Recent EPA statistics show that since 2007, plastic containers and packaging have represented about 31% of our Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). Earlier data from 2005 breaks down containers and packaging to account for plastic film itself. At 2.2% of total MSW by weight, plastic film represents about 6% of all packaging and 33% of plastic packaging. Given Americans generate almost 250 million tons of trash annually; we dispose of about 5.5 million tons of plastic film or 36 lbs. per person. And, when it comes to plastic film used for food, the film used by agriculture to produce our foods is “normally” not part of these statistics. I say , “normally”, because there may be some county or local government out there that includes agricultural plastic films in MSW reporting. Please visit: “MSW Definitions and the Recycling Rate” for a more thorough definition of MSW.

A study commissioned by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, revealed that as recently as 2003 it was estimated that 1.678 billion lbs. of plastic was used in agriculture- a 300% increase over the previous decade. An earlier study from 1994 estimated that plastic film represented about 29% of the entire plastic used by agriculture. Using this information along with our current population, there is at least an additional 1.6 lbs. of plastic film to be allocated per person due to food production. With around 38 lbs. of plastic film per person generated annually, recycling more plastic film both at home and on the farm are important environmental goals.

Since 1948, plastic has been used by the agricultural industry to grow crops and to raise farm animals. Today, plastic films (mostly comprised of low density polyethylene- LDPE) are widely used as mulches, sheeting, drip irrigation tapes, row covers and tunnels for the cultivation of strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, grapes and horticultural plants. To raise cows for the production of our dairy foods and meats, farmers depend upon plastic films for silage bags and hay bale wraps. While drip irrigation tapes are considered clean plastic because of the nature of their use, mulches, sheeting, and silage bags are termed, dirty plastics. Annually, thousands of acres of crops are covered with plastic sheeting and mulches. As tons of these plastics are removed from the fields, 60% of the tonnage itself can be dirt. Dirty plastic is not easy to recycle.

Despite the challenges of recycling agricultural plastic film, private sector companies are striving to develop a recycling infrastructure that will support the recycling or conversion of spent plastic film into plastic pellets that can be used to make “plastic lumber for hiking trails, decking, and framing materials for homes”. Offering pick up service for spent agricultural plastic film and locating conversion facilities nearby major agricultural areas can help to increase the recycling rate of these plastics. Recent survey results from the State of California (one of our nation’s strongest recycling states and its largest agricultural producing state) indicate that only about 36% of farms that use plastics actually recycle any plastic at all. With farms across the Midwest, South, and East Coast all relying on plastics too, we have a long way to go to keep these films out of our landfills.

Pressure to reduce the use of plastic films for the packaging and transport of foods and other consumer goods has challenged some scientific researchers to look for greener, more environmentally friendly films and wraps. Biodegradable, edible films and coatings made from “biopolymers and marine raw -material sources” (C. Cutter, Penn State University) are a reality and could soon be a prevalent packaging material in your supermarket.

Pullulan film, a biopolymer, polysaccharide (long chain sugar molecule) is “nearly as strong as plastic and is completely edible. Produced by the fungal organism, Aureobasidium pullulans, it is a colorless, tasteless film that is resistant to oil and largely impermeable to oxygen”. For a long time, edible films and coatings have been known to protect foods against deterioration. The Japanese company, Hayashibara, Co. Ltd., produced the first commercially available Pullulan in 1976. Later becoming, Tsujisaka & Mitshuashi in 1993, the company petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration for GRAS status of Pullulan in 2002. For those of you not familiar with US Food Law, GRAS stands for (Generally Regarded As Safe). Despite Pullulan’s ability to guard against food deterioration and its functional properties similar to those of synthetic films, Pullulan film as a packaging medium for food did not really take off until the environmental movement sparked researchers to develop biodegradable, eco-friendly packaging. To date, Pullulan film has shown much success in the preservation and packaging of fruits, vegetables, and deli meats. While Pullulan is a polysaccharide (sugar- based) product, it is scientifically plausible to select and combine proteins, lipids, and polysaccharides (or any mix thereof) to produce bio-films with specific mechanical, microbial, and chemical properties. However, combining these molecules is not as easy as one may think. So, as science marches on we are sure to see other novel bio-based packaging for our foods and other goods. By reducing our dependency on synthetic packaging materials, bio-based, bio-degradable packaging will keep packaging out of our landfills and even reduce the amount of packaging that needs to be recycled.

Today, synthetic plastic films are used on our farms, land on our tables, and end up in our landfills. One day bio-based plastic films may be used on our farms, land on our tables, and then biodegrade in our fields and compost bins. While to some the large scale usage of bio-based films may seem utopian, scientists around the world are hard at work to make this dream a reality. And, in the meantime, don’t forget to recycle your plastic films and wraps!

Happy recycling!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
RecyGal^© logo and the RecyGal character are registered trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References: “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008, United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-530-F-009-021, November 2009, “Plastic Film”, WasteAge, C. Miller, February 1, 2007, “Municipal Solid Waste Fact Sheet”, Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Pub. No. CSS04-15, September 2009, “Postconsumer Agricultural Plastic Report”, California Integrated Waste Management Board, California Environmental Protection Agency, S. Hurley, California Polytechnic State University, May 2008, p.5 -88, “Farm plastic piles up as local recycling options shrink”, www.vstar.com, A. Bruce, July 18, 2008, “Edible film can be used for wrapping products”, Digital Journal, B. Ewing, April 11, 2010, Edible Films and Coatings for Food Applications, M. Embuscvado, K.Huber, Springer Science and Business Media, LLC, 2009, p.67.

Since curbside collection of waste can either be sorted and recycled or carted off to landfills, governing municipalities and contracted private waste haulers greatly influence where our collected trash ends up. While recycling legislation and economic incentives help to steer waste disposable decisions to the recycling stream, lack of such provisions leave waste disposable options up solely to the local authorities. Often local decision makers must choose between two types of green: the “green” almighty dollar or the “green” recycle symbol. When market forces are not economically favorable for recycling, trash often goes to landfills.

According to an article recently published in MSW Management, when it comes to landfills, “solid waste quantities are down. Reports vary throughout the country … but reductions of 15%, 25% 30%, or greater are common”. For anyone who is passionate about reducing the use of landfills in our country, this is encouraging news. So, how have these reductions come about? Are we recycling more or simply generating less waste? EPA data for MSW through year 2008 shows that for the past decade MSW generation has been relatively flat and even on a slight decline. While nationally recycling reached a 33.2% rate in the year 2008; some recently published figures for various states may put that number now closer to 30%. No matter how you look at it, we still have a long way to go to substantially reduce landfill usage and increase the recycling rate.

Three public corporations: “Waste Management, Inc.” ,“Republic Services, Inc.” , “IESI-BFC Ltd.” control 75% of the MSW landfill capacity in the USA. With only 25% of landfills under the direction of municipalities, landfill management remains largely under pressure to make profits and keep Wall Street happy. With 1, 812 landfills in the continental US, 10 in Hawaii, and 300 in Alaska, there are a lot of facilities to run and maintain. Compare these numbers to the number of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFS). There are 545 in the continental US, 2 in Hawaii, and 1 in Alaska. Where does the emphasis seem to be? To date, landfills still hold the bulk of our waste.

Although landfills still rule when it comes to waste disposal, the above graph illustrates that landfill usage is on the downswing. In such a capital intensive industry, declining landfill demand translates into over capacity, idle equipment, lost jobs and lower profits. Now, that’s not good for any municipality or corporation. It’s not only the “Greening of America”, but the risk of future business loss that is spurring corporations like Waste Management, Inc. to invest in recycling. As more states enact “green” legislation the business of recycling will continue to strengthen. In my opinion, there is no reason why our national recycle rate must hover in the low 30% range. We need to aim much higher.

And, aiming higher is just what some regions of our country have done. But, how do we compare recycling rates between regions? Although no national standard exists, the EPA does issue recycling rate calculation guidelines. However, all recycling rates are not created equal. According to the EPA, discrepancies arise due to the following factors:

How a state defines recycling. (Some states allow communities with waste-to-energy facilities to additionally credit their recycling rates for these operations).

What is counted in the recycling rate. (Some states put limits on what can be counted while other states allow everything to be counted, e.g. automobiles and farm animal waste).

How MSW is defined. (Some states include bio-solids and industrial wastes).

What year is used to calculate the recycling rate. (Some jurisdictions calculate the recycling rate based on MSW generated during a specific “base year” rather than the current year).

How volume is converted to tons. (Conversion factors vary greatly).

Although recycle rate calculations are not perfect, overtime these rates do serve to benchmark our recycling efforts. Compiled below are recycling rates by region. These figures were generated using 2010 Census data and recently published state recycle rates (mostly 2009 and 2010). Sources for the recycling rates included state websites, publications, and recycling organizations. To have a benchmark to compare to, the recycling regions were defined exactly the same as in a report released by ,“BioCycle” ,“The State of Garbage in America”. The BioCycle report contains 2006 data.

For ease of reference, I have listed both the recently calculated recycling rates and the 2006 figures. The new RecyGal data uses only standard recycling materials in the rate calculations and excludes waste-to-energy credits. How a state calculates its recycle rate can make a substantial difference in the final number reported. For example, the State of Maryland publishes a recycle rate of 43.9%, but when adjusted for EPA guidelines, the rate is 36.2%. Personally, whenever I see a published recycle rate, I normally allow for plus or minus 5% of the stated value.

For the most part, the recycle rate differences between 2006 and 2010 are within 5%. Larger differences between the two reports are seen in the regions of New England and the West. When reviewing the data, it is important to know that in the year 2007 (after the BioCycle data was published), recycling rates fell sharply across the country due to the economic crisis and the loss in Asian demand for recyclable materials. Currently, our weak economy is still depressing some regional recycle markets. To keep things simple, when mentioning individual states, the “abbreviated” form is used.

In looking at the above table, the New England region has an overall recycling rate of 24%. While several states have rates exceeding 30%, NH, RI, and MA are 21%, 20%, and 18% respectively. Massachusetts is a good example of how waste-to-energy recycling credtis can greatly alter the overalll recycling rate. With waste-to-energy credits, the MA recycling rate is 27%; without these credits the recycling rate is 18%. The West region has the highest rate of all at 43%. All West states exceed 40% except for NV which comes in at 15%. For the continental states, the Rocky Mountain region has the lowest recycle rate at 9%. Alaska’s rate of 6% was extrapolated from information I received from Mary Fischer, Director of Alaskans for Litter Prevention (ALPAR). According to Mary, the city of Anchorage has a recycle rate of 17%. Since Anchorage has 37% of the Alaskan population and the only curbside recycling pick up in the state (started in 2008), I extrapolated Anchorage’s rate across the entire state. Obviously, this number is low because many towns in Alaska recycle using drop-off centers. A fairer value would probably be 10%. Recycle rates in the South are all under 20% except for VA (33%), SC (31%), and TN (26%).

Overall which states have the highest and lowest recycling rates?

Six states have recycling rates at 40% or higher. With only 12% of US states recycling at this level, others should look toward the best practices of these “high recyclers” for ideas and recycling strategies.

Five states sit at the bottom of the list. These states have not yet acheived a recycling rate of 5%. In the case of Mississippi, the state is not required to report a recycling rate so available information may not be currrent.

All in all, recycling is holding its own but has a long way to go. According to Recycling Works (a campaign advocating higher recycling rates) even today’s low recycle rate “conserves the equivalent of approximately 11.9 billion gallons of gasoline, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking one-fifth – or 40 million – of all U.S. cars off the roads every year. ” With landfill usage on the decline, it is now time to invest in recycling and to change our waste disposal habits. We need to reverse course and aim for a 70% recycle rate and 30% landfill use.

As always, I welcome any comments or input you may have about this report.

Happy Recycling!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
RecyGal^© logo and the RecyGal character are registered trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “What’s Next for Landfills?”, Gardner, R, MSW Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, Applied Research Foundation, solid Waste Association of North America, “The Regional Privately-Owned Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems”, February 2007, p. 11, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, November 2009, “Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: Are they compatible?” 2009 Update, E. Berenyi, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc, June 2009, http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf “Striving for Consistency: Standardizing Recycling Measurements”, H. Pillsbury, EPA, www.epa.gov, “Recycling Rates Rise in New Jersey but Still Don’t Meet Goal”, T. Bates, November 16, 2009, www.enviroguy.com, “Local Recycling Surviving after Market Collaspe”, C. Gaetano, Sentinel , December 23, 2008, “The State of Garbage in America”, P. Simmons, et.al., BioCycle, April 2006, Vol. 47, No.4, p.26, www.recyclingworkscampaign.org, http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/, http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/141734.html, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/greeningrhodeisland.doc, “Greening Rhode Island”, An Issues Paper by the Rhode Island Senate Policy Office, January 2008, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/greeningrhodeisland.doc, http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/, http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1412996105/Low-recycling-rates-strain-town-budgets, http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2010/03/14despite_environmentalists_pleas_massachusetts_recycling_rate_stalls/, “Beyond Dipsoal and Recycling: Preventing Waste Generation”, G. Crombie, Vermont College Chapel, Montpeiler, VT, April 12, 2007, http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/R3/conference/crombiesolidwastespeech.pdf, http://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/documents/081008.pdf, http://www/awm.delaware.gov/Pages/Recycling.aspx, http://www.americanobserver.net/2008/02/06/dc-recycling-fails-to-hit-its-mark/, http://www.green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/new-york-state-a-recycling-reprobate/,http://macredo.org/programs_md.php, http://www.state.wv.us/swmb/2009%20%State%20Plan/Appendix%201.pdf, http://www/environmentalistseveryday.org/docs/research-bulleting/Research-Bulletin-MSW-Recycling-10-05.pdf, http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_recycling/pdfs/report_state_of_recycling_2007_2008.pdf, “State of Recycling in Arkansas- 2007-2008″, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, January 2009, http://www.recyclingworkscampaign.org

In the past, the shrink wrap simply went to landfills. Today, thanks to boaters, marinas, and boatyards that care about the environment, hundreds of tons are now being reused and recycled.

Lake Marina with Shrink Wrapped Boats

This successful shrink wrap recycling program, initiated in 2006 in Ohio, expanded to nearby states in only its second year of operation. Today, Mondo Polymer Technologies collects used boat shrink wrap to recycle in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, and Delaware. Ron Wesel, Materials Acquisition Manager for MPT, says that since its 2007 expansion, 1,900,000 pounds of shrink wrap has been collected and recycled. With most boats requiring between 14 to 25 pounds of shrink wrap, MPT has recycled used shrink wrap from about 100,000 boats. That’s a lot of #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene) plastic being kept out of land-fills! To learn more about the MPT’s reclamation program and recycled products, please visit: Mondo Polymer Technologies.

But we are a big water country. With our coastal waterways existing far beyond the Midwest and Mid Atlantic regions, what do our fellow boaters in large water states like Florida, Texas, or California do with their used shrink wrap? Well, in these warmer climates where the boating season can be year round, boat shrink wrapping is not as prevalent as in colder climate states. However, everywhere there is boating; there is a need for shrink wrap. In these areas, companies who offer boat shrink wrapping services like Dr. Shrink, Inc. and Fast Wrap also offer shrink wrap recycling kits. Basically, these “rebag” kits consist of a plastic collection bag, recycling instructions, and a pre-paid mailing label so the used shrink wrap can be simply shipped back to the purveyor who then recycles it. Reclaimed shrink wrap from Dr. Shrink, Inc. and Fast Wrap can end up in a variety of products ranging from trash bags to composite lumber. Each kit holds enough shrink wrap to cover a 26 foot boat. With 95% of all leisure boats under 26 feet in length, these kits work for most boaters. To recycle the shrink wrap from a larger boat, more than one kit must be used. To find the nearest Dr. Shrink or Fast Wrap location or learn more about their “rebag” recycle kits, please visit their respective websites at: Dr. Shrink and Fast Wrap.

Where there is boating, there is fishing. Monofilament fishing line, commonly known as nylon fishing line, can cause severe damage to marine ecosystems by entangling and killing aquatic life. Fish, birds, and mammals can all suffer from life threatening injuries when they become entangled in the barely visible, thin plastic line as it floats within our waterways. Keeping this sinister polluter at bay is essential to ensure our marine environments remain safe harbors for wildlife.

Fishing Line Recycling Station

Where is the Recycling Bin?

All photographs and/or images received will be the property of Recycle Life, LLC and can at the company’s discretion be posted on the RecyGal.com blog. Please make sure you send your mailing address along with the photo. Please make your submission to:RecyGal

As always, thanks for reading my blog.

Happy boating, fishing, and photographing!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal logo^© and the RecyGal ^©character, are registered trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from, “It’s a wrap: Recycling program aids marinas”, Waste News, July 21, 2008, Recycling, www.fastwrapusa.com, “Pilot Project Will Recycle Shrink Wrap From Boats”, US Fed News Service, April 15, 2008. “Dr. Shrink sells the Rebag as the environmental answer to the question, “come spring, what do I do with the shrink wrap that’s been on my boat all winter?”, National Fisherman, January 1, 2008, “Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Department of Correction Partner to Offer Marinas, Boat Storage Facilities”, US Fed News Service, April 1, 2008.

Local mail box stuffers also contribute to our heaps of junk mail. Next time you receive a coupon from a local service in your area, let the owner know you would prefer to be notified of the discount by email.

Every little bit we can do to prevent junk mail will help keep our world “greener”. -R.G.

With almost half of these unsolicited mailings never opened, why are they so prolific? Because direct mail (commonly known as junk mail) is ingrained in the marketing psyche. Statistics from the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) reveal that “35% of all marketing budgets are allocated to direct mail”. The words “all marketing budgets” encompass marketing activities across all industries. Even though the average response rate to direct mail is only 2%, direct mail influences the purchase of an item or service more than any other marketing tool. Each year in the US, we cut down 100 million trees to make 100 billion direct mailings of which we get back 2 billion responses. That’s about 20 responses per tree. Frankly, I’d rather have a tree where 20 birds can perch!

With the greening of America, corporations, universities, and governments are striving to improve their environmental sustainability records. We see large corporations using wind and solar energy to power their factories, universities building green certified buildings and composting their cafeteria waste and governments promoting recycling. However, how are their green records when it comes to junk mail?

According to a recent report, “Green Marketing: What Works & What Doesn’t” – A Marketing Study of Practitioners”, 40% of over 370+ corporate respondents spent money to market “green messages” by direct mail. What were they thinking? These same companies that were taking steps to become more environmentally conscious- mostly through conserving energy in operations and improving products to “reflect greener values” forgot to think about the energy it takes not only to cut down a tree, produce paper, and print copy, but also to transport the “budding junk mail” all around during its creation. The paper and print streams needed to produce junk mail are just part of the journey. What about the petroleum used to create envelope windows and envelope glues? Oh, and, let’s not forget about the energy dedicated to deliver the direct mail to the intended recipients and then finally cart 60% of it off to landfills. These unasked for “green” solicitations were once trees that stood in forests and converted carbon dioxide into oxygen. Sadly, the majority of the trees harvested for the purpose of spreading “green messages” ended up buried in landfills.

But getting out the “green message” is only a small chapter of the business and direct mail story. With newspaper advertising waning and telemarketing calls more regulated, direct mail (once thought destined for obsolescence due to the internet) is holding its own. Pharmaceutical companies, commercial banks, and magazine publishers rely heavily on direct mail to help sell their products. The US pharmaceutical industry is expected to increase its annual expenditure on direct mail more than 7% annually through 2012. For an industry with sluggish US growth rates of 1% -2%, pharmaceutical marketers must think that direct mail will positively impact sales revenue. When it comes to banking, despite the recent financial meltdown, 4th quarter 2009 saw a 47% increase in direct mailings for credit card solicitations. Although credit card junk mail is on the rise, it is still 34% below pre-recession levels when annual mailings topped 7 billion pieces! In addition to virgin paper, bank direct mail often contains “mocked up” bogus credit cards which help to add additional plastic to the junk mail landfill mix. Looking at publishing, the downturn in readership levels has caused many publishers to lower their direct mail budgets. Once representing 26% of all advertising dollars, direct mail now represents about 19%. To make the most use of direct mailings, the publishing industry is specifically targeting its direct mail recipients. So, unless your name appears on a list which the publisher considers to be its core audience, you may not be receiving as much magazine junk mail. However, those of us unlucky enough to receive junk mail from publishers may find our junk mail supplemented with unsolicited, pre-shipped offerings like DVD movies or other gadgets. While there is always the option to return the offering free of charge, what about the waste of energy shipping it back and forth? Enough is enough.

When it comes to junk mail, business is not alone. Higher educational institutions have known for decades that direct mail is vital for recruitment. As far back as the mid-1980’s, US colleges and universities allocated between 24% – 32% of their marketing budgets on direct mail. Although most of these budgets were used for student recruitment, the education industry knew that a next step for direct mail could be for the solicitation of alumni donations.

A study commissioned by Pitney Bowes and published in 2008, surveyed 1,100 U.S. college graduates and post-graduate school respondents about their preferences for receiving information from the school they attended. 57% of respondents preferred print mail to receive correspondence, news and other communication from their school. 54% of alumni had a strong preference for direct mail and 27% were less likely to discard or ignore direct mail from their alma mater. I guess that means that there may be up to 73% of highly personalized alumni mailings that will be ignored or discarded. (A sizeable percentage of waste). Although the study gives no mention of response rate per mailing, if the rates for highly targeted direct mail campaigns are similar across industries, the effective response rate can be as high as 32%. Albeit, the response rate probably hovers between 5%- 8%. If the amount of direct mail that both my husband and I receive from our alma maters is representative of institutions of higher education, you can bet that colleges and universities are large purveyors of junk mail.

Junk mail is also an important volume contributor to US Postal Service operations. Yet, even these 100 billion mailings aren’t enough to keep this government service running in the black. Last year the post office lost $US 3.8 billion dollars. With more people paying bills on line and sending emails rather than letters, the post office depends more and more on direct mail to keep its operations running. First class mailings which represent over 50% of postal revenue are on decline and projected to represent only 35% by the end of this decade. To give you an idea of how junk mail affects revenue, a first class letter is 44 cents to send, while direct mail can be sent for a low as 14 cents. Not a good business trend!

Polls taken over the past two decades indicate that Americans really do not like junk mail. While supporters of this polluter state that junk mail only represents 2% of annual municipal solid waste, this 2% is about 26.4 lbs per person or 8 billion lbs. of single use paper that is either incinerated or land filled. With direct mail recycle rates hovering around 36% -39%, there is opportunity to improve the recycling of junk mail. How about even making direct mail out of recycled paper? Yet, if most American’s don’t like junk mail, why are we still receiving it?

According to an article in the “Huffington Post “ several states across the nation have attempted to introduce “Do Not Mail Bills” only to be defeated by strong lobbyists who convince our government that Americans “should not be allowed to opt out of something we don’t like and don’t want”. Basically, we don’t have the right to determine what ends up in our mail boxes. With over $31 billion spent on direct mail marketing each year, this is not an industry that is going to go away soon.

When it comes to junk mail, we are paying for something we don’t want to buy. Our nation spends billions of dollars annually to cart and handle unsolicited mail. We cut down our trees and waste energy to create mailings that are never opened or read. The mail just keeps coming and our trash just keeps growing.

Since the bulk of unsolicited mail comes from mailing lists, there are ways to help lower the quantity of junk mail which finds its way into our lives. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, if you want to be taken off as many lists as possible, register on-line with the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) Mail Preference Service (MPS). You must re-register every 3 years.

To register visit: “DMA Choice”. I’ve already registered. Make your mail box “greener” by registering too. Find more useful information on how to stop junk mail and telemarketing solicitations in this book:

Happy Un-mailing!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “What is direct mail?”, Direct Mail Advisory Board, “The Environmental Impact of Mail: A Baseline”, Pitney Bowes Inc., June 2008, “Environment: Turning Junk Mail into Art”, Inter Press Service English News Wire, October 5, 2009, “Direct Marketing 2009 Response Rates”, printinthemix.cias.edu, “Green Messaging: A Survey of Marketers”, printinthemix.cias.rit.edu, “DMA study predicts healthy growth”, Medical Marketing and Media, www.findarticles .com, Comer, Ben, June 2008, “IMS Health Forecasts- 4.5 -5.5 Percent Growth for Global Pharmaceutical Market in 2009, Exceeding $820 Billion”, www.imshealth.com, Gatyas, Gary, Savage, Clive, October 28, 2008, “Credit Card Direct Mail, Mail Back on the Rise”, Business Wire, January 28, 2010, “Direct mail: still a reliable source for consumer marketers: the use of direct mail by magazines may have declined in the last 20 years, and volume is under constant scrutiny for significant cuts, but the format remains at the heart of the source mix”, Audience Development, Johnson-Greene, Chandra, March 1, 2009, “Direct Mail Marketing in Higher Education”, Journal of Direct Marketing, Volume 1, Issue 2, Burdenski, Helen and Shanklin, William, Spring 1987, ”U.S. Postal Service Considers eliminating Saturday delivery”, The Tampa Tribune, Morelli, Keith, March 2, 2010, “Subsidizing Junk Mail in the Great Recession”, www.huffingtonpost.com, Forest Ethics, Paglia, Todd, January 29, 2010, “DMAB Business Plan 2009-2012”, Universal Postal Union, Berne, Switzerland, www.upu.int/ , “How Your Business Can Best Use Direct Mail Advertising and Marketing in Miami, Fl”, www.truthtopowermedia.com, December 29, 2009, ”Fact Sheet 4: Junk Mail: How Did They All Get My Address?”, Privacy Rights Clearing House, www.privacyrights.org, October 2008.

With coffee bars and fast food restaurants dispensing hundreds of thousands of these cups by the second, it is no wonder it seems so natural for us to use them. The American “on the go” lifestyle supported by takeout counters and drive up windows provides little incentive for us to bring a commuter mug along and pay for a fill up. It’s just more convenient to grab a brand new, disposable cup. As quickly as we feed our hunger for caffeine or quench our thirst for effervescence, disposable cups enable us to throw out the evidence! No washing required, just toss! What happened to recycling?

Where hot and cold beverages meet paper and plastic cups, recycling is not as straightforward as you may think. Composite materials and lack of established collection and reclamation processes make the recycling of this growing environmental concern challenging. Annually, over 220 billion disposable paper cups are used worldwide; that’s thirty-two paper cups for every person on the planet! While I don’t have actual worldwide usage figures for hard plastic cups and expanded foam plastic cups, you can imagine the numbers are big. And, let’s not forget the disposable lids, straws, and sleeves which come along with many of these cups.

All accoutrements aside, it was the disposable paper cup that started the throw away cup craze. Developed in the early twentieth century, paper cup usage grew as concern for sanitary drinking water at railway stations became a public health concern. Once a sidekick of the water fountain, today’s paper cup is used for both hot and cold beverages. To meet the demands of liquid portability, the simple paper cup is not just made out of paper; the paper is coated with polyethylene plastic (PE) to make it waterproof. Disposable paper cups are made of about 95% high quality paper fiber and 5% PE coating. Although the paper fiber is recyclable, contamination caused by food and drinks can limit the recyclability of the paper and the small amount of plastic which coats the paper deters most paper mills from accepting PE- coated cups for recycling. Depending on the physical properties required of the cup, the PE coating is often a mixture of both low density polyethylene (LPDE#4 ) and high density polyethylene (HDPE #2) and can even contain polypropylene (PP #5), polyethylene terephthalate (PET #1), polystyrene (PS #6) or nylon.

For many paper mills, plastics (even the smallest amounts) can wreak havoc with paper reclamation equipment and contaminate downstream processes. For those few paper mills willing to take on the challenge, a consistent supply of used cups is often nowhere to be found. According to a press release issued in the UK, for a paper mill to begin recycling paper cups, at least 10 tons of used paper cups are needed monthly. If a cup weighs about 5 grams, that’s almost 2 million cups a month. For disposable cup recycling to become a reality, the used cups need to be collected systematically in bulk. Since consumers often take their beverages with them when they leave the coffee bar or fast food chain, disposable cups end up everywhere but in proper collection systems. Even if consumers end up taking the paper cups home, the cups most likely end up in landfills since most municipalities do not recycle paper cups. Portability does not support recyclability!

Because coffee bars like Starbucks are large users of disposable paper cups (Starbucks purchased 2.7 billion paper cups in 2008) the company looks seriously at how it can reduce the impact of its paper cup usage on the environment. By promoting the use of reusable ceramic mugs or glasses for in-store beverage users and commuter cups for the take out crowd, Starbucks can help to break the disposable cup habit and meaningfully reduce disposable cup usage. Additionally, use of recycled paper fiber in the paper cups can help to reduce the impact paper cups have on our forests. In 2006, Starbucks launched a 10% post consumer fiber (PCF) paper cup in the US and Canada. While these cups are still not recycled, Starbucks’ move to the PCF cup has saved 300,000 trees.

In the search for a “greener” disposable cup, International Paper has developed the “Ecotainer” a 100% biodegradable paper cup made from trees grown under the sustainable forest initiative and coated with the corn-derived plastic, polylactic acid (PLA) . Used cups no longer become trash, they now become compost! Maybe. A PLA-coated cup won’t degrade in your backyard compost bin or in the trash; it needs the very controlled decomposition environment of a commercial or municipal compost facility. PLA begins as a corn kernel that is milled and separated into starch and the simple sugar, dextrose. The dextrose is then fermented into lactic acid and converted to the lactide polymer, polylactic acid (a bio-plastic that requires 65% less energy to be produced and generates 68% fewer greenhouse gases than conventional plastics). Sounds pretty good, but PLA applications are limited by the low melting point of this bio-plastic, 114 degrees Fahrenheit. Given the water temperatures for brewing most coffees reaches 190 – 200 degrees Fahrenheit and coffee normally hits the cup at least 120 degrees, the PLA-coating does not appear to be able to withstand direct contact with such hot beverages. For the Ecotainer to hold up against temperature, the paper must somehow insulate the PLA from the heat; perhaps the PLA coating is only on the outside of the cup? The company is marketing the Ecotainer for use with both hot and cold beverages, so it must have the science figured out. But, will the Ecotainer really keep paper cups out of the trash? Not really. As mentioned earlier, unless the cup finds its way into a controlled compost facility; it will pollute just as well as any other non-degradable cup. And just like PE-coated cups, it is not a wanted recyclable by the paper industry. For institutions like universities that manage both in-house food service operations and controlled composting facilities, replacing PE-coated paper cups with PLA-coated cups works well to reduce landfill costs and help keep campuses green. The key to the future success of PLA- coated paper cups is highly dependent on the development of and access to managed compost facilities.

So, what about disposable plastic cups? These plastic cups come in two varieties: foam plastic and hard plastic. Foam cups are made of expanded polystyrene (EPS) – polystyrene (PS#6) that has been expanded by a blowing agent such as carbon dioxide or pentane. Supporters of foam cups argue that the cup is 95% air and only 5% plastic resulting in less plastic to be disposed of than found in hard plastic cups. Hard plastic cups are made mostly from PET (#1), PS (#6), and PP (#5). While both foam and hard plastic cups are recyclable, lack of sufficient collection and reclamation systems results in both types of cups going to landfills.

As the recycling industry evolves, heavy cup users like Starbucks are turning away from plastics with low recyclability prospects to plastics that are more readily recyclable. Formerly, Starbucks served its cold drinks in PET (#1) cups. Not a bad idea since the PET (#1) bottle is the most recycled consumer plastic in North America. Unfortunately, the reclamation process to recycle bottles does not accommodate the recycling of other items made from PET (#1), so even though the plastic itself is recyclable, the cups have nowhere to go but to landfills. With more communities and municipalities offering recycling of PP (#5), Starbucks has switched from PET (#1) cups to PP (#5). The beauty of PP(#5) recycling is that it is building up around the recycling of everything made out of the PP(#5) plastic, not just one specific item as in the case of PET(#1) bottle. Also, by making some of its PP (#5) cups lighter, Starbucks is reducing the amount of plastic resin used and saving 650 tons or resin annually. Every little bit helps.

Hard PS (#6) is also a staple in the cup world. Not only are beverages served it PS (#6) cups, but yogurts and many other dairy items come packaged in this plastic too. Efforts by the organization, Preserve Gimme 5, have helped to raise PS (#6) recycling awareness and offer more convenient recycling opportunities for the plastic. The organization is creating a true closed loop system for post consumer PS (#6) plastic used by the dairy industry. For more information, see one of my previous blogs (scroll to paragraph 10 ) which mentions “Preserve Gimme 5″.

To lessen the environmental impact that disposable cups have on society, everyone must be willing to take steps to reduce the use of disposable cups. Next time you are going to visit your favorite deli or coffee bar, bring along your own cup and ask the barista to fill it up. If the barista gives you push back, politely let management know that as a customer it is important to you that the company supports reusable cups. Phone your municipality or check its website to see which types of plastic are accepted for recycling. If your favorite fast food or take out restaurant gives you PS (#6) or PP (#5) cups and your municipality accepts them for recycling, make sure they make it into the recycling bin. And, when it comes to paper, a truly recyclable cup is on the horizon. “Starbucks” hopes to launch one by 2012. However, it will take the commitment of municipalities to collect these used paper cups and the acceptance of paper mills to recycle them. Everyone can have a positive impact for more responsible disposable cup use. Happy sipping!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: www.epa.gov, “Innovation, Biodegradeable Coffee Cups!”, Justin, July 3, 2007, www.metefficient.com, “Starbucks Pilots Coffee Cup Recycling Program”, Hasler, Lauren, September 18, 2009, earth911.com, US Patent 6129653-Heat Insulating Paper Cups, Fredericks, Richard E., et al., October 10, 2000, Press Release- The Cup Recovery and Recycling Group, “Recycling of Paper Cups”, November 24, 2008, www.thepapercupcompany.co.uk, “Dixie Cup Company History”, Lafayette College Libraries, August 1995, www.lafayette.edu/~library/special/dixie/company.html, www.starbucks.com, Environmental Stewardship, Paper Cups, “Corn Plastic to the Rescue”, Smithsonian Magazine, Royte, Elizabeth, August 2006, www.sacomaine.com, www.motherjones.com, “Industrial Strength Solution, Makower, Joel, May 2009.

Because municipal recycling infrastructure has evolved around the collection of plastic bottles, most cities and towns only accept PET (#1) and HDPE (#2) plastics for curbside collection. (Most plastic storage bags are made from LDPE (#4) and even sometimes from PP (#5)). For more information on these plastics, please visit: http://www.www.earthodyssey.com/symbols.html While municipal recycling centers can accommodate the reclamation of bin liners used to transport curbside plastics, most downstream separation processes (used after collection bag contents are emptied) are not designed to handle the separation of plastic bags, films, and wraps. Without the convenience of curbside pickup, the final resting place of many (if not most) of our zipper-type storage bags is the dreaded landfill.

With the zipper-type or “slider” bag the consumer-preferred choice for plastic bags, the use of these bags is growing. Once a product offered only under the best brand-names, this convenient, sealable storage solution is now a mainstay item of private label brands too. So, what can we do to keep these bags out of our landfills?

The answer rests with the story behind the recycling of retail plastic shopping bags. With many city and state governments enacting laws that demand retailers to offer recycling services for plastic shopping bags which are made from HDPE #2 (http://www.recygal.com/2009/09/03disposable-plastic-bags-a-shopper%e2%80%99s-dream-or-nightmare-2/#more-90), the door is opening for households to have convenient recycling drop-off locations for all plastic bags. According to the American Chemistry Association, wherever plastic shopping bags (HDPE #2) are collected for recycling, cleaned, sealable food storage bags (if the hard components are removed), bread bags, dry cleaning bags, and even plastic wraps can be recycled too. The same infrastructure set up to handle HDPE #2 bags handles LDPE #4 bags (as long as any zippers are removed).

Why the zippers cannot be recycled remains a mystery; most zippers are made of LDPE (#4) plastic. Because the zippers may contain colorants and proprietary sealants, perhaps they are considered contaminants. However, the LDPE recycling industry is adept at stripping dyes and other impurities from LDPE plastic. So, who knows? Does anyone have an answer for this? I surmise it may be because HDPE zippers are not collected in large enough quantities to make recycling economically feasible.

If you are going to use zipper- type plastic storage bags more commonly known as, “Ziploc” bags, please remember to cut off the zippers before you recycle them. Try and collect your zipper-less used bags in bulk (preferably in a used plastic shopping bag) so you can conveniently drop “the bag of bags” into your retailer’s recycling station. To be even more environmentally conscious, try and use non-zippered bags when possible. You’ll be helping to keep LDPE plastic out of our landfills. If you need to have a sealed pouch bag, plastic bag heat sealers eliminate the need for zippers and are available at most big box stores. For real eco-purists, you can always find storage solutions that are non-plastic. Glass storage containers keep food. Post consumer recycled cardboard boxes store non-perishable items. A New Zealand company, Kizan Ltd., even offers a reusable plastic bag sealer, the “Magic Lock Reusable Bag Sealer”. Please view the video below. I have ordered the product and will test it out. I’ll be letting you know if it works as well as seen in the video. Happy bagging!

Magic Lock Reusable Bag Sealer

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “Zippers and Sliders: An Open and Shut Case for Packagers: New Zipper Materials and Designs Improve Seal Integrity and expand Use into Retort Applications, While Sliders Take On Transverse Technology”, “Food & Drug Packaging”, September 2004, D. Sokol, www.earthodyssey.com, www.manufacturingtalk.com, “Low-Price Slider For LPDE Bags”, May, 11, 2005, “What You Should Know About Plastic Bags”, www.plasticbagfacts.org

With about 180 million individual cards to be exchanged (excluding packaged children’s cards), this holiday is heavy on paper cardstock. Despite the tons of paper used for this holiday, Valentine’s Day represents only about 12.5% of the 7 billion U.S. greeting cards sold annually. With Hallmark and American Greetings controlling over 80% of the market, anything these companies do to make greeting cards more eco-friendly does have immediate “green impact”. Thankfully, both companies do offer cards with recycled content. With about 30% of all greeting cards containing some recycled content, over 1 million trees are saved annually. Marketing cards made from 100% recycled paper, American Greeting’s Recycled Paper Greetings www.recycledpapergreetings.com is the “green card” leader. Buy a greeting card with recycled content and you will not only be saying to your Valentine, “How do I love thee?” , you will be letting these corporate purveyors of messages hear, “Let me count the trees”.

Saving our trees by using recycled paper to produce greeting cards must be supported by recycling the cards that are gifted. Greeting cards can be recycled wherever “mixed paper” is accepted. Since most municipalities accept “mixed paper”, please remember to recycle all your cards that are not personal keepsakes. If your municipality or hauler does not accept “mixed paper”, you have until February 28th to send your Valentine’s Day cards to St. Jude’s Ranch for Children. For 34 years, St. Jude’s has accepted used greeting card fronts and works with children to trim the cards and glue them onto pre-printed card backs. These refurbished cards are then packaged and sold by the charity. According to their website, “The benefits are two-fold; customers receive “green” holiday cards for use and the children receive payment for their work and learn the benefits and importance of “going green”. It is St. Jude’s commitment to “break the vicious welfare cycle and to teach the children to learn to earn”, they pay each child fifteen cents for each card made. While the program does not specifically create cards purposed for Valentine’s Day, this 34 year old program will use “anything…that starts with a used greeting card front. For a small postage fee you will be supporting a charity that has helped millions of children. To learn more about this greeting card recycling program, please visit their website at: www.stjudesranch.org

A favorite among Valentine’s Day gifts is the heart-shaped box filled with chocolates. Chocolates presented in individual wrappings, placed inside a cardboard carton which is then wrapped in cellophane just seem to make for a beautiful presentation! Today, even our favorite candy bar brands are specially wrapped to bring in the holiday. And, a chocolate lover’s holiday it is. In 2009, 58 million pounds of chocolate sold for Valentine’s Day. Wrap, wrap, and wrap! Who’s counting? I don’t deny that wrapping serves not only as candy “fashion”, but also enables mechanized production and helps to maintain product freshness, but when is the wrapping too much? When the wrapping does not incorporate any recycled content and is itself not recyclable- that’s overwrapped chocolate! Since most candy wrappers are wax-coated or made of layered adhered materials (paper, foil, and plastic) they are not recyclable. Plastic-coated, color inked-paper laminates may grab our attention for a few seconds at retail, but ultimately these super packaged eye-catchers end up sitting in our landfills for hundreds of years. A quote from, A Century of Candy Bars, by David Grager, is definitely some food for thought, “The simple sheet of paper used to protect our favorite candy bar, an item we rarely think about or consciously notice, one that we immediately throw into the trash, may tell us more about ourselves than we realize”. Not so sweet a thought?! Help may be on the way. Some emerging technologies may one day make wrapper recycling a reality. Material reclamation technology being developed by Polyflow Corp www.plyflow.uuuq.com and plasma technology used for aseptic brick recycling may one day be used to recycle candy wrappers. (To read more about recycling aseptic packages visit: www.www.recygal.com/2010/01/19/tetra-pak%c2%ae-building-a-foundation-for-carton-recycling-with-aseptic-bricks/#more-1453).

Despite the current lack of wrapper recycling, there is no reason why candy cartons and elements of candy wrappers cannot be made with recycled content. The food grade recycled cartons and papers available to candy producers are not widely used. Surprisingly, even many organic chocolate manufacturers do not place emphasis on the eco-friendliness of their packaging. Shameful! Since packaging is fashion and the confectionery industry follows trends, the current greening of America should eventually gain momentum in the candy arena too. In the meantime, at least recycle your candy cartons. Every carton we keep out of a landfill helps to save trees. And, of course, you can always support companies like TerraCycle® who make wonderful items out of reclaimed materials like candy wrappers. Visit www.terracycle.net to learn more about their efforts and how you can participate.

The No.1 gift associated with Valentine’s Day is a bouquet of roses. This year, over 100 million roses will be sold for the holiday. With growing, packaging and shipping all taking tolls on the environment you may want to consider sending an organically grown bouquet. An online purveyor of organic flowers, Organic Bouquet, offers flowers grown to meet certified guidelines for sustainable crop production, ecosystem protection, fair labor practices, community benefits, and product quality. All orders are packaged using recycled and recyclable materials. To atone for the carbon footprint generated by shipping, the carbon emissions from each shipment are “offset by rolling funds into the Nicaragua Restoration Project”. Over a forty year period, this project will sequester more than 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide by reforesting over 850 acres of abandoned pastures with native trees. Check out www.organicbouquet.com for your floral needs.

As Valentine’s Day fast approaches and soon leaves us for another year, let’s try and keep all our holiday traditions as green and as renewable as possible. Please submit any suggestions you may have to keep our gifting greener; we can all learn from each other. Happy Valentine’s Day!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: www.recycledgreetingcards.com, “Environmental Info”, USAID, Expro El Salvador, Program for Export Promotion, for the Micro, Small, and Mid-Size Businesses, San Salvador 7, July 7, 2005, www.grinningplanet.com , “Congratulations!..On Overpaying for the Greeting Card”, February 8, 2005, www.emotioncards.com, “The History of Greeting Cards”, www.poemhunter.com, “How Do I Love Thee”, Elizabeth Barret Browning, www.slashfood.com , “Why we Give Candy on Valentine’s Day, H. Raskin, February 4, 2010, www.earth911.com, “Recycling Mysteries: Candy Wrappers”, B. Hammad, May 18, 2009, www.www.underconsideration.com, “A Century of Candy Bars- An Analysis of Wrapper Design”, David Crager, The Gazette, “Valentine’s roses bloom by the millions”, D. Wilson, February 11, 2000, PR Newswire, “Organic Roses on Valentines Say ‘ I love you and the earth too!’”, January 25, 2005, www.organicbouquet.com

The name Tetra Pak® has become synonymous with the aseptic brick package (an innovative packaging process that allows liquid food stuffs to remain shelf stable without preservatives or refrigeration). Since the early 1950s, Tetra Pak®, a Swedish company, has been packaging liquid milk in aseptic cartons. Today, with operations in over 165 countries, its cartons are used for juices, wines, soups, and sauces too. To learn more about Tetra Pak® visit: www.tetrapak.com

Comprised of 6 layers of materials, the Tetra Pak® aseptic brick allows for light weight, efficient, non-refrigerated shipment and storage of liquid foods.

To have a close look at a Tetra Pak® carton for yourself, just visit your grocer’s child-size juice section. In the USA, many “on the go” parents depend on Tetra Pak® packaged juices to keep their toddlers happy and well hydrated. So, what about milk?

By the time Tetra Pak® got its start, the USA was already developing wide spread refrigerated distribution. Remember the milkman? While the milkman serviced regional dairies and local communities, the advent of superhighways enabled trucking companies to expand distribution across the country. As trucking companies expanded so too did the distribution of refrigerated food stuffs; Americans everywhere were enjoying fresh milk.

In our fresh milk market, the Tetra Pak® concept has not fared so well; utilizing a process coined “UHT” (ultra high temperature) the milk is heated for a shorter time and at a higher temperature than the process used to produce fresh milk (pasteurization). The UHT milk (now free of all bacteria) is filled into a sterile carton (brick) creating a shelf stable, long life product. Given the higher temperature of processing required for UHT, the inherent milk sugars caramelize and give the UHT milk a bit of a “cooked” flavor rather than the familiar “fresh” taste Americans prefer. This difference in milk flavor has kept Tetra Pak® from establishing a large share of the USA liquid milk market. For beverages where UHT processing does not adversely affect flavor such as chocolate milk and juices, the aseptic brick has found better consumer acceptance.

Given that worldwide two thirds of all Tetra Pak® bricks are used for packaging milk, if a market does not have a large share of its milk packaged in aseptic bricks, it is conceivable the market development for this type of packaging will be marginal. With the average American consuming 13.5 gallons of non-flavored milk per year (equivalent to over 16 billion 32oz Tetra Paks® of milk) that is a market you do not want to be a marginal player in! However, it seems that Tetra Pak® only has a marginal share of the huge, non-flavored milk market and so concentrates in the niche for flavored milks, juices, and soup bases. So, how does Tetra Pak’s® niche position affect the recycling for aseptic bricks in the USA?

In order to develop a sound recycling system for any material, there must be a sizable volume of material to reclaim. Without a steady supply of reclaimed material, efficient processing and market development for the recyclable cannot come to fruition. Because the aseptic brick is a multilayer package of several materials, it takes ingenuity and special techniques to separate the various components and to reclaim them. In markets like the USA where Tetra Pak® use is less main- stream, emphasis on developing reclamation techniques and an infrastructure to support them is not top priority. Here in the USA, many eco-conscious consumers still think the recycling process for aseptic brick packaging is either not possible or “very expensive and awkward, and is therefore only available in a very few places”. So, what happens to the cartons when junior has finished his apple juice? Sadly, in the USA many of these cartons do not get recycled. However, in established European markets, like Germany, aseptic bricks have recycle rates greater than 65%. And, in developing markets where Tetra Pak® technology has gained a foothold due to lack of refrigerated distribution, recycling advances have grown right alongside milk sales. Recycling Tetra Pak® does not have to be “expensive and awkward “, it just needs to be done with a common sense approach that fits the particular market.

Because the aseptic brick is composed of about 75% long fiber paper, 20% low density polyethylene, and 5% aluminum, the paper market is the most developed downstream use for reclaimed aseptic bricks. The paper fibers are recovered at paper mills and make “excellent raw material for the corrugated paperboard sector”. The process to separate the paper from other materials in the brick is called hydrapulping. Basically, hydrapulping uses water and industrial strength blenders to separate the paper from the polyethylene and aluminum layers. The paper is recovered, leaving the polyethylene and aluminum as a residual.

Depending on the particular recycling market, the polyethylene and aluminum residual can be repurposed in a variety of ways. In Germany, the residual is used by the cement industry for energy recovery and bauxite replacement whereas Brazil uses it to make products like roofing materials, buckets, and brooms.

To see how Tetra Paks® are recycled in a developing nation like India, please watch this video from Mumbai:

If a complete separation of materials is required, a novel process called thermal plasma technology can be employed. After the paper has been recovered, the aluminum/polyethylene residual is heated to a high temperature in the absence of oxygen. When polyethylene is heated to a high temperature it does not burn but breaks down into smaller particles forming paraffin. The aluminum melts down and is recovered as highly pure ingots. The plasma technology is very efficient: “90% of energy yield is actually achieved in the process.” Emissions are near zero.

So, now that we have established that aseptic brick packaging is recyclable, where is recycling available? Currently, beverage carton recycling (including the aseptic brick) is available curbside in at least half of our states. Fourteen states (CA, CO, CT, FL, IL, MA, ME, MI, NJ, NY, OH, RI, UT, WA) have many communities which collect used cartons. Eight states have 3 to 10 communities with collection (AZ, GA, LA, MS, MN, NC, NE, OR), and three states have only 1 community which collects: (PA, TX, LA). Oh, and Washington, D.C. collects cartons for recycling too. According to Tetra Pak®, “20% of total US residents across 26 states (they’re counting Washington, D.C. as a state) have access to carton recycling”. With 25 states not even having one community with collection, there is a long way to go to recycle all the used beverage cartons (including regular “gable top” cartons used for fresh milk and juices too). To find out if your community has curbside collection of beverage cartons, visit:www.aseptic.org

To wrap it up, I’d like to mention a wonderful aseptic brick packaging endeavor. A Canadian company based in Québec, Groupe RCM, is working with the Québec government, Narel (a dairy cooperative), A. Lassonde Inc., (a fruit juice company) and Tetra Pak®, to build a recycling facility to recycle plastic and paper waste, “specifically Tetra Pak® aseptic containers…as well as plastic (low-density polyethylene) bags and films”. The facility will utilize a high-speed “thermokinetic” process developed by the Québec Center of Industrial Research. What is so amazing about Groupe RCM is that it is an organization with the mission to provide jobs for handicapped people and to better the environment. Groupe RCM collaborates with the regional Center of Services for Intellectual Deficiencies and provides employment for many mentally deficient individuals. The new recycling facility will add 65 more jobs that will be mostly filled by handicapped workers. I can’t give Groupe RCM enough kudos for keeping waste out of landfills and providing meaningful employment to disabled persons. Learn more about Groupe RCM at:www.groupercm.com

Come on America, with aseptic brick recycling examples like those in Canada and India, we can definitely do more!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “Empowering the Bottom of the Pyramid via Product Stewardship: Tetra Pak Entrepreneurial Networks in Brazil”, Orsato, Renato, et.al, October 10, 2007, INSEAD Business School, Fontainebleau, France, “How is a juice box made?”, www.answers.com, “Tetra Pak and wine: a low carbon footprint alternative package”,www.wineenabler.com, Neil, January 25, 2009, “Commonly Recycled Materials- Aseptic Packaging” , www.obviously.com, “Refrigerated Transportation Timeline, pre-WWII”, www.33brinkster.com, “Got Data? Multiple Data Sources Track U.S. Food Consumption”, Morrison, R., et.al, March 2009, www.ers.usda.gov, www.tetrapak.com, www.aseptic.org, “A great leap forward for waste diversion- $3.5M investment in Groupe RCM plant in Yamachiche: Tetra Pak cartons, milk cartons, plastic bags and films can now be recycled into new products”, November 2009, www.newswire.ca, “Division Recuperation”, www.groupercm.com

To give you an idea on how disparate recycling efforts can be across our nation, we only have to take a peek at the recycling rates of a few cities: San Francisco, CA (70%), Houston, TX (3%), New York, NY (34%), and Chicago, IL (15%). What compels one person to deposit a used plastic bottle in a recycle bin while another person dumps a similar plastic bottle into the trash? Recycling behavior seems to be influenced by factors such as: governance, education, economic status, and opportunity for profit.

It is an accepted notion that people with ecological consciousness and beliefs will recycle, so governments and educators spend lots of time and money to inform the public about recycling. Unfortunately, recycling education is often targeted on “what is to be done” rather than strengthening ecological belief. One study conducted in New York City (where it is the law to recycle) found boroughs with higher incomes tended to have higher recycling rates; could higher income boroughs also have more constituents with higher educations? Creating a habit to recycle by providing incentives appears (at least in the short run) to work better than by raising public consciousness. Even the NYC study found that bottles and cans had a 10% higher recycle rate than paper. Why? The researchers surmised because bottles and cans had a 5¢ cash refund for recycling and paper did not. Sounds like an easy fix here!

In the USA, the financial incentive to recycle was set into motion in 1971 when Oregon passed the first deposit law “requiring consumers to pay a deposit on bottles and cans to be redeemed when the product is recycled”. Today, eleven states have bottle bills; it is no surprise that states with refundable deposit on beverage containers tend to have higher recycle rates than non-deposit states. Up until last year, California boasted that its 23 year old program was the most successful of them all. Why up until last year? That’s when the program’s finances went into the dumpster…all the way to the bottom! Like Oregon, the program charges deposits fees to beverage buyers that are reimbursed upon recycling. However, California goes a few steps further, it also charges beverage distributors a per container fee which goes into a state fund and mandates that supermarkets be served by parking-lot recyclers (separate businesses that handle container returns). To top it off, any supermarket that does not accommodate a parking-lot recycler is fined $100 daily by the state or must reimburse recyclers itself. Money, money, money! Over the years, many businesses built up around this lucrative program; at its apex, the overall recycle rate for all beverage containers reached 85% (91% for aluminum cans). So, what happened? In recent years, the redemption rates rose and beverage sales fell, squeezing projected program revenues. However, the declining revenue stream did not stop the administration from using $250 MM dollars from the Bottle Bill Fund “to close gaps in the State General Fund and other unrelated programs”. Nothing like using recycling to bail out the state! Redemption at its finest!!

Taking recycling incentives to the next level is the company RecycleBank. Launched in 2004, RecycleBank works with municipalities and haulers to offer reward programs to residential customers. Residential participants earn reward points based on the weight of recyclables collected; these rewards are redeemable at retailers like CVS/pharmacy® and Target®. Imagine you earn points for recycling! Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle has now turned into Recycle, Rack Up, and Redeem! To date, over 20 USA cities and 2 British communities have signed on. According to “The New York Times”, “RecycleBank charges municipalities (or private haulers, depending on the arrangement)…” a monetary fee” per household, and guarantees clients that they will save at least that much in disposal fees as waste is diverted from landfills and incinerators. The company also receives revenue from recycling plants, depending on how much it increases the amount of materials that are processed. ” To learn more about the RecycleBank program, visit: www.corporate.recyclebank.com

Giving consumers financial incentives to recycle, does result in increased collection rates. However, by increasing collection rates, we are not necessarily reducing the amount of trash being sent to landfills. It is a well known industry fact that the infrastructure to process and market recyclables has not kept pace with the growth of collection volume. With financial incentive programs sometimes doubling municipal collection rates, the amount of materials collected can exceed the capacity available for processing. To truly operate in a closed loop system, the industry needs more back end infrastructure. Proceeds from financial incentive programs can and should be used to help fund infrastructure development. Building sound closed loop infrastructure will ensure that the reclaimed materials we collect never end up in landfills.

To keep any recycling infrastructure viable, a constant supply of reclaimed materials is needed. Financial incentives for recycling can help to ensure supplies never run out. However, what will happen to collection rates if rewards cease? I am not a fortune teller, but I’d bet the collection rates would decrease. To make recycling an ingrained American habit, financial incentives need to be reinforced with teaching the ecological benefits of recycling. Continual environmental education targeted to schools and communities will help to make recycling more than just a financial transaction; it will help it to become a core American value.

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from:“Saving our Earth: Is Recycling the Answer?”, Wittman, Dusty, July 24, 2008, “San Francisco Hits 70 Percent City Recycling Rate”, www.ems-newswire.com, April 23, 2008, “Houston Resists Recycling, an Independent Streak Is Cited”, Ellick, Adam, “The New York Times”, July 28, 2008, “Recycling in New York City”, Alcalay, Morgan, et al, www.nyu.edu, “What’s up with blue recycling bins?”, “Straight Dope Chicago”, June 4, 2009. “How to teach recycling at an advanced phase of diffusion, “The Journal of Environmental Education”, Menesses, Gonzalo Diaz, June 22, 2006, “ History of Recycling”, www.all-recyclingfacts.com, “2002 Report on Post Consumer PET Container Recycling Activity”, National Association of PET Container Resources, Sept. 2003, “Oct 15- Schwarezenegger Retreats on Recycling”, Californians Against Waste, www.cawrecycles.org, “Bottle Bills in the USA: California”, www.bottlebill.org, “California Recycling Program Is on the Rocks”, NACS Daily News, www.nacsonline.com, “Rewarding Recyclers, and Finding Gold in the Garbage”, “The New York Times”, www.nytimes.com, Feb. 21, 2006, “Phoenix Partners with RecycleBank to Reward Residents for Recycling”, www.corporaterecyclebank.com, August 18, 2009, “RecycleBank- making waste pay”, BBC News, www.bbc.co.uk, Bone, Victoria, July 9, 2008, “RecycleBank® Rewards Program Helps Nearly Double Recycling Rate in Northern Virginia, Business Wire, August 5, 2008.