Author Archives: Product Stewardship Institute

COVID-19 Impacts U.S. Recycling Programs

By Sydney Harris, Senior Policy Associate, Product Stewardship Institute

As states responded to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, municipal recycling programs across the U.S. felt the impacts. Eco-Entreprises Quebec, the PRO for packaging and paper products in Quebec, provided funding for PSI to track the impacts of the virus on U.S. recycling programs. PSI found that, although many states deemed recycling an essential public service or a critical piece of manufacturing for high-demand items such as toilet paper and shipping boxes, dozens of local programs were put on pause due to staffing shortages and health concerns. Furthermore, commercial and bottle deposit materials decreased dramatically, while residentially generated trash and recycling volumes sharply increased, with notable impacts to the recycling supply chain

table1

Though “Essential,” Recycling Suspended in Many Communities

Beginning in March, at least 40 states issued stay-at-home orders that closed all non-essential businesses and directed residents to stay inside for several weeks or more. At least 10 of these states specifically named recycling on lists of essential services, while most others allowed recycling to continue as either public works services or critical manufacturing. Unfortunately, dozens of curbside and drop-off recycling programs were still suspended; many remain on hold as of early June. Residents were frequently instructed to comingle recyclables with trash for curbside collection, while some programs offered the option to store materials at home until services resumed. The largest municipal programs impacted by the pandemic were Miami, FL, where residents were instructed to comingle materials with trash; Los Angeles, CA, where at least half of curbside materials collected were diverted to landfill; and Philadelphia, PA, where curbside collection was suspended for a week and then scaled back to bi-weekly to accommodate staffing shortages. In some jurisdictions, curbside recycling materials were diverted to waste-to-energy plants.

Safety the Priority, but PPE in Short Supply

set of medical protective face masks

Consensus emerged within the medical community that handling waste and recyclables does not pose a significant transmission risk to workers, provided employee safety is prioritized with adequate social distancing and personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, gloves and sometimes gowns or face shields. The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA), ISRI, and the Northeast Resource Recovery Association (NRRA) all issued guidance on best practices for worker safety.

In late March, NWRA wrote to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requesting that waste and recycling workers receive priority access to PPE,  but waste and recycling collectors across the country still experienced PPE shortages. Some programs turned to creative solutions to procure PPE for employees, such as the Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD) in Vermont, which purchased washable cloth masks for all staff online. In Swanzey, NH, residents worked together to create cloth masks for sanitation workers.

Residential Volumes Up, Commercial Volumes Down

Haulers experienced significant increases in residential trash and recycling volumes in nearly every state – sometimes up 40% from average amounts. Many operators cited an increase in spring cleaning as a contributing factor, in addition to people simply generating more of their waste at home. With reduced staffing and increased generation, municipal programs struggled to keep up. At the same time, haulers saw an unprecedented decline in commercially generated waste as businesses closed their doors.

Bottle Bill Programs Almost Universally Interrupted

open grey metal soda can

Nine out of the ten U.S. states with bottle deposit bills temporarily suspended their programs to some degree. Most announced periods of non-enforcement, which, combined with a general decrease in people spending time outside, effectively shuttered the programs. Even where programs remained open, grocery stores and drop-off facilities often stopped accepting containers for redemption, and many residents simply began storing bottles and cans at home.

The Result: Major Supply Chain Impacts

Lack of commercial and bottle deposit materials, coupled with the steep increase in residential volumes, caused major shifts in the recycling supply chain. Because commercial materials and deposit containers are typically less contaminated than residential materials, they comprise the primary feedstock for packaging remanufacturing in the U.S. For example, roughly 40% of recycled aluminum and 60% of cullet used to manufacture cans, bottles, and jars in the U.S. comes from deposit programs.

Meanwhile, residential materials tend to be shipped to end markets for durable goods, such as automotive manufacturing. During the height of state shut-downs, demand all but ended for durable goods manufacturing while packaging demand spiked with the increase in packaged food, beverage, and cleaning supply sales. To remain operational, packaging manufacturers began accepting curbside-collected materials as feedstock. For example, CarbonLite, a major bottle-to-bottle recycler that normally relies exclusively on PET recovered through the bottle deposit system for its California facility, reported obtaining 60% of its feedstock from residential curbside sources.

table2

The China Sword and the Pandemic Together Create Financial Woes

Long-term financial impacts of the coronavirus on U.S. recycling programs are uncertain. Municipalities were already facing increased recycling costs due to the lingering impacts of the China Sword policy. Now, these cost increases are exacerbated by potential rate adjustments due to spiking residential volumes and a continued decline in end markets for recycled materials, especially plastics. In a hopeful turn, however, municipal programs began to reopen around the country in late April, and have continued to reopen ever since.

Photos by Karolina Grabowska, Pexels.com


 

sydney_2020

Sydney Harris, PSI

COVID-19 has impacted the recycling industry and product stewardship community in many ways. While some entities are innovating to ensure environmental protection, others are abusing the situation to push single-use plastics.

PSI’s efforts to track the impacts on plastics use has gained the attention of Vice News, and we are also tracking impacts and new best practices for other products, such as electronics, HHW, and more. Share your experience — take our survey to help us better understand the impact of COVID-19 on U.S. product stewardship programs.

Waste Reduction Policies Facing Rollbacks Amid Global Pandemic

As the novel coronavirus continues to spread throughout the U.S., state and local governments are working tirelessly to respond and adapt. The primary concern for all of us in this trying time is the health and safety of our communities, especially the essential workers in health care, sanitation, retail, transportation and public safety who are putting themselves at risk to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

Unfortunately, state and local governments are facing increasing pressure to reverse, delay or otherwise roll back environmentally beneficial waste-reduction policies, such as fees or bans on plastic bags, in the name of public health.

The plastics industry in particular has argued that plastic bags are the most sanitary option for transporting food home from restaurants and grocery stores, and it has urged governments to act swiftly to lift restrictions on plastic bags and other single-use plastics. The industry has specifically called out reusable bags as unsanitary, although there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that properly sanitized reusable bags contribute to the transmission of COVID-19.

To date, neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nor the World Health Organization has issued guidance advising against the use of reusable bags.

PSI has created a digital tracker to record the changes taking place across the United States. Thus far, Connecticut has lifted statewide fees on plastic bags while Massachusetts and New Hampshire have banned reusable bags in grocery stores, pharmacies, and – in the case of New Hampshire – all retail stores.

Massachusetts has also banned local jurisdictions from charging fees on single-use plastic, paper and compostable bags. Maine has delayed its recently enacted single-use plastic bag ban and 5-cent fee on paper bags until 2021. Several local jurisdictions across the country are placing bag bans and other single-use plastics policies on hold, as well. On a corporate level, many major chains, including Starbucks and Dunkin’, have restricted customers from bringing in reusable items, such as coffee mugs.

Repercussions of sidelining reuse

While the protection of our communities and essential workers is paramount in the short term, we must also acknowledge that increased use and disposal of single-use items has long-term implications for the environment and human health at each step of the consumer-products value chain, from production through waste management.

In the case of plastics, for instance, oil and natural gas extraction and refinement for plastics production causes chronic and sometimes fatal respiratory conditions, cancers, neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental damage, and immune suppression in many thousands of people each year.

The everyday use of plastic products has been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption and other health problems for consumers. At their end-of-life, hundreds of thousands of tons of plastic products from the U.S. and other wealthier nations are shipped abroad to developing countries, where low-wage waste-pickers must sort through our rubbish to extract recyclable items. Much of this waste is openly burned, leading to further chronic health concerns. The conversion of petrochemicals into plastic products also has a tremendous carbon footprint.

While many suspensions on reusable items cite the quick disposal of single-use products as a boon to worker and consumer health, the resulting increase in waste adds to the challenges facing our already-strained collection system. The waste industry has braced for increased residential volumes since the start of the outbreak in the U.S. At the same time, the industry is dealing with a reduced workforce. As of April 9, at least 350 sanitation workers in New York City had tested positive for COVID-19.

Protecting communities from harmful chemicals and pollution has always been at the heart of local and state waste reduction policies such as bans or fees on plastic bags. While most of the rollbacks to these policies across the U.S. are temporary, it will be critical to ensure they do not lead to long-term policy reversals. The need for sustainable, sanitary reuse infrastructure to facilitate long-term waste reduction has become clear amid this crisis.

The role of EPR

Over the long term, product stewardship and extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws will help address many of the challenges with plastics and other single-use products in the U.S. by creating incentives for reuse, recycling and the production of materials with fewer environmental impacts, and by supporting infrastructure development for proper collection and recycling.

PSI’s recently released report, EPR for Packaging & Paper Products: Policies, Practices, & Performance, outlines problems faced by U.S. recycling programs and how EPR programs in four Canadian provinces have increased packaging recovery and recycling, reduced contamination and developed domestic markets for difficult-to-recycle materials.

As we look ahead to a post-COVID-19 future, PSI is hopeful that innovative product stewardship policies will provide avenues for reducing the production and consumption of single-use materials, increasing domestic reuse and recycling opportunities, and safeguarding public health and safety.

PSI will continue to track policy changes and advise members on responding to concerns about existing policies. If you have any updates on plastics or single-use policy changes stemming from the COVD-19 crisis, please add them to the tracker or contact Sydney Harris.

Sydney Harris is senior associate for policy and programs and Scott Cassel is CEO and founder of the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI). 

Supporting our Product Stewardship Community During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

PSI is reaching out at this trying time because you are part of our close community. First and foremost, we hope that everyone is safe and healthy. Whether we have known you for two decades or two months – please know that we are thinking of you. Our thoughts are especially with those in the areas most impacted in the U.S. and our friends in Europe, as well as our colleagues in public health and medical services who are combating this pandemic on the front lines.

The novel Coronavirus crisis demonstrates very clearly the importance of government in our society. We are proud to see so many state and local governments doing everything they can to safeguard public health and to see government and industry working cooperatively to find solutions.

This crisis also drives home the importance of reserving precious government resources for the most important services that government provides, including emergency and public health services. We fight every day for an equitable system where the true cost of products is borne by the producers and consumers of those products, not the most vulnerable among us.

Over the years PSI has developed a strong remote working infrastructure, so we are not missing a beat. Our team has been working from home since last week and we remain focused on supporting you in any way we can. So please, don’t hesitate to be in touch.

Warmly,

The PSI Team

Scott, Amanda, Kristin, Suna, Sydney, Josh, & Susan

In Response: The Conflict of Interest That Is Killing Recycling

The Product Stewardship Institute’s Scott Cassel and Megan Byers respond to the New York Times’ August 15th Opinion piece, The Conflict of Interest That Is Killing Recycling

scrap-metal-trash-landfill-smA crisis can be painful. It can also be an opportunity for much-needed change.

Recent trade restrictions by China have troubled many U.S. industries, as well as municipal recycling programs that rely on Chinese markets. Shrinking markets for recovered material have raised municipal recycling costs. As a result, some recycling programs have closed, while others have stockpiled or disposed of recyclables the public expects to be turned into new products.

The fluctuation of recycling markets is nothing new. But for 50 years, we have failed to recognize that recycling is stifled by an uneven playing field.

It is time to disrupt the current recycling economic model, which relies on taxpayers and municipal governments to pick up the cost of managing waste products and packaging from which companies reap the profits. To date, U.S. corporations have dodged their responsibility to manage their products after consumers use them.

On the surface, it is often cheaper to dispose of used products and packaging than to recycle them (though landfill tipping fees are rising). However, in doing so, we fail to account for the much costlier externalities. In reality, brand owners and consumers are not paying the full cost of production and consumption, which includes environmental and social damages such as the need to continually mine virgin resources for the manufacture of new products. Instead, we experience these costs in the form of water, air, and land pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change. The cost to clean the water, air, and land is much greater than that to prevent contamination in the first place.

Governments often establish recycling programs to reduce litter and waste to improve quality of life for their citizens. Unfortunately, communities are at a huge disadvantage compared to brand owners that benefit from the throw-away economy while paying none of the waste management costs. Furthermore, most waste management companies like things just the way they are now. The status quo allows them to protect their investments in disposal technologies, and they enjoy powerful contractual leverage against municipalities and individual residents.

The real recycling tragedy is not just that municipalities use different bins and labels. It is that every community collects different materials, educates their residents in different ways, and has separate contracts with garbage and recycling haulers that provide different services and incentives. This inefficiency and lack of municipal cohesion is the basis for the recycling and garbage disposal crisis in the U.S.

There is hope. Countries across the world require brand owners – such as Unilever, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, General Mills, Pepsi, Amazon, and Walmart – to fund and manage the recycling of materials they put on the market. These companies, which are the same ones fighting change in the U.S., hire a non-profit to operate a network of collection and processing facilities with lean government oversight. This network leverages existing infrastructure and provides options for municipalities. These “producer responsibility” systems collect the same set of materials in every jurisdiction. They provide the same educational materials and symbols, with appropriate regional nuance. They have the same instructions and standards for municipalities and other collectors to keep contamination low.

And they get results. British Columbia, for example, has achieved a 75 percent recovery rate for packaging and printed paper, as compared to the 55 percent average in the U.S. for the same materials. The Canadian province has also reached an enviable contamination rate of 6.5 percent, compared to an average of about 15 percent in the U.S. These systems are in place in Europe (for over 30 years), across Canada (for up to 15 years), and now in Israel, Japan, South Africa, and an increasing number of other countries.

Well-crafted extended producer responsibility frameworks also reward innovation, especially for companies that use less material, switch to readily-recyclable options, and incorporate a higher percentage of recycled content in packaging.

The time has come to bring producer responsibility for packaging to the United States. Consumer product companies and waste management companies have valid concerns about change. But municipalities and taxpayers can no longer bear the sole financial burden for a problem created by societal consumption and brand owners’ poor packaging choices.

If we listen to one another, we can solve this problem together. We must understand the problems created by waste, share common goals, collectively overcome barriers, and agree on the solutions available.

It takes will, but it is long past time to start.

Consumers Spoke and the Message is Clear: Phone Book Publishers Must Take Opt-Out Requests Seriously or Pursue Opt-In Instead

by Megan Byers

Old_Phonebooks_litterAbout a decade ago, at the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI)’s urging, the Local Search Association (which represents phone book publishers) created a website where residents can choose to halt phone book delivery.

In the past year, PSI documented more than 29,000 opt-outs generated through our Phone Book Opt-Out Toolkit, a trove of public outreach materials that makes promoting opt-out as easy as copy-and-paste for governments, environmental organizations, and concerned citizens.

We asked people to rate how easy or difficult it is to opt out on the industry-run opt-out website via an anonymous survey. 74 percent of respondents provided additional feedback to elaborate on their experience. Here’s what we learned:

  1. 69 percent of respondents found the opt-out website “very easy” or “easy” to use.
    PSI commends the industry for creating a website that is easy for many people to use.

 “The site was easy to use and the link easy to share so more people could reduce the number of unwanted phone books! Thanks.”

  1. But over a third of respondents thought the process was too long and confusing. Some even gave up.
    The website does not make it clear from the start that opting out is a multi-step process. Counter intuitively, you have to register to unregister from phone book distribution. Common criticisms include that the opt-out process is too time consuming, the website is not mobile friendly, and it is annoying to create an account. Some respondents said that it would be easier to opt in than opt out, and that it felt like the website was intentionally designed to make people feel uncomfortable and confused, thus preventing completed opt-outs.

“You asked for a lot of information and it was time consuming to have to wait for the email so I could complete the opt out.”

“I gave up because it was so complicated. At some point I needed a password to register.”

  1. One in five respondents who gave additional feedback were wary of giving up personal information like their name, email address, and phone number in addition to their address.
    The opt-out website promises that all information required is used only for verification purposes. Still, some survey respondents were skeptical.

 “I hate giving out my name, personal phone in order to opt out.”

  1. 40 percent of respondents who gave additional feedback reported that it didn’t work – they still got phone books after opting out.
    It is notable that PSI’s survey did not ask about opt-out outcomes (after all, we merely intended to capture feedback about the opt-out process). Nevertheless, many respondents wrote that phone book deliveries continued after opt-out.

 “I opted out – about 5 years ago – yet I continue to get phone books delivered to me (including another one this weekend)! After each incident, I’ve directly emailed my contacts at Local Search Association and reported the unwanted delivery. Each time, they’ve reached out to the specific publisher to “address the issue,” but despite this, I continue to get phone books. Very frustrating. It doesn’t appear to be working due to either publishers not providing their delivery people with opt-out lists or the delivery people just ignoring the lists if they are provided. So 4 years of unwanted deliveries (post-opt-out) and counting…”

PSI applauds the phone book industry for supporting an opt-out website that most people find easy to use. Now, we urge improvements that would make opting out easy, accessible, and comfortable for all. The feedback PSI has gathered is a good place to start.

We fully recognize that delivering directories to some buildings but not others has very real challenges and requires time, effort, investment, technology, and good communication with distributors. But if any other service failed to do what it promised almost half the time, it would quickly be replaced. If the industry’s opt-out system can’t actually honor half of the requests they receive, we must ask: isn’t there a better way?

It is time for the Local Search Association to implement an opt-in system. This way, those who want phone books could easily opt into delivery by signing up online, mailing in a slip, or calling the publisher. Those who don’t use phone books would avoid environmental and economic impacts while keeping their homes clutter-free. Furthermore, local businesses could more accurately assess how to best spend their advertising budget and target their phone book ads to the right audience. To sustain advertising revenue, publishers should expand and improve online offerings to make YellowPages.com the number one stop for consumers in need of local business information.

Phone books should be delivered only to consumers who request them – just like any other product.

Until an opt-in system is available, the best option to stop phone book delivery is to opt out. If you still receive a phone book despite opting out, we encourage you to call both the publisher and Neg Norton, President of the Local Search Association, which runs YellowPagesOptOut.com.

Look in your phone book for a publisher name and find them online, or browse our list of top publishers. Mr. Norton can be reached at (908) 286-2385 or Neg.Norton@localsearchassociation.org.

Questions? Contact PSI’s Megan Byers.

Help reduce paper use with one click

SHARE ON FACEBOOK | SHARE ON TWITTER | VISIT YOUTUBE

Unwanted phone books are not only a nuisance, but also a waste: the industry uses about 14 football fields’ worth of forest per day. They are also a burden on governments and taxpayers, who pay nearly $60 million annually to get rid of phone books.

It’s time to stop phone book delivery at the source.

Share our video with your networks to encourage others to opt out, and visit http://www.phonebookoptout.us/go to stop phone book delivery.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Eateries in Greenport, New York Reduce Plastic Marine Debris: A Story of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

by Megan Byers

Greenport, NY is a charming seaside village on the North Fork of Long Island.

A few weeks ago, my colleague Vivian Fuhrman and I traveled to the North Fork of Long Island to kick off the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI)’s Trash Free Waters project, a voluntary plastics source reduction initiative funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 and administered by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Through this initiative, PSI is partnering with four local eateries in Greenport, New York – Alices’ Fish Market, Bruce & Son, Lucharitos, and Tikal.1 – to help them voluntarily decrease the disposable plastic items (cups, straws, take-out containers, etc.) that end up on Long Island’s beaches.

When we arrived in the North Fork, gratitude and support for the project appeared from some unexpected sources.

Vivian and I first presented the project to the Southold Town Board – an opportunity made possible thanks to Southold’s Solid Waste Coordinator, Jim Bunchuck. Our goal was to lay the groundwork for developing a model municipal plan to reduce marine debris on a community level. During the discussion, the Board offered a creative idea: they suggested we create a “Trash Free Waters” emblem that the businesses can display in their windows or on their menus to market their marine debris reduction efforts.

Later that day, we met the participating businesses in the Greenport School for our kickoff meeting.  Thanks to the meeting location, teachers Stephanie Pawlik and Brady Wilkins were able to join us and eagerly volunteered to have their students design the “Trash Free Waters” emblem as part of an environmental unit in class. A local artist, Cindy Roe, later contacted PSI and offered to advise the students and judge the submissions. We are now finalizing a plan for the emblem and connecting these volunteers.

Within the following week , at least three local news sources (SoutholdLOCAL, Suffolk Times, and North Fork Patch) published articles about the project. Thanks to this press, the project received many positive comments on social media – in fact, several individuals even suggested their own ideas for reducing plastic pollution!

This sort of community collaboration is a key aspect of protecting our planet. The support we are finding in Greenport is a reminder that, no matter who you are, everyone has their own unique ability to stand up to protect our waterways.

Regardless of the product focus, multi-stakeholder collaboration is a key tenet of PSI’s approach to product stewardship and has been critical to our success. For instance, to address economic and environmental problems caused by leftover paint, PSI facilitated a national group of state and local governments, paint industry representatives, retailers, recyclers, non-profits, and others. After years of research and discussion, that national group created a model paint stewardship bill that now serves as the basis for nine paint stewardship laws passed in the U.S., resulting in 16 million gallons of paint being diverted from disposal, saving governments and taxpayers over $69 million, and creating over 200 jobs.

Marine debris is a visible problem in coastal communities like Greenport, and now a wide variety of stakeholders are ready to address it. PSI knows that this fortuitous synergy from multiple stakeholder groups will boost the participating eateries’ visibility, value, and connection to the community, and that their voluntary plastics reduction effort may serve as a starting point for community-wide action to reduce marine debris.

As a complement to PSI’s Marine Debris Reduction Toolkit for Colleges & Universities, PSI’s work with the Greenport eateries will culminate in a Marine Debris Reduction Toolkit for Eateries that will help businesses and municipalities across the country reduce their contribution to marine debris.

Megan Byers is the newest addition to the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) team. She focuses on packaging, tracking legislation, and communications work at PSI, and coordinates several state product stewardship councils. She’s leading PSI’s Trash Free Waters project.

 

Initiating the Conversation on Packaging EPR in the U.S. – the Levers for Change

As experts articulate the successes of their respective extended producer responsibility (EPR) packaging programs, it can start to sound like a “blend of science fiction, fantasy, and… a little magical realism” to some U.S. state and local government officials. What levers for change will compel stakeholders to pursue EPR for packaging in the United States?

Victor Bell (Environmental Packaging International) and Allen Langdon (Multi-Material British Columbia) point to the increasing costs local governments are facing within the current U.S. “blue box” system. As commodities markets continue to decline, recyclers are continually losing the revenue they once achieved from selling valuable recovered materials. On top of this, because oil prices are so low, it is cheaper to make plastics from virgin resources than from recovered resources – further decreasing the recycling revenue stream. Recyclers therefore need to cover their costs by increasing the service rates they charge local governments.

As these economic shifts become more pronounced, “the only way to deal with them,” says Langdon, “will be to put a new system in place to address those challenges.” British Columbia transitioned to an EPR system for packaging and printed paper in 2014 after experiencing similar economic shifts.

This 5-part video series kicks off a comprehensive set of resources PSI is developing on EPR for packaging. Keep on the lookout for webinars, fact sheets, videos, and more in 2016. 

Looking for more? Watch the first three videos in our series. You can also sign up for PSI’s upcoming webinar, “Examples of Change: Packaging EPR in Europe and Canada.”

2016.04.11-Packaging-Series-Photo-SML

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Local Governments are Key to Packaging EPR in the U.S.

As we come to further understand packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs worldwide – including those in Europe and Canada – it can be difficult to picture how the United States could alter its materials management system so drastically. While many stakeholders see the benefits of packaging EPR, including saving governments money, increasing efficiency, and improving recycling rates, the process of passing such a law can feel daunting. How can we gather enough support to introduce, let alone pass, such legislation?

According to Victor Bell from Environmental Packaging International, the best way to guarantee success in potentially passing an EPR bill for packaging at the state level is to drum up unified support at the city and county level. When local governments and the environmental community form a united front, the pressure will drive legislators to act.

While Allen Langdon from Multi-Material British Columbia acknowledges that the U.S. system of checks and balances can be difficult to navigate when trying to pass legislation, he’s also optimistic. “Now that [packaging EPR] is in North America,” he says, “it should be a game changer. The fact that EPR is working in North America … should send a signal that this is possible, and it gives you… an example or a model to work from.” British Columbia transitioned to an EPR program for packaging and printed paper in 2014; its previous system was very similar to the current U.S. system.

Interested in drumming up local support for a packaging EPR bill? Contact Waneta Trabert at (617) 236-4866.

This 5-part video series kicks off a comprehensive set of resources PSI is developing on EPR for packaging. Keep on the lookout for webinars, fact sheets, videos, and more in spring/summer 2016. 

Looking for more? Watch the first video in the series, featuring Steve Claus from FostPlus in Belgium, and the second video, featuring Allen Langdon from Multi-Material British Columbia. You can also sign up for for PSI’s upcoming webinar, “Examples of Change: Packaging EPR in Europe and Canada.”

2016.04.11-Packaging-Series-Photo-SML

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Why is EPR for packaging such a hot topic right now?

Allen Langdon is the Managing Director of Multi-Material British Columbia, the stewardship organization in charge of managing British Columbia’s packaging extended producer responsibility (EPR) program – a program that boasts an 80% recovery rate. In this video, Allen explains why EPR laws for packaging are emerging in countries all over the world, Canadian provinces included.

With numerous challenges facing the current recycling system in the U.S., EPR makes economic sense. In fact, the U.S. is the only Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nation that does not have EPR in place or in development. At the same time, there is global momentum for industries to focus on building a circular economy.

There are currently 92 EPR laws in the U.S. in 33 states on 12 different product categories – none of which pertain to packaging. EPR bills have been introduced this year for packaging and printed paper in Rhode Island and Indiana, as well as in Illinois (specifically for plastic bags). PSI is working to educate state and local governments on the benefits of EPR for packaging in the U.S. by communicating international successes and experiences.

As Allen states, packaging EPR truly is the “next step in the circular economy,” and can positively influence a product’s entire value chain from design to end-of-life.

This 5-part video series kicks off a comprehensive set of resources PSI is developing on EPR for packaging. Keep on the lookout for webinars, fact sheets, videos, and more in spring/summer 2016. 

Looking for more? Watch the first video in the series, featuring Steve Claus from FostPlus in Belgium, and sign up for our upcoming webinar, “Examples of Change: Packaging EPR in Europe and Canada.” 

2016.04.11-Packaging-Series-Photo-SML

Tagged , , , , , , , ,