A Word About Recycling
From the recent Resource Recycling newsletter, we find some good news at the top. “The Biden-Harris administration requested $11.2 billion for the U.S. EPA for 2022, and the agency proposes to slightly increase funding to the EPA’s Waste Minimization and Recycling Program.”
This request somewhat reverses years of declining EPA operating budgets. It is believed to be the largest top-line request in the history of the agency. This budget will focus on four primary areas. They are: 1) Tackling the Climate Crisis through Science; 2) Advancing Environmental Justice; 3) Supporting State, Tribal, and Local Partners; and 4) Expanding the Capacity of EPA. The request asks for
“… $10.2 million and 43.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Waste Minimization and Recycling Program.” This would be an increase from $10 million in 2021 and $9.1 million in 2020.
However, Congress must still debate and approve the fiscal year 2022 budget, which runs from Oct. 1, 2021, through Sept. 30, 2022. It comes when there is an increased focus on recycling.
As the request by the EPA states: “By investing in domestic recycling and solid waste infrastructure that builds a circular economy, a system of activities that enables resources to maintain their highest values and designs out waste while being restorative to the environment, the United States would be positioned to find more productive and sustainable ways to extract, use and manage materials.”
There are several tasks stated in the Waste Minimization and Recycling Program. Some of these are: 1) Data collection and reporting; 2) tracking progress toward goals; and 3) Providing national leadership on strengthening the U.S. recycling system.
Changing subjects a little, another article addressed a current effort called, “Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Much of this effort pertains to packaging materials used for products. It is aimed at having; “…producers (or first importers) of a good with the physical and financial responsibility for managing that material at end of life.”
The EPR has several objectives. However, a primary one is directed at increasing the amount of product recovery while simultaneously minimizing the environmental impact of waste. This idea has found, “Increasingly, a number of policymakers, producers and even the public have come to accept that EPR is an inevitability.” For many, it is a very welcomed change.
While the EPR is generally directed toward maximizing the recovery of products to move material back into the manufacturing pipeline, it is just one of the goals. This being that producer will design their packaging in such a way that it will be more recyclable given the existing infrastructure.
One of the ways of achieving this is by shifting end-of-life management costs onto producers. The drafters of the EPR believe that if producers are required to “foot the bill” of a recovery system, they have an increased incentive to reduce costs than they would in a model where others, such as municipalities, pay.
An additional problem is that because there has been an increased amount of lightweight packaging, as companies try to reduce their costs in this area, there remain few viable end markets for these materials. Thus, part of the EPR model is aimed at requiring producers to recycle their own packaging, encouraging them to develop new and innovative ways to use these materials.
Bet many of you didn’t realize all this is going on behind the scenes on the packing of things you buy. (I just wish many of these packaged things were easier for an old man, with now having clumsier and weaker hands, to open. Bet I’m not the only one.) With that, we will close for today. Wishing you all a wonderful and healthy week.
