Recycling Jobs: Who Really Cares?
For once, there was good news about jobs. Real American jobs.
The front page headline of The Boston Globe’s business section on April 16 read: “Recycling industry poised for hiring.” The article highlighted the recent report by the Environmental Business Council, MassRecycle, and SkillWorks (a nonprofit that funds workforce initiatives) that predicts the growth of over 1,200 recycling jobs in Massachusetts in the private sector alone. This growth would be added to the 14,000 current recycling jobs in 2,000 Massachusetts companies with a payroll approaching $500 million annually.
Wow! Such great news. Finally, business, government, and environmental groups should be swinging arm in arm, humming This Land is Your Land.
Let’s take it a step further. Extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws create recycling jobs by signaling to investors that the supply of recycled materials will be available. In the first year of E-Cycle programs in Washington and Oregon, three new processing and recycling facilities opened. Implementation of their E-Cycle programs resulted in electronics collection and processing job growth of 64%, supporting 360 jobs or 12.6 jobs per 1,000 tons of electronics processed, well above the less than 1 job per 1,000 tons from traditional disposal. Collection rates rose to 38.5 million pounds in Washington and 19 million pounds in Oregon.
Since EPR laws increase material supply and recycling, businesses should be loving EPR too, right?
Then why would the Hartford Business Journal equate the 2012 Connecticut mattress EPR bill as bad for business? About EPR, the Journal says: “If you think about the logical extensions of that doctrine, the world as we know it ends.” They are not being kind. Of course those of us working on EPR know that the world as we know it must change. We cannot continue to waste resources and place the burden on government and taxpayers.
But the Journal shows how different many in the business community view EPR. They acknowledge the problem that mattresses cannot be disposed of in landfills and incinerators, and that it costs a great deal to manage them properly. And they acknowledge that the bill would create jobs, citing companies ready to set up shop in the state, the way that a paint recycler immediately announced plans to come to the state after Connecticut passed its 2011 paint EPR law.
But they object to businesses being held responsible for resolving the problem. “Somewhere the responsibility of the individual user has been lost in a nanny-state fantasy that business is responsible for all ills…Isn’t this exactly the kind of big-picture societal problem that governments are supposed to solve?”
I want to thank the Journal for framing these questions. I really mean it. We now know where to start the discussion. Government is definitely not equipped to handle product waste by itself, despite their extensive expertise in waste management and recycling. Pure and simple – they do not have the funds. And it is not fair to ask all taxpayers to pay for the consumption of others.
EPR systems require that state and local governments, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers all play a role in the responsible management of products and the materials of which they are made. And, yes, individuals who buy the products should pay for their recycling or disposal, and producers should make it easy for those consumers by incorporating these costs into the product purchase price. Until the full cost of managing products is internalized, we will continue to have a nanny-state where government picks up the cost to dispose of products.
But why do businesses so vehemently resist the changes that many agree need to be made? What responsibility does the business community have in reducing environmental impacts and reducing government waste management costs that result in higher taxes?
On the other side, what is the extent of government’s reach? What added costs do governments impose because they are involved in ways that they should not be?
We all want jobs. We want a clean environment and a reasonable quality of life. Then why is it so hard to take responsibility for changes needed to bring about these outcomes? Are we just too darn stubborn to consider a change to our current situation, no matter how much better we have the power to make it? I really think that this is most of the challenge.
An Award in the Present Triggers a Reflection on the Past
Yesterday, in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, I listened to a stirring rendition of the Star Spangled Banner by a high school student whose golden voice inspired angels to dance among the majestic white columns that lined The Great Hall.
I was invited to Faneuil Hall to accept an Environmental Merit Award that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency bestowed on the Product Stewardship Institute. I was honored to accept that award on behalf of PSI’s staff, members, and partners. And I was proud of our partner, the Northeast Recycling Council, which received an impressive Lifetime Achievement Award.
At the ceremony, I was inspired to hear of the achievements of individuals and organizations in the 
region, and it gave me time to reflect on what PSI does best, and the challenges we face. What those of us in the product stewardship movement are trying to do — change corporate behavior –is not easy. At stake is the Role of Government, whether that role is to assist industry in developing voluntary projects and agreements, or to develop legislation. PSI seeks to facilitate a healthy balance between regulation and free market enterprise.
Two of our most notable successes have been in partnership with the U.S. EPA.
One of those initiatives was a voluntary program, while the other resulted in model legislation. In 2004, under an EPA grant, PSI partnered with Staples to develop the first retail computer take-back program in the country. Chris Beling of EPA Region I was a diehard advocate for that project and contributed to its success. That voluntary pilot project ultimately led Staples to develop a nation-wide ewaste collection program. Other retailers selling computers and electronics have since followed with their own recycling programs.
The other notable initiative began in 2002, when EPA funded PSI to hold its first dialogue meeting with paint manufacturers, retailers, painting contractors, and government agencies. That first meeting turned into a national agreement, model legislation, and three state laws that require paint manufacturers to set up and fund a system to recycle leftover paint. The paint industry is the main engine behind the passage of these laws. The program will eventually save governments over half a billion dollars each year in paint management costs, create paint recycling jobs, and save valuable natural resources. Prior to the national agreement, PSI facilitated and managed eight voluntary projects funded jointly with nearly $2 million from government agencies and the paint industry. Barry Elman of EPA headquarters played a pivotal role in all phases of the project.
PSI is proud of its achievements to pass EPR legislation, but we also know that voluntary initiatives, as well as other government policies, have a role to play. Waste management requires solutions that are comprehensive and effective.
Thank you to the US EPA for acknowledging the Product Stewardship Institute’s achievements.
Who Is PSI? An Introduction to Facilitative Leadership
PSI tackles the “elephant in the room”
Everyone and everything these days is being reinvented, reinvigorated, redesigned, and remade. It’s all about branding. Recycling is being reinvented as EPR…EPR is being reinvented as recycling. Many of those working on recycling containers, packaging, and printed materials are like those who finally found religion…they think their brand is the best.
Some believe that only voluntary efforts can work, while others believe only EPR can work. Some believe EPR only works on packaging but not products, while others believe the reverse. Some say that only toxic products should fall in an EPR system, others say only some packaging materials but not others. The state of recycling discussions in the U.S. today is exciting, but rudderless.
PSI has never wavered on who it is. For the past 11 years, PSI has served many in the world of recycling as a Facilitative Leader. We work to provide forums for the honest discussion of how to reduce the lifecycle health and environmental impacts from consumer products all along the product lifecycle. We don’t hold to a particular set of strategies for doing so but rather promote deliberative discussions to arrive at mutually agreeable solutions. We raise issues that need to be discussed, and we do not let any group dodge hard questions. We believe that sustainable solutions can only be reached by integrating the expertise of each key stakeholder. We base decisions on jointly developed data. We emphasize transparency and hold open meetings and calls. No group is locked out. We help stakeholders frame their own debate, and we help them manage the data and issues so that they make decisions and move forward on shared goals. We do not exclude ideas and strategies because they are unpopular. We tackle the “elephant in the room.”
PSI was a main force in bringing the product stewardship movement to the United States. Through thousands of presentations, webinars, dialogue meetings, and informational briefings, we helped build the capacity for product stewardship in 47 states and for thousands of local governments. We aim to identify trends, raise issues, develop solutions, implement strategies, and evaluate programs. We connect people into networks. We are not passive facilitators. We forge progress. We do not believe EPR alone is the answer. We believe that voluntary solutions and legislated solutions both have a place at the table.
As a facilitative leader, PSI succeeded in developing a national multi-stakeholder agreement on product stewardship.
PSI helped stakeholders reach a national agreement with paint manufacturers, retailers, painting contractors, the U.S. EPA, and multiple state and local government agencies.
In 2007, PSI helped stakeholders reach a national agreement with paint manufacturers, retailers, painting contractors, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and multiple state and local government agencies. This agreement has translated into three state laws and a national model, and is being rolled out nationwide to ensure a harmonized system. We did this through joint research, and raised nearly $2 million of public-private funding of pilot projects and initiatives that paved the way for the paint manufacturers to become true corporate leaders. The paint industry, through the American Coatings Association, has taken responsibility for managing leftover paint for the entire industry…over 64 million gallons each year. The agreement PSI helped forge is a huge win for paint recycling jobs, municipal budgets, and the environment. It will save U.S. municipalities about half a billion dollars each year in costs that they would have to pay if they were to properly manage all leftover paint.
Yes, paint is different from every other product. However, every product is different from every other product, or package. Each one requires its own strategies and solution — some voluntary, some regulated strategies, and some both. PSI has developed a process that has led to voluntary and regulated solutions on over 15 product categories.
According to the Facilitative Leadership Training Institute, facilitative leaders prefer dialogue to debate and understand the values beneath an opinion instead of arguing over competing opinions. They work toward synthesis and transforming analysis into shared understanding. They respectfully elicit the insights, creativity, and wisdom from others.
In their book entitled Breaking Robert’s Rules, Larry Susskind and Jeff Cruikshank say that facilitative leadership is a means to “… getting people to take responsibility for their own futures.” PSI’s paint dialogue became known as the Paint Product Stewardship Initiative, which took on a life of its own as stakeholders became empowered to make decisions as a group.
PSI has facilitated change in the product stewardship movement, while keeping the same commitment to honest dialogue. We cannot do our work without you. In the spirit of Emma Lazarus, Give us your weary, old worn out arguments and we will recycle them into a sustainable solution.
Why We Need a Game Changer
For over 30 years, I have been in the trash business. I don’t mean that I have been picking up trash all that time…because I am a policy guy. But I was the neighborhood drop off spot in college, receiving armfuls of old news, stacking them in the basement, and hauling carloads to the trailer behind our local food coop, where other dedicated recycling souls schlepped and sweated. I took my turn driving the college recycling truck, smashed glass bottles in drums in old warehouses to reduce the volume for easier hauling, and helped sell materials to scrap dealers.
I am proud of this work that I did with the recycling faithful. We did it because we knew that recycling was the future, even when 99.9% of the population wasn’t doing it. It made no sense to throw all this good stuff out.
I am glad that recycling has finally become a big business. Recycling creates over half a million jobs, saves most municipalities money, reduces environmental impacts, and saves energy.
But it could do so much more. And why isn’t it? Because many people working on waste management issues today don’t have the history that many of us do. We know what has been tried, what has worked, and what has failed. But it pains us to see the same things being tried over and over, as if it was thought of for the first time.
I did not come to the solution of EPR and product stewardship by stumbling into it. Well, actually I did stumble into it…that was back in 1998, when I heard Ron Driedger, former official for the British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, speak at a conference. He made sense because as then Director of Waste Policy for Massachusetts, I was struggling with issues that British Columbia had already figured out. But I didn’t stumble into the idea of EPR without a deep understanding of what did not work and what was needed. And when it presented itself to me…quite unintentionally…I didn’t think of all the ways to keep optimizing the current system because it would be too hard to change waste management in the U.S. I thought of the opportunity to reduce costs for government, reduce waste, increase recycling, create jobs, and shape the better world I wanted to live in.
Don’t get me wrong. Optimizing any system is absolutely a critical part of the solution. But it will rarely be enough to be a game changer. Let’s face it, most people feel insecure about new ideas. It requires big change to something we do not know. It requires faith that things will turn out all right. It requires faith in ourselves, and faith in others. It requires hard work. To many, that is too much of a gamble. But without the risk, there can be no reward.
Let me say this. I do not believe that product stewardship (which includes voluntary and legislated systems across a product’s full lifecycle) or extended producer responsibility (which refers to legislated systems at end of life) are the only answers. But it is very clear by now that these two related strategies have become main policies for dealing with garbage in the world. Yes, that’s right – The World. India, China, Israel, Europe, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil have all moved headlong into EPR and product stewardship. Is this going to be another area, like education, where the U.S. will be left behind?
It is remarkable how much opposition and resistance has grown in the U.S. to the simple idea that companies should be responsible for the environmental and social impacts from their products all along the lifecycle, including at end of life. And if done right – and we intend to do it right – companies will not end up losing, but only winning. Why? Because it is the right thing to do – financially, economically, environmentally, and (dare I say it) morally.
There are millions of tons of garbage that get tossed in landfills and incinerators each year. The high demand now for recovered paper, aluminum, steel, glass, plastics, and other materials would have been unthinkable back when I was stacking paper at the food coop. We are throwing millions of dollars of quality materials into the garbage, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs. This is crazy!
And yet, year after year in the U.S., we have experienced a growing push-back on concepts called product stewardship and EPR that are made to appear like dirty words.
Thank goodness for all the companies making positive strides, like those on the PSI Advisory Council, as well as industry leaders like Patagonia, which promotes reduced consumption and reuse of the company’s apparel through its Common Threads program. We need more leaders like these companies, which are passionate about our future.
Just as many of us knew over 30 years ago that one day there would be curbside recycling throughout America, we know that some form of product stewardship will guide the management of our nation’s resources in all industry sectors. It just has to be. ‘Cause the times they have already changed. Now is the time to bring on the Product Stewardship Game Changer which, along with other strategies, can bring about the future we really want.
The State of Maine has stood out as a leader in the U.S. product stewardship movement, passing the country’s first extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws on electronics, thermostats, fluorescent lamps, and comprehensive framework. It also passed laws on automobile switches and batteries. In the U.S., there are now more than 70 EPR laws in 32 states on 10 products. These laws have begun to change the wasteful ways of our society by requiring manufacturers to internalize product lifecycle costs that are otherwise imposed on the public – from manufacture to ultimate recycling or disposal. By recovering valuable materials, these laws are also the backbone of a vision for more recycling jobs and greater national security by controlling the source of materials for use in new products. Maine exhibited an elegant pragmatism in passing its EPR laws. The Maine State Legislature and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) carefully considered well formed options, made clear decisions, and achieved results.
In a crushing turn for the product stewardship movement, Maine Governor Paul LePage sought to reverse these laws since taking office in 2011, threatening to nullify significant economic and environmental progress in the state. It appears that the Governor has chosen to listen only to those who oppose Maine’s EPR laws, and shut out the viewpoints of important stakeholders such as Maine’s local governments, businesses, environmental groups, and others in the state who might disagree with his preconceived notion that government regulation equals economic stagnation.
To be sure, there are many businesses that support EPR, particularly product recyclers, which create up to ten times the number of jobs as those working in the waste disposal business. Although there are several business groups opposing Maine’s EPR programs, including those that manufacture carpet, mattresses, fluorescent lights, thermostats, and toys, one company – Honeywell – has stood out as an example of why the public interest can only be served by including the viewpoints of all stakeholders. Honeywell has manufactured and sold more mercury thermostats than any other company, and for this reason it is on the hook to pay more money than any other to safely collect and recycle those mercury thermostats removed from walls and replaced with newer models. Honeywell is also the majority player in the Thermostat Recycling Corporation, which has collected only 5 percent of the mercury thermostats sold into the market. Yet, through its industry lobbying organization, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Honeywell opposes legislation that would require the company to collect and safely recycle its fair share of mercury thermostats manufactured and installed in homes and businesses over the past 50 years.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, mercury exposure can lead to memory loss, complications related to attention and language, inhibit motor and coordination skills, and negatively impact many other areas of neurological development. Mercury pollution is also responsible for warnings in Maine and across the country that alert consumers to limit their consumption of certain types of fish that contain high levels of mercury. Fish and Maine have always had a strong relationship. But over 67 tons of mercury have been emitted into the environment since 1998 as a result of thermostat manufacturers failing to meet their social responsibility to safely collect and recycle mercury thermostats. It is truly shocking that this staggering statistic was not a sufficient reason for the Governor to seek out other perspectives. Even more baffling is the fact that Honeywell sought PSI’s assistance in 2006 to pass the original thermostat legislation in Maine, consented to an agreement that PSI mediated with company executives, Maine DEP, and state environmental groups, and then proceeded to spend the next 6 years fighting the same law it had initially supported.
On January 16, public comments were due to the Maine DEP on the agency’s second report issued under its 2010 EPR framework law. This report, released in December, was supposed to evaluate the thermostat recycling law and the five other state EPR laws. PSI joined more than 150 Maine citizens and other state and national organizations when it submitted comments. While PSI supports the effort to evaluate these EPR programs, we found the report to be truly unworthy of being called an evaluation, let alone a “cost-benefit analysis,” which implies rigorous analysis. This report is merely a biased tool that disparages EPR programs while using incorrect or incomplete information. It even denigrated the state’s EPR program staff by leaving the strong impression that they took inappropriate actions, without providing any justification for these statements. PSI strongly believes that this report should be redone with greater competency and wider stakeholder input.
Governor LePage seems to have created a culture of fear in his own environmental agency, where thoughtful discussion is unwelcome and strict adherence to his perspective is required. He seems to believe that laws pertaining to environmental issues have no connection to improving the economy, and fails to understand that EPR laws foster the healthy environment that is so crucial to Maine’s tourism, fishing, hunting, and way of life. His black-and-white, us-versus-them ideology makes him incapable of partnering even with industry groups at the forefront of the environmental movement that want to sponsor stewardship legislation in Maine to create more jobs, save money for local governments, and protect the environment.
Good government policies can lead to private sector innovation by creating a level playing field and, at the same time, reduce the external costs imposed on society by actions of powerful corporations. America is a democracy. We need state leaders who listen to all its citizens and seek to balance government regulation and free market enterprise so that innovation is unleashed while public interests are protected. This balance has been horribly upset in Maine. We hope for its return.
“EPR’s Broken Promises” — Bah Humbug!
Government is so easy to rail against. How great it is to lambast those faceless time-sucking bureaucrats that don’t care anything about Me. How fun to stomp around, spit into the wind, and swear about all that they do wrong.
In the latest edition of E-Scrap News (December 2011), the Director of Corporate Environmental Affairs for Sony Electronics, Doug Smith, kicked a lot of dust onto the EPR bandwagon. He waived his arms madly and decried all the failed promises and half-eaten logic of pointy-headed pension-brained cubicle lifers. But by the end of his article, entitled “EPR’s Broken Promises,” Doug was onto something. He was asking us all to consider the programs in Canada and Europe, which resulted in “rational laws” and “protected the current economic markets and developed fair market financing.” Doug is rightly concerned about how government policies can best accomplish laudable goals, as well as to encourage product design changes by individual producers managing their own products.
Sure, there is much you might disagree with in Doug’s article. The claim that “[EPR has] no influence on product design” is as unsubstantiated as the definitive statement that it does have influence. Nor does the article fully explore that there are many other reasons why government pursues EPR laws – among them fairness to taxpayers, lowering government costs, environmental benefits, and recycling jobs. It also does not mention that many of the problems with the current laws were caused by electronics manufacturers failing to agree among themselves about what is best policy. Also, the statement that EPR is a “hidden tax” mixes up what is paid for by taxes (most government programs) and what is a consumer product fee (EPR). And the “regressive ripple effect of cost internalization” is a real mind bender. Oh, and my favorite – that no EPR electronics laws except CA’s ARF can claim to create jobs because there is no way to ensure that the jobs stay in the state.
But all the hand waving aside, Doug is pointing out the real need to take an honest assessment of the 25 U.S. EPR electronics laws. Which work, and which don’t, and why? What can we learn from laws in other countries? How have these laws performed relative to lowering costs, saving governments money, increasing recycling, creating jobs, and creating a level playing field? What are the policy best practices, and should these be woven into a new federal law that covers all the states?
Emotions can often run high with EPR. After all, the movement has created a paradigm shift of tectonic proportions that has changed the dynamic of how waste in the U.S. and globally is managed. For electronics EPR in the U.S., it is time to step back and assess the situation in a balanced manner – with all the stakeholders at the table.
Real Product Sustainability Requires a Lifecycle Approach
Every two weeks, PSI members and partners receive updates on product stewardship news from around the world. A recent NY Times article on battery recycling caught my attention because it illustrated how product sustainability requires a full lifecycle perspective — not only a focus on end of life. The December 8 front-page story described how processing methods used at a Mexican plant for recycling vehicle and industrial batteries from the U.S. are poisoning workers and citizens. The batteries are recovered — mostly voluntarily — at a very high rate in the U.S., without the need for an extended producer responsibility system, because there is great demand for the lead in the batteries. However, those collecting the batteries are skirting U.S. laws by shipping the batteries to poorly run facilities in Mexico. The money saved by companies is at the expense of the health of workers, citizens, and the environment. It is also at the expense of U.S. companies that are abiding by more protective standards in the U.S. There is truly no such thing as a free lunch. We need to level the global playing field so that U.S. companies do not lose business to companies operating abroad under insufficient standards. We should require U.S. companies to certify that they are using material processors that truly protect the environment all throughout the product lifecycle. This is real product sustainability. It is time for U.S. citizens to demand global environmental and social standards of protection for the products they consume.
