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

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

Is the time right for MRF World to take plastics more seriously? Should plastics be at the forefront of curbside recycling? Just as co-mingling of recyclables has made collection at curbside easier, the co-mingling of information on recovered materials may provide some answers. Trust me. We are not mixing apples and oranges; the markets do share some interesting parallels. To see what drives the market dynamics behind all the plastic containers we recycle, we need to take a brief look at other recovered materials like paper, metal, and glass.

Basically, in fall of 2008, the demand for most reclaimed materials drastically fell. According to an article published in, The Gazette, Melissa Kolwaite (a spokesperson for Waste Management) said, “we have been in the recycling industry for 40 years, and the reality is that there are cycles in terms of highs and lows”. Kolwaite goes on to explain this particular downturn was so severe because it coincided with a worldwide recession. While that may be true, I think it is only part of the story (For more background discussion see: http://www.recygal.com/?p=684#more-684)

Up until the fall of 2008, strong Asian demand for reclaimed materials left MRFs scrambling to export more and more recyclables. Taking their “eyes” off local markets, shipment of scrap papers, scrap metals, and scrap plastics flowed to faraway places. Overcome by the lure of moola from Asia, investment and development in less “hot” opportunities came to a standstill. In many cases, development of more sustainable, closer to home opportunities were either totally ignored or put on the put on the back burner. Just when the “hot” strategy seemed to be paying off, Asia dried up!

As Asia wilted, reclaimed material prices melted: aluminum dropped by about 50%, scrap plastic fell by 20% (www.plasticsmarket.net), scrap glass by 58% (see:www.glassgo.net), scrap paper fell by 44% (www.paperfiber.net ) and recovered papers such as newsprint fell as much as 70%! The rapid price deflation not only lowered recycling’s profitability; it questioned its feasibility. Everything from aluminum cans to plastic soda bottles were in the fray. Needless to say, with the value for recyclables in the garbage, some of our recyclables went to landfills. What a shame!

The market value for many recovered materials declined for 6 months, then in summer 2009 prices started to move up. As of 4th quarter 2009, prices for scrap plastic have actually reached or surpassed previous high levels. The big question is, “How volatile are these prices?” If there are any economists out there, I would really appreciate your thoughts!

During the whole mess, the decline in composite plastic value (an average index taken across all reclaimed plastics) lagged far behind that of metal (www.metalpricing.com) and paper. Although Asia’s pull out hurt PET (#1) bales (prices sunk another 40% to 60%), the across the board value for reclaimed plastics was not so drastically effected. To give you an idea how Asian demand drove the post consumer PET (#1) bottle market, we must take a look at the past decade. From 1998 to 2008, the total market increased by over 80% to reach 1,549 MM lbs. While U.S. reclaimer purchases declined by 6% (757 MM lbs to 713 MM lbs), the explosive export market grew by over 800% (89 MM lbs to 836 MM lbs). Half of this explosion occurred within the past three years! Overheated Asia pushed market growth as the captive PET (#1) market base remained relatively unchanged.

Plastic recycling (as we know it today) began with the PET (#1) bottle which was patented in 1973. Soon after its introduction, PET (#1) bottles began replacing glass bottles for many beverages. Although PET (#1) recycling began in 1977, it took “years” before most facilities began to accept this plastic for recycling. The breakthrough came in 1991, when Coca Cola^© introduced the first recycled PET (#1) bottle. Recycling of PET (#1) bottles has grown from 8 MM pounds in 1979 to an estimated 2,410 MM pounds in 2009. (A 300 fold increase in 30 years!) With volumes of this magnitude, PET (#1) is the most recycled consumer plastic. With a large, captive beverage market, reclaimers that specialize solely in PET (#1) weathered the recent storm better than those reclaimers focusing on more volatile materials like paper.

Because reclaimers often handle several commodities, including PET (#1), many of these “mixed” facilities were snagged by the lure of Asia. Focusing on fast, lucrative export sales, attention was taken away from building more sustainable business models closer to home. As the Asian market for reclaimed materials dried up, export focused firms were not positioned to tap other outlets for their recyclables. Many found themselves dumb struck or scrambling for new ways to justify their existence.

The recent upswing in reclaimed materials pricing, points to MRF recovery. As MRFs begin to operate more smoothly again, plastic reclamation should play a larger role. According to the “2008 Report on Postconsumer PET Container Recycling Activity” ¹, the total pounds of PET bottles and jars available in the U.S. for recycling were 5.366 billion. The amount of postconsumer PET bottles collected for recycling and sold in the U.S. was 1.415 billion pounds. The resultant Gross Recycling Rate was 27%. Honestly, wouldn’t you think it would be higher? While many professionals in the plastics industry are ecstatic with this recycling rate (the highest in the past 10 years), it still falls short of the 1996 rate of 31.7%. With 27% reclaimed, there is still 73% not accounted for and likely ending up in landfills. Let’s get more PET bottles collected and recycled!

The second most reclaimed plastic is HDPE (#2) – with a recycle rate of 29%, 71% remains as garbage. Over the past decade, usage of PP (#5) for food containers has continually increased. However, with a recycle rate of only 11.4%, there are lots of yogurt containers and bottle caps “missing in action”. Despite the low recycle rate, the trend for PP (#5) recycling is actually on the upswing. New brand initiatives should help to increase recycling awareness of PP (#5) and improve the overall recycle rate.

Preserve Gimme 5 Bin

Launched this past January, “Preserve Gimme 5”, is a noteworthy program. For more than a decade, the company Recycline has been marketing tooth brushes made from post consumer plastic under the Preserve brand. Preserve Gimme 5 is a partnership formed by the Preserve brand team, Stonyfield Farm, Organic Valley and Whole Foods. Consumers who purchase items packaged in PP (#5) like yogurt, cottage cheese, hummus, sour cream, etc. can return the used containers to a designated recycling station inside their local Whole Foods store. The program is expected to keep one million pounds of PP (#5) out of landfills this year.

Another PP (#5) recycling program, “Recycle Caps with Aveda”, collects plastic bottle caps to melt and convert into post consumer recycled bottle caps. Depending on the type of cap, the post consumer plastic content can be as high as 25 – 100%. PP (#5) caps are found everywhere (beverage bottles, shampoo bottles, peanut butter jars, laundry detergent, etc., etc.). Unfortunately, millions upon millions of these caps are not recycled. Millions end up in landfills where they sit undisturbed for centuries; millions more find their way into drainage systems polluting waterways and physically choking marine life.

No one has captured the disastrous effects that floating bottle caps can have on marine life better than the photographer, Chris Jordan. Please visit his incredible website, www.chrisjordan.com, and see his new video which vividly shows the effects of plastic litter on avian life in the Pacific Ocean.

Dead Albatross with stomach full of bottle caps

After viewing Chris’s video, I am sure you will never want to “Not Recycle” another plastic bottle cap. Save them up and give them to Aveda. Aveda offers collection stations at its 150 U.S. stores and works with designated schools and independent salons to act as drop-off points for collected caps.

Aveda Cap Collection at University

Many colleges and universities participate in the program too; these organizations simply mail in the caps to Aveda for reclamation. Started in April 2008, Aveda collected more than 50,000 lbs of bottles caps in its first 7 months of program operations.

What is interesting about these recycling initiatives is that they are spearheaded by consumer products companies, not municipalities or MRFs. The companies behind these initiatives not only care about the environment, they are filling a void in the marketplace for recovered plastic. It is time that more MRFs take a serious look at PP (#5) collection and recycling. Investment in the recycling of clean, food grade plastics such as PVC (#3) or LDPE (#4) or PS (#6) would also make the industry less vulnerable to market swings and keep more plastics out of our landfills and waterways. The global market shake up of 2008 shows that recycling should be approached from a broad perspective. The days of narrow focus on “What’s hot”, need to end. By supporting efforts like Preserve Gimme 5 or Recycle Caps with Aveda we help to sustain worthy recycling programs. With continued corporate efforts, perhaps our municipalities will take notice and begin recycling these materials too. I sure hope my municipality does. In the meantime, I will be dropping of PP (#5) containers at my local Whole Foods store and plastic bottles caps at the closest Aveda pick up station. Does your city or municipality offer curbside pickup for any of the above plastics? Please let me know. This is a topic which demands further attention.

© 2009 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from:
¹“2008 United States National Postconsumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report”, American Chemistry Council and Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers, 2009 “Report on Post-Consumer Pet Container Recycling Activity”, National Association for PET Container Resources, 2009, “2007 United States National Post-Consumer Report on Non-Bottle Rigid Plastics Recycling”, American Chemistry Council, 2009, “Recycling Takes Hit As Needs Fall Back”, The Gazette, April 12, 2009, “Sagging Economy Trashes Demand for Recyclables”, Albany Times Union, December 26, 2008, “History of Recycling”, California Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Waste Management Board, California Department of Conservation, 1997, “Overview of the Recovered Paper Market, Moore & Associates, March 2009, “Is Export Important?”, Waste Age, July 2009, “U.S. Aluminum Can Recycling Reached 54.2 Percent in 2008.”, Business Wire, August 12, 2009, “Plastic Packaging”, www.ballcorporate.com, 2009, “Reduce, recover, reuse: preserve CEO Eric Hudson shares his vision to make stylish, eco-friendly products–and preserve resources and encourage recycling at the same time”, Brand Packaging, May 1, 2009, “Preserve Gimme 5 Program Offers Recyclers With Polypropylene #5 Plastics Convenient Recycling Option”, Food Business Week, February 12, 2009, “Aveda creates system to recycle bottle caps”, Plastics News, December 8, 2008, “Recycle Caps with Aveda”, aveda.com