seldman, the phenomenon of activists turned city leaders is another thing most us cities with high recycling rates have in common. “garbage decisions are made at the local level, where citizens can organize and take control,” seldman says. “and that’s exactly what they did. people actually became mayors and county commissioners as a result of their resistance to an incinerator.” once a city decides to go zero waste, the next thing that needs to happen is a series of public policy and education decisions to ramp up recycling and ramp down incinerators and landfill use. “to get to zero waste, you must have four things: first, mandatory recycling,” says seldman. “people need to know it’s the law and become educated to be recycling literate. you also have to have municipal composting and a pay as youthrow program, where you pay for your garbage based on how much you throw out. and the other thing you need is a reuse program.” san francisco boasts an 80 percent recycling and composting rate   the highest in the country   and aims to get to zero waste by 2020. to achieve its ongoing success, the city has embraced all of these policies and more. in 2009, san francisco passed an ordinance making recycling and composting mandatory by law for businesses and residences. with the help of recology, a west coast waste hauler committed to waste reduction, san francisco implemented its “fantastic three” three bin system to help residents easily sort their trash. recyclables go into a blue bin, organic waste goes into a green bin, and anything destined for the landfill gets put in a black bin. the system operates on the pay as you  throw model that seldman asserts is the key to zero waste success. “the more material you send [to the landfill in the black bin], the more expensive your garbage bill is. the more material you send to the organic bin, the more your bill goes down,” says guillermo rodriguez of the san francisco department of the environment (sf environment). he notes that while the pay as you throw plan does influence residents, it sends a particularly powerful price signal to larger entities: “if you’re the property manager for a 100 unit building, that’s huge savings.” the city has adopted other initiatives to further drive local behavior toward zero waste. it passed a ban on polystyrene food service products, since polystyrene is not as easily recyclable as other plastics. and it enacted a city wide single use plastic bag ban, as well as a ban on bottled water sales on public property. san francisco also has a robust community education program to help people separate their trash correctly. it has conducted public education campaigns, and it has an easy to use online database with recology to help residents find out which bin different types of trash go into. the city even offers free trash audits at businesses and homes. “our auditors will [examine the bins] and provide owners with a report card to show where they can make improvements,” says rodriguez. for example, auditors helped us postal service outlets in the bay area cut down their garbage bill costs. because the post office is run by the federal government, it doesn’t have to follow city waste management rules   although it does have to pay the city to haul its trash. auditors pointed out that simply by implementing the three bin system at each location, the agency could save big. area postmasters and mail center managers did just that   and shaved $200,000 off the agency’s annual trash bill. now that san franciscans have embraced the three bin system and gotten their recycling and composting up to 80 percent, sf environment is working on ways to capture that last 20 percent. “nearly half of the material in the black bin can still be separated out,” says rodriguez. “most san franciscans know exactly what to do with food scraps when preparing a meal. but that takeout food container or bag of salad that you have sitting in crisper that is now a weird science experiment? that’s what we’re seeing end up in landfill. so our latest campaign aims to convince san franciscans to ‘free their food.’” in addition, he says, the city is working with manufacturers to take responsibility for their packaging. “municipalities shouldn’t have to take responsibility for some things,” he says. “juice boxes, for example. outside, they’re made of cardboard, but inside, they’re lined with mylar. so you have to open up the box and peel off the mylar [to make them recyclable]. no one is going to do that! we need manufacturers to take responsibility for these complex end of life problems.” also with the goal of keeping that last 20 percent of the city’s trash out of landfills, san francisco has a reuse program. first, when recology employees spot anything coming through that still may be usable, they pull it out for donation. the city government itself also runs an online database where government employees can post used furniture, office supplies, and other equipment in good condition. schools, nonprofits, and other city departments can request items they can use. since 2004, this “virtual warehouse” has redistributed over 900 tons of goods worth more than $6 million. even as cities like los angeles, portland, and san francisco make big investments in recycling, headlines have been dominating the news that the recycling industry is “collapsing” in the us. recycling is tied to commodity prices, which tend to fluctuate. currently low oil prices mean it’s cheaper right now to manufacture new plastic than recycle used plastic, for example. and china   which purchased $10.8 million of our scrap metal and paper in 2011 and about $5 million of our cast off plastic in 2014 for recycling   has started rejecting shipments of us recyclables in recent years. basically, the system once worked like this: china exported manufactured goods to the us. the us would fill chinese shipping containers with recyclables, some of it packaging from those chinese goods, before returning them. then, china would recycle those materials and turn them into new products. as a result, us domestic recycling isn’t as robust as it could be, since we rely so much on china. however, in 2013, china implemented operation green fence, because the materials the us was sending back were too dirty to recycle cost effectively. the new policy had china refusing contaminated shipments of recyclables   after us companies had already paid to send them to chinese ports. according to waste360.com, china turned away 22,000 shipping containers filled with us recyclables during the first year of the new policy due to contamination. as a result, us recyclers are now extra cautious about what they ship to china. when they receive dirty materials, they’re more likely to just landfill or incinerate them, says seldman. recycling contamination issues cause other problems, as well. aimee lee from the nonprofit recycle across america (raa) says a lot of contamination problems could be headed off with proper sorting. “[better sorting] would save the billions of dollars currently spent to remove contaminants contaminants from the recycling stream,” says lee. “there would be fewer plastic bags and other contaminants jamming the processing equipment. there would be significantly less wasted time and money spent while equipment is shut down for repairs, and far fewer injuries to employees at recycling plants. if we eliminate confusion at the bin, these costly inefficiencies would be remedied, and the demand for the materials would be strong. recycling profit margins would be so far improved that they would then be able to weather any occasional fluctuations in virgin commodity pricing.” municipal education programs like san francisco’s can help keep the wrong items out of the recycling stream. and raa is advocating for a nationwide labeling system to provide uniform, easily recognizable labels on recycling, compost, and trash bins to minimize confusion about sorting. lee notes that “standardized labels improve recycling rates 50 100 percent, while dramatically reducing contamination.” ilsr’s seldman says that using waste haulers committed to recycling right can help the industry turn more of a profit as well. sixty percent of the country’s waste hauling is handled by two companies: allied and waste management   and both, he says, have a vested interest in keeping recycling rates low and landfill and incineration rates high. “they control billions of dollars in recyclable materials, but they say they can’t make a profit. it’s because they don’t want to,” he asserts. “they make an 80 percent return on putting things in landfills and incinerators.” recycling can’t compete, since the waste haulers have to share profits with the companies that recycle the materials, so “naturally they want to downgrade recycling and increase disposal,” says seldman. even though recology   which manages waste for san francisco and 112 other communities on the west coast   does take some waste to landfill, this independent, employee owned company specializes in recycling and composting. “we have a different business model: our model is recycling, composting, helping communities we serve make progress toward zero waste,” says recology spokesperson robert reed. “other companies are passionate about landfilling and incineration. we’re passionate about recycling and composting. if you’re really passionate about it, you can make it work.” so if you don’t want your recyclables to end up in a landfill, and your waste is picked up by a hauler that doesn’t prioritize recycling, it’s up to individuals and businesses to fend off contamination to ensure that as many recyclables make it to actual recyclers as possible. even better, says porter, also help your community take control of its garbage: “bypass the trash behemoths and find local haulers that will work with your community to get to zero waste.” ©2024 green america ©2024 green america 1612 k street nw, suite 1000, washington dc 20006 phone: (800) 584 7336 tax id/ein: 52 1660746 green america's website is sponsored by green america members and

laura sullivan landfill workers bury all plastic except soda bottles and milk jugs at rogue disposal & recycling in southern oregon. laura sullivan/npr hide caption landfill workers bury all plastic except soda bottles and milk jugs at rogue disposal & recycling in southern oregon. note: an audio version of this story aired on npr's planet money. listen to the episode here. laura leebrick, a manager at rogue disposal & recycling in southern oregon, is standing on the end of its landfill watching an avalanche of plastic trash pour out of a semitrailer: containers, bags, packaging, strawberry containers, yogurt cups. none of this plastic will be turned into new plastic things. all of it is buried. "to me that felt like it was a betrayal of the public trust," she said. "i had been lying to people ... unwittingly." rogue, like most recycling companies, had been sending plastic trash to china, but when china shut its doors two years ago, leebrick scoured the u.s. for buyers. she could find only someone who wanted white milk jugs. she sends the soda bottles to the state. but when leebrick tried to tell people the truth about burying all the other plastic, she says people didn't want to hear it. "i remember the first meeting where i actually told a city council that it was costing more to recycle than it was to dispose of the same material as garbage," she says, "and it was like heresy had been spoken in the room: you're lying. this is gold. we take the time to clean it, take the labels off, separate it and put it here. it's gold. this is valuable." but it's not valuable, and it never has been. and what's more, the makers of plastic   the nation's largest oil and gas companies   have known this all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the american public the opposite. this story is part of a joint investigation with the pbs series frontline that includes the documentary plastic wars, which aired march 31 on pbs. watch it online now. npr and pbs frontline spent months digging into internal industry documents and interviewing top former officials. we found that the industry sold the public on an idea it knew wouldn't work   that the majority of plastic could be, and would be, recycled   all while making billions of dollars selling the world new plastic. the industry's awareness that recycling wouldn't keep plastic out of landfills and the environment dates to the program's earliest days, we found. "there is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis," one industry insider wrote in a 1974 speech. yet the industry spent millions telling people to recycle, because, as one former top industry insider told npr, selling recycling sold plastic, even if it wasn't true. "if the public thinks that recycling is working, then they are not going to be as concerned about the environment," larry thomas, former president of the society of the plastics industry, known today as the plastics industry association and one of the industry's most powerful trade groups in washington, d.c., told npr. in response, industry representative steve russell, until recently the vice president of plastics for the trade group the american chemistry council, said the industry has never intentionally misled the public about recycling and is committed to ensuring all plastic is recycled. "the proof is the dramatic amount of investment that is happening right now," russell said. "i do understand the skepticism, because it hasn't happened in the past, but i think the pressure, the public commitments and, most important, the availability of technology is going to give us a different outcome." here's the basic problem: all used plastic can be turned into new things, but picking it up, sorting it out and melting it down is expensive. plastic also degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can't be reused more than once or twice. on the other hand, new plastic is cheap. it's made from oil and gas, and it's almost always less expensive and of better quality to just start fresh. all of these problems have existed for decades, no matter what new recycling technology or expensive machinery has been developed. in all that time, less than 10 percent of plastic has ever been recycled. but the public has known little about these difficulties. it could be because that's not what they were told. starting in the 1990s, the public saw an increasing number of commercials and messaging about recycling plastic. "the bottle may look empty, yet it's anything but trash," says one ad from 1990 showing a plastic bottle bouncing out of a garbage truck. "it's full of potential. ... we've pioneered the country's largest, most comprehensive plastic recycling program to help plastic fill valuable uses and roles." these commercials carried a distinct message: plastic is special, and the consumer should recycle it. it may have sounded like an environmentalist's message, but the ads were paid for by the plastics industry, made up of companies like exxon, chevron, dow, dupont and their lobbying and trade organizations in washington. industry companies spent tens of millions of dollars on these ads and ran them for years, promoting the benefits of a product that, for the most part, was buried, was burned or, in some cases, wound up in the ocean. documents show industry officials knew this reality about recycling plastic as far back as the 1970s. many of the industry's old documents are housed in libraries, such as the one on the grounds of the first dupont family home in delaware. others are with universities, where former industry leaders sent their records. at syracuse university, there are boxes of files from a former industry consultant. and inside one of them is a report written in april 1973 by scientists tasked with forecasting possible issues for top industry executives. recycling plastic, it told the executives, was unlikely to happen on a broad scale. "there is no recovery from obsolete products," it says. it says pointedly: plastic degrades with each turnover. "a degradation of resin properties and performance occurs during the initial fabrication, through aging, and in any reclamation process," the report told executives. recycling plastic is "costly," it says, and sorting it, the report concludes, is "infeasible." and there are more documents, echoing decades of this knowledge, including one analysis from a top official at the industry's most powerful trade group. "the costs of separating plastics ... are high," he tells colleagues, before noting that the cost of using oil to make plastic is so low that recycling plastic waste "can't yet be justified economically." larry thomas, the former president of the society of the plastics industry, worked side by side with top oil and plastics executives. he's retired now, on the coast of florida where he likes to bike, and feels conflicted about the time he worked with the plastics industry. "i did what the industry wanted me to do, that's for sure," he says. "but my personal views didn't always jibe with the views i had to take as part of my job." thomas took over back in the late 1980s, and back then, plastic was in a crisis. there was too much plastic trash. the public was getting upset. garten services, a recycling facility in oregon, where paper and metals still have markets but most plastic is thrown away. all plastic must first go through a recycling facility like this one, but only a fraction of the plastic produced actually winds up getting recycled. laura sullivan/npr hide caption garten services, a recycling facility in oregon, where paper and metals still have markets but most plastic is thrown away. all plastic must first go through a recycling facility like this one, but only a fraction of the plastic produced actually winds up getting recycled. in one document from 1989, thomas calls executives at exxon, chevron, amoco, dow, dupont, procter & gamble and others to a private meeting at the ritz carlton in washington. "the image of plastics is deteriorating at an alarming rate," he wrote. "we are approaching a point of no return." he told the executives they needed to act. the "viability of the industry and the profitability of your company" are at stake. thomas remembers now. "the feeling was the plastics industry was under fire   we got to do what it takes to take the heat off, because we want to continue to make plastic products," he says. at this time, thomas had a co worker named lew freeman. he was a vice president of the lobbying group. he remembers many of the meetings like the one in washington. "the basic question on the table was, you guys as our trade association in the plastics industry aren't doing enough   we need to do more," freeman says. "i remember this is one of those exchanges that sticks with me 35 years later or however long it's been ... and it was what we need to do is ... advertise our way out of it. that was the idea thrown out." so began the plastics industry's $50 million a year ad campaign promoting the benefits of plastic. "presenting the possibilities of plastic!" one iconic ad blared, showing kids in bike helmets and plastic bags floating in the air. "this advertising was motivated first and foremost by legislation and other initiatives that were being introduced in state legislatures and sometimes in congress," freeman says, "to ban or curb the use of plastics because of its performance in the waste stream." at the same time, the industry launched a number of feel good projects, telling the public to recycle plastic. it funded sorting machines, recycling centers, nonprofits, even expensive benches outside grocery stores made out of plastic bags. few of these projects actually turned much plastic into new things. npr tracked down almost a dozen projects the industry publicized starting in 1989. all of them shuttered or failed by the mid 1990s. mobil's massachusetts recycling facility lasted three years, for example. amoco's project to recycle plastic in new york schools lasted two. dow and huntsman's highly publicized plan to recycle plastic in national parks made it to seven out of 419 parks before the companies cut funding. none of them was able to get past the economics: making new plastic out of oil is cheaper and easier than making it out of plastic trash. both freeman and thomas, the head of the lobbying group, say the executives all knew that. "there was a lot of discussion about how difficult it was to recycle," thomas remembers. "they knew that the infrastructure wasn't there to really have recycling amount to a whole lot." even as the ads played and the projects got underway, thomas and freeman say industry officials wanted to get recycling plastic into people's homes and outside on their curbs with blue bins. the industry created a special group called the council for solid waste solutions and brought a man from dupont, ron liesemer, over to run it. liesemer's job was to at least try to make recycling work   because there was some hope, he said, however unlikely, that maybe if they could get recycling started, somehow the economics of it all would work itself out. "i had no staff, but i had money," liesemer says. "millions of dollars." liesemer took those millions out to minnesota and other places to start local plastic recycling programs. but then he ran into the same problem all the industry documents found. recycling plastic wasn't making economic sense: there were too many different kinds of plastic, hundreds of them, and they can't be melted down together. they have to be sorted out. "yes, it can be done," liesemer says, "but who's going to pay for it? because it goes into too many applications, it goes into too many structures that just would not be practical to recycle." liesemer says he started as many programs as he could and hoped for the best. "they were trying to keep their products on the shelves," liesemer says. "that's what they were focused on. they weren't thinking what lesson should we learn for the next 20 years. no. solve today's problem." and thomas, who led the trade group, says all of these efforts started to have an effect: the message that plastic could be recycled was sinking in. "i can only say that after a while, the atmosphere seemed to change," he says. "i don't know whether it was because people thought recycling had solved the problem or whether they were so in love with plastic products that they were willing to overlook the environmental concerns that were mounting up." but as the industry pushed those public strategies to get past the crisis, officials were also quietly launching a broader plan. in the early 1990s, at a small recycling facility near san diego, a man named coy smith was one of the first to see the industry's new initiative. back then, smith ran a recycling business. his customers were watching the ads and wanted to recycle plastic. so smith allowed people to put two plastic items in their bins: soda bottles and milk jugs. he lost money on them, he says, but the aluminum, paper and steel from his regular business helped offset the costs. but then, one day, almost overnight, his customers started putting all kinds of plastic in their bins. "the symbols start showing up on the containers," he explains. smith went out to the piles of plastic and started flipping over the containers. all of them were now stamped with the triangle of arrows   known as the international recycling symbol   with a number in the middle. he knew right away what was happening. "all of a sudden, the consumer is looking at what's on their soda bottle and they're looking at what's on their yogurt tub, and they say, 'oh well, they both have a symbol. oh well, i guess they both go in,' " he says. unwanted used plastic sits outside garten services, a recycling facility in oregon. laura sullivan/npr hide caption unwanted used plastic sits outside garten services, a recycling facility in oregon. the bins were now full of trash he couldn't sell. he called colleagues at recycling facilities all across the country. they reported having the same problem. industry documents from this time show that just a couple of years earlier, starting in 1989, oil and plastics executives began a quiet campaign to lobby almost 40 states to mandate that the symbol appear on all plastic   even if there was no way to economically recycle it. some environmentalists also supported the symbol, thinking it would help separate plastic. smith said what it did was make all plastic look recyclable. "the consumers were confused," smith says. "it totally undermined our credibility, undermined what we knew was the truth in our community, not the truth from a lobbying group out of d.c." but the lobbying group in d.c. knew the truth in smith's community too. a report given to top officials at the society of the plastics industry in 1993 told them about the problems. "the code is being misused," it says bluntly. "companies are using it as a 'green' marketing tool." the code is creating "unrealistic expectations" about how much plastic can actually be recycled, it told them. smith and his colleagues launched a national protest, started a working group and fought the industry for years to get the symbol removed or changed. they lost. "we don't have manpower to compete with this," smith says. "we just don't. even though we were all dedicated, it still was like, can we keep fighting a battle like this on and on and on from this massive industry that clearly has no end in sight of what they're able to do and willing to do to keep their image the image they want." "it's pure manipulation of the consumer," he says. in response, industry officials told npr that the code was only ever meant to help recycling facilities sort plastic and was not intended to create any confusion. without question, plastic has been critical to the country's success. it's cheap and durable, and it's a chemical marvel. it's also hugely profitable. the oil industry makes more than $400 billion a year making plastic, and as demand for oil for cars and trucks declines, the industry is telling shareholders that future profits will increasingly come from plastic. and if there was a sign of this future, it's a brand new chemical plant that rises from the flat skyline outside sweeny, texas. it's so new that it's still shiny, and inside the facility, the concrete is free from stains. chevron phillips chemical's new $6 billion plastic manufacturing plant rises from the skyline in sweeny, texas. company officials say they see a bright future for their products as demand for plastic continues to rise. laura sullivan/npr hide caption this plant is chevron phillips chemical's $6 billion investment in new plastic. "we see a very bright future for our products," says jim becker, the vice president of sustainability for chevron phillips, inside a pristine new warehouse next to the plant. "these are products the world needs and continues to need," he says. "we're very optimistic about future growth." with that growth, though, comes ever more plastic trash. but becker says chevron phillips has a plan: it will recycle 100% of the plastic it makes by 2040. becker seems earnest. he tells a story about vacationing with his wife and being devastated by the plastic trash they saw. when asked how chevron phillips will recycle 100% of the plastic it makes, he doesn't hesitate. "recycling has to get more efficient, more economic," he says. "we've got to do a better job, collecting the waste, sorting it. that's going to be a huge effort." fix recycling is the industry's message too, says steve russell, the industry's recent spokesman. "fixing recycling is an imperative, and we've got to get it right," he says. "i understand there is doubt and cynicism. that's going to exist. but check back in. we're there." larry thomas, lew freeman and ron liesemer, former industry executives, helped oil companies out of the first plastic crisis by getting people to believe something the industry knew then wasn't true: that most plastic could be and would be recycled. russell says this time will be different. "it didn't get recycled because the system wasn't up to par," he says. "we hadn't invested in the ability to sort it and there hadn't been market signals that companies were willing to buy it, and both of those things exist today." but plastic today is harder to sort than ever: there are more kinds of plastic, it's cheaper to make plastic out of oil than plastic trash and there is exponentially more of it than 30 years ago. and during those 30 years, oil and plastic companies made billions of dollars in profit as the public consumed ever more quantities of plastic. russell doesn't dispute that. "and during that time, our members have invested in developing the technologies that have brought us where we are today," he says. "we are going to be able to make all of our new plastic out of existing municipal solid waste in plastic." recently, an industry advocacy group funded by the nation's largest oil and plastic companies launched its most expensive effort yet to promote recycling and cleanup of plastic waste. there's even a new ad. new plastic bottles come off the line at a plastic manufacturing facility in maryland. plastic production is expected to triple by 2050. laura sullivan/npr hide caption new plastic bottles come off the line at a plastic manufacturing facility in maryland. plastic production is expected to triple by 2050. "we have the people that can change the world," it says to soaring music as people pick up plastic trash and as bottles get sorted in a recycling center. freeman, the former industry official, recently watched the ad. "déjà vu all over again," he says as the ad finishes. "this is the same kind of thinking that ran in the '90s. i don't think this kind of advertising is, is helpful at all." larry thomas said the same. "i don't think anything has changed," thomas says. "sounds exactly the same." these days as thomas bikes down by the beach, he says he spends a lot of time thinking about the oceans and what will happen to them in 20 or 50 years, long after he is gone. and as he thinks back to those years he spent in conference rooms with top executives from oil and plastic companies, what occurs to him now is something he says maybe should have been obvious all along. he says what he saw was an industry that didn't want recycling to work. because if the job is to sell as much oil as you possibly can, any amount of recycled plastic is competition. "you know, they were not interested in putting any real money or effort into recycling because they wanted to sell virgin material," thomas says. "nobody that is producing a virgin product wants something to come along that is going to replace it. produce more virgin material   that's their business." and they are. analysts now expect plastic production to triple by 2050. cat schuknecht contributed to this report. sponsor message become an npr sponsor

something went wrong. wait a moment and try again.
ask nyt climate every little bit helps. but doing it wrong can actually make matters worse. credit...naomi anderson subryan supported by by winston choi schagrin recycling can have big environmental benefits. for one thing, it keeps unwanted objects out of landfills or incinerators, where they can produce potent greenhouse gasses and potentially hazardous pollutants. even more important, recycling allows us to extract fewer resources. the amount of energy required to recycle aluminum, for example, is less than 5 percent of the energy needed to mine new ore from the ground. similarly, the more paper we recycle, the fewer trees we cut down. but recycling rates in the united states have remained stubbornly flat for years. and, in some cases, they’re dismal. just 10 percent of plastics are actually recycled. meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of tons of recyclable waste are exported, often to developing countries. it’s no wonder a lot of readers have asked us whether individual efforts make any difference at all. to answer that question, it helps to understand how the system works and how people use it. the way the system is set up, recycling is a business. and our recyclables   metals, paper, and plastics   are commodities. when you throw something into the blue bin, whether it’s recyclable or not, it gets carted off to a sorting plant where it runs along a conveyor belt and gets grouped with similar items. then, the recyclable stuff is bundled. the process is labor intensive. we might answer your question in a future column. we won’t publish your submission without contacting you, and may use your contact information to follow up with you.

fashion & social lifestyle health science pets travel jobs & services more cover page local mainland business international viewpoint entertainment en español legal sports more by winston choi schagrin recycling can have big environmental benefits.