Tag: Recycling

Categories
Recover More Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Highlighting Seattle Resource Recovery and Packaging End of Life Management

Resource recovery and revalorization seems to be just about the hottest topic in the packaging sustainability community these days. It’s hard to pick up any packaging publication – print or online – without some reference to the need to expand packaging recyclability, and the opportunities and challenges involved. GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition made sure to emphasize this important topic as we developed the agenda for our 2014 Spring Conference, with tours and sessions that highlight the newest developments in resource recovery and end of life management.

The Pacific Northwest region leads the country in recycling and composting. We recently talked with Conference speaker, Dick Lilly, Manager for Waste Prevention and Product Stewardship at Seattle Public Utilities, about Seattle’s cutting edge sustainability efforts, specifically its composting and recycling efforts. Seattle is the first U.S. city to require that all single-use food service packaging be either compostable or recyclable, helping the city move toward its goal of a zero waste future. Lilly explained that in this shift to using all compostable or recyclable packaging, the city holds meetings with restaurants and manufacturers regularly to discuss what does and doesn’t work, and what needs to happen to make these regulations more successful. “One things that I would applaud about the restaurant industry is that they have been tremendously innovative and have made a great effort to come up with new products. The industry has changed dramatically in terms of the products made today that will help restaurants move in the direction of more compostables or reusables and less disposables,” said Lilly.

Continue reading “Highlighting Seattle Resource Recovery and Packaging End of Life Management”

Categories
Recover More Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Meditating on Sustainable Materials Management

Last week about a thousand people attended the Together for a Better Planet – Sustainability Forum in Mexico City. Jeff Wooster, GreenBlue board member, and I were among them. The event presented opportunities for companies to showcase products and services with the potential to reduce environmental burdens of various industrial necessities. There were displays of solar panels, wind turbines, electric delivery vehicles, commercial lighting, packaging, agricultural production, etc. The hope with all of this innovation and effort is to allow for the continuation of business while lowering the associated environmental impact over time.
There were discussions on various topics, and one that Jeff and I participated in involved the sustainability of packaging. The panel discussion remained fairly high level and offered a systems perspective for packaged goods. There was much discussion about the recovery of materials from the waste stream and how the bulk of packaging materials end up in landfill or open dumps in Mexico. The small amount of material sorting that occurs in Mexico follows two paths:
Trash collection service is offered in a relatively small part of this enormous and populous city. A crew of half a dozen or more men pick through materials of interest as the truck moves down the street. Keep in mind that all the stuff is commingled trash – wet organic and food waste, paper and board, plastics, metals, glass and all sorts of other refuse. The men work fast and efficiently, and surprisingly in a jovial manner, yet many of them are working with their bare hands to pick the valuable materials.


The second pathway of material recovery occurs at the landfills or dumps, and is an informal mechanism powered by poverty and necessity. Here pickers, the poorest among the poor, risk injury, sickness, and indignity to earn pennies. They pick valuable materials for recycling in an informal material economy. The work is menial, dirty, unsanitary, unsafe, and often occurs under harsh weather conditions. The recovered materials, the fruits of the pickers long hours of labor, probably yields a substandard market price. This is because the materials were collected from a dump of mixed contaminated source; hence the quality of those materials is generally poor. Many high value materials such a s paper and board are rendered useless for many recycled applications due to being wet and adherence of foreign matter. After all of this effort, these materials are destined for lower performance usage and much of the embedded energy – both base materials and human energy – is lost.

I presented the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s How2Recycle label that provides a clear and consistent means to communicate actions needed for proper disposal of packaging to optimize recovery. In Mexico, where recycling infrastructure is lacking and the ethic of material stewardship is underdeveloped, such communication combined with packaging waste bring sites can engage the citizens to do their part in closing the material loop. Engaging the citizens in material stewardship has long-term benefits for a more sustainable world, and can move society away from a use and throw model to a sustainable materials management (SMM) model where technical materials flow back into the cycle to be reborn as new packaging or product components.
Outlining the story of a company’s stewardship in combination with the How2Recycle recycling label is an opportunity to show the company’s determination to make sustainable material management a priority. It can help reinforce the critical role citizens play in closing the loop on packaging material recovery, and develop the recycling ethic in citizens, particularly children, that can bear long-term fruits in developing a sustainable material economy.
A brief anecdote from the streets of Mexico City:
One man’s trash is another man’s _________.
After the conference I moved from the posh Polanco area where the event was held to a hotel in the historic district. As I made my way from the Isabel la Catolica metro station, I saw a homeless man with natty dreads and messy clothing moving towards me. Such apparitions intrigue me and this one did not disappoint. The man had a faraway look in his eyes and he did not see me, or anyone else, and I might guess the throng scarcely noticed him.
This man’s manner was of great interest to me. He was simultaneously of the immediate environs yet somehow outside it. The man meandered through the flow of humanity while slowly and meditatively popping the tiny bubbles on a sheet of bubble wrap. He wasn’t popping the bubbles for apparent amusement or passing of time. His treatment of the packaging material was akin to one engaged in reciting prayer with the rosary beads or other meditative equivalent. He slipped through the random moving bodies about him seemingly aware only of his mumblings and the systematic row-by-row popping of the bubbles.
I observed the man as he moved peacefully through the pandemonium about him. I might say a bit of his peace transferred to me and helped me navigate the rush hour shoulder-to- shoulder metro traffic.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

ReLoop: What is Mixed Waste Processing or “All in One/Dirty MRF” Recycling?

As part of our increasing work in recycling and recovery, Project Associate Danielle Peacock and Senior Manager Anne Bedarf continue their recycling blog series, ReLoop, which will address different recycling topics, questions, and concepts. You can check out other posts from the ReLoop series here.
There are three primary ways to collect household recycling: source separation, single stream, and no separation from trash (or “all in one”), and each of these methods provides unique benefits and trade-offs. So far in the ReLoop blog series, we have covered source separated recycling and single-stream recycling. In this blog we take a closer look at “all in one” collection, also known as mixed waste processing (MWP) or using a “dirty MRF.”
MWP is a one-bin system where the consumer places all trash and recyclables in one bin with no separation. This material then proceeds to a sorting facility to glean recyclables. In our previous blog post on single-stream recycling, we discussed how a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) works. These facilities use a combination of machinery and human hands to sort.
MWP uses what is commonly called a dirty MRF because the incoming stream is household trash (also known as Municipal Solid Waste, or MSW). See this report for profiles of different types of sorting facilities, including pictures. This report also estimates that MWP facilities make up less than 5% of all MRFs in the US.
There are varying estimates of the effectiveness of MWP facilities[1]:

  • Kit Strange in Issues in Environmental Science and Technology estimates that 10-30% of waste entering a MWP facility is recovered as commodity grade recyclables, with contamination contributing to this low rate. Contamination is reduced when input comes from homogenous sources like office buildings.
  •  The City of Toronto studied various waste treatment and recovery systems, including dirty MRFs. They found that success relies on a clean and dry stream, and current recovery rates rest around 5–10% with a low quality output due to contamination. They ultimately chose a different course of action.
  • StopWaste.Org (Alameda County, California) calculated the average recovery rate for MWP facilities in California at 19%, compared to 85% at single-stream MRFs.
  • Pinellas County, FL also studied California facilities. They found a maximum recovery rate of around 30%, with a higher rate possible when co-locating with composting. It was not recommended as the primary method of recycling.
  • R3 Environmental planned to co-locate a dirty-MRF with an incinerator in New Hannover County, NC. The project ultimately failed.

As with any recycling system, there are trade-offs:
Good – MWP requires no consumer participation, education, or sorting behavior. It can also be used to recover additional recyclables from the waste stream missed in recycling separation. MWP facilities can also co-locate with single-stream recycling MRFs, waste to energy, or composting facilities to maximize their impact. The quality of materials recovered through MWP is maximized if the source is homogenous, like office waste, or has organics removed prior to disposal.
Bad – The lack of consumer participation can also be seen as a negative, as there are no educational opportunities and consumers are less likely to make the connection to the impacts of their consumption habits. In addition, compared to the other methods, the potential for contamination is very high and the recovery rate is relatively low. Pre-separating organics and investing in technology can improve this process. However, these two options revert to consumer participation and require significant investment in machinery. Use of human labor exacerbates the potential for negative human health impacts on workers. Accepting all municipal solid waste into a MWP facility increases the likelihood of worker being exposed to dirty diapers, spoiled food, sharps, medical waste, and hazardous wastes. In his book Garbage Wars, author David Pellow describes such conditions for workers in a Chicago facility in the mid 1990’s, which used a combination of technology and hand sorting.
Contamination continues to be an important factor in the recycled commodities market. Contaminated materials require extra processing or are rejected outright and sent to landfills. The export market for these lower quality materials is also shrinking. Most recently, China has begun to crack down on unwashed plastic imports and contaminated paper bales.
The Grey Area – Like both of the recycling systems previously discussed in this blog series, decision makers must weigh the pros, cons, and costs of any system. What is the primary goal of the recovery system? Are you using MWP as the sole recycling system? Are you using it to glean additional recyclables from trash after single-stream separation? Are you co-locating with energy recovery or composting? How much are you willing to invest in technology versus human labor?
One East Coast city provides a particularly salient example. In this city, which will remain nameless, transparency is lacking at the local dirty MRF, and processes and recycling rates are unknown. Advertisements from both the dirty MRF and haulers falsely promote a recycling rate of 90%[2], push the dirty MRF as a superior recycling option, and confuse residents by labeling it “single-stream recycling.”  Contamination is billed as “not a problem,” though discussions with local recyclers show significant concern regarding material from this source. Many residents adopted the dirty MRF as their primary recycling option though curbside and drop-off recycling were available.  While some robust local dialogue occurred, there is still a prevailing misconception that the dirty MRF recycles 90% of all waste and is a viable recycling option.
So where does MWP fit? In my opinion, it is not appropriate as a primary recycling option. At present, the best opportunity for MWP is co-location with a landfill or waste to energy facility to provide a final sort of municipal solid waste prior to disposal. Concurrent organics source separation would greatly decrease contamination. This catches missed items and provides a last effort in areas with no recycling ethic or options. However, it should not be billed as a significant recycling option.


[1] For the purpose of this blog, recovery rates are the percentage of materials that enter the facility and are diverted to recycling. The remainder may be landfilled or sent to a waste to energy or incineration facility.
Recovery rate = Amount Recovered for Recycling / Total Input
[2] The facility offers a sorting line designated only for construction and demolition waste. This line achieves approximately 90% recycling as a homogenous and dry stream.
Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

How Important Are the Plastic "Numbers" to Recycling?

The relevance of the plastic “numbers”—officially known as the “Resin Identification Codes” or RICs under ASTM D7611—depends on who you ask. Adamant recyclers often believe they are useful, while time and time again both research and anecdotes show that at least half of the population is confused by them, and this confusion can result in recycling stream contamination.
While participating in the ASTM process for the RICs, I found that there is no clear answer as to whether supply chain players actually find the RICs useful. Brand owners and retailers? Not really, as specification requirements for packaging are much more detailed than a number. MRF and recovery facilities? Not really, as lines move too fast for numbers to be identified during hand-picking, and optical sorters certainly don’t use them. Reprocessors? Not really here either, as density and converting technology are more relevant factors. This presents a conundrum: while the RICs were never intended for consumer communication and generally fail at efforts to do so, it seems that consumer communication is the only real potential usefulness of the RICs.
In particular, the widely understood chasing arrows appearing as part of the RIC contribute greatly to the confusion. There has been discussion and pushback on the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR’s) “education without the numbers” campaign (see Plastics News articles here and here for more information), which represents an effort based on solid evidence that shape/format is a much better way to help consumers understand what to recycle. This creates another conundrum, in that certain formats, such as thermoformed clamshells, are made from a variety of resins and thus the differentiation of resin type is often necessary where mixed plastics are not currently accepted. Couple that with the fact that so many local governments and recyclers do educate the general public using the RICs, and the RICs aren’t going away anytime soon.
These conundrums were taken into consideration when the SPC designed the How2Recycle Label. For the “Check Locally” version of the Label—for those materials that have between 20 and 60 percent consumer access—the RIC will likely remain an indicator that local recyclers use to answer recyclability questions regarding packaging bearing this label. The how2recycle.info website includes extensive information on the RICs for consumers, and many people ask us questions on the topic of the RICs through our consumer survey.
Simultaneous to the development of the design of the Label, the SPC became involved in the ASTM group working on RICs and continues to advocate for an upgraded system that replaces the chasing arrows and brings more clarity to issues such as varying types of PET and bio-resins. Neither the SPC or APR are advocating for abandoning the RICs, however their use as a primary communication tool for recyclability is necessarily being questioned. The SPC’s and APR’s tools provide a path forward that allows these communication efforts to peacefully co-exist with an updated version of the RICs.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Packaging Has Brotherly Role to Help Out Recycling Industry

This article by GreenBlue Project Manager Adam Gendell appeared in this month’s issue of Packaging Digest, which features a monthly column by GreenBlue staff on packaging sustainability. Read the original article.

Recycling is a growing industry, and it has become clear that it has a sibling-like relationship to the packaging industry. Like a younger sibling, the recycling industry is supported largely by the packaging industry; and like an older sibling, the packaging industry wants to see the recycling industry succeed.

The packaging community has moved past the notion that recycling is simply good for the planet. In this modern era of striving for sustainability, the packaging community recognizes that businesses that sell goods will only prosper in a responsible manner if the packaging industry and recycling industry both thrive. If we want them to succeed, we just have to examine the laws of supply and demand. For a higher quantity of transactions (that is, more recycling), supply and/or demand has to increase. The packaging industry, it turns out, has the ability to positively influence both supply and demand.

Supply can fundamentally be thought of as the willing ability of recyclers to sell their recovered material at a given price. It’s a no-brainer that it’s preferable for them to sell at a certain price if their costs are lower. That’s where the packaging community can help.

The recycling industry incurs a tremendous expense in their sorting operations and filtration of undesirable contaminants. If the packaging industry can create packaging that is easily sorted and not likely to introduce potential contaminants, then it makes the recycling industry’s job easier and ultimately reduces their costs. When their job is easier, supply of recovered materials will increase.

Likewise, supply will increase if consumers give recyclers access to used packaging in greater quantities and without undesirable contaminants. Proper on-package messaging from the packaging industry can help consumers help recyclers, which in the end helps the packaging industry. Improvements to packaging will eventually come around that improve access to recycled materials.

Demand, on the other hand, is the measure of how badly the packaging industry wants to buy recycled materials. Packagers have already embraced recycled content as a means to improve the environmental attributes of their packaging. It’s easy to think that an increasing demand from consumers for greener products will trickle down and increase demand from the packaging industry for recycled materials. Again, proper on-package messaging from the packaging industry can educate consumers about the importance of recycled content.

Certain changes can even increase demand from the packaging industry independently of consumer demand. For example, investment into new manufacturing technologies will help overcome the challenge of using less-than-perfect quality materials. It is also plausible we will see recycled materials become consistently cheaper than virgin raw materials. True cost accounting that takes into account the environmental costs of extracting raw materials might make that future an instant reality today.

Unfortunately, the recycling and the packaging industries do occasionally act like bickering siblings. Recyclers might argue that the burden lies on the packaging industry to put forth packaging that is optimal for their current systems. Meanwhile, the packaging industry might feel like the recycling industry needs to modify their systems to keep pace with new packaging innovations. Recyclers want packagers to better cope with less-than-perfect recycled materials.
Packagers want recyclers to reduce contamination. The packaging industry wants the recycling industry to increase its supply. The recycling industry wants the packaging industry to increase its demand. Both industries would appreciate if the other would take the reigns on consumer education. At the end of the day, the siblings of this sometimes-dysfunctional family must find a way to get along. Fortunately for the packaging industry, they have more than one way to help their little sibling.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

ReLoop: What is Source Separated Recycling?

As part of our increasing work in recycling and recovery, Project Associate Danielle Peacock and Senior Manager Anne Bedarf continue their recycling blog series, ReLoop, which will address different recycling topics, questions, and concepts. You can check out other posts from the ReLoop series here.
There are three primary ways to collect household recycling: single stream, source separation, and no separation from trash (or “all in one”). Each of these methods poses unique benefits and trade-offs. In the last ReLoop blog, we covered single-stream recycling. This month we take a closer look at source separated recycling.
Recycling is a process in which valuable materials flow from collection to an end user, who makes the materials into new products. This flow of materials is often called the recycling “stream.” In single-stream recycling, mixed recyclable materials travel together (separately from trash) in one stream to a sorting facility, or Material Recovery Facility (MRF).
Source separated recycling is “separating materials by type at the point of discard so they can be recycled.” For example, there may be separate streams of metal, glass, paper, and plastic; or there may be one stream for paper and one for mixed containers. Source separated recycling may also be called sorted stream recycling or dual stream recycling. These terms are used synonymously and all mean that the consumer sorts their recyclables.
Items collected may still go to a MRF for further sorting. For example, North Carolina has a network of “Dual Stream MRFs,” where two or more streams of recycling are fed separately into the facility. In this example, mixed paper is one stream and mixed containers are a second.

GreenBlue’s Source Separated Recycling Bins
(Plastics, Metal, Glass, Paper)

The primary methods to collect source separated recycling are drop-off centers and curbside collection. In our office, we separate our recyclables into multiple bins, which are then taken to a local drop-off recycling center. At this drop-off, there are separate bins for each material. Our items are pre-sorted in the office, but sorting can also be done at the drop-off site if you bring a bin of mixed recyclables and hand sort them into the appropriate bins. These bins can then go directly to a buyer.
Source separated recycling can also be collected at curbside. Trucks collecting these materials have multiple chambers, one for each stream of materials. Programs may use multiple recycling bins or large carts with a center divider, creating two chambers. Materials are then dumped into the corresponding chamber. This contrasts to single-stream recycling, where the bin of mixed recyclables goes directly into a collection truck with no additional sorting.
Good – Materials from source separated recycling are generally higher in quality and can be sold at a higher price than materials collected as a single stream. There is also less potential contamination of recyclables (for example, left over liquids do not spill on paper and broken pieces of glass do not mix in with other items). Source separated recycling also does not rely as heavily on expensive sorting technology or manual labor.
Bad – Source separated recycling requires more effort by the consumer to either leave sorted items at their curb or take them to a drop-off site. In an area with a low recycling ethic, this can negatively impact participation in recycling, making collection volumes low.
The Grey Area – When it comes to recycling, many communities must make tough decisions between ease of use, quality of recyclables, and quantity of collection. Source separated requires more effort, but single stream (and all-in-one to a greater degree) results in more contamination, making a certain amount of materials unsuitable for sale and the processing of recyclables more difficult. Both programs require effective communication to consumers. Placing the wrong items in the recycling stream makes the materials less desirable, less valuable, and more difficult to manufacture into new products. Cost is another important factor in analyzing different types of recycling programs. The cost of a program is heavily dependent upon existing infrastructure, local markets for materials, and community goals.
We encourage you to explore your own recycling options, and let us know what you find!

 
Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

ReLoop: What is Single Stream Recycling?

As part of our increasing work in recycling and recovery, Project Associate Danielle Peacock and Senior Manager Anne Bedarf are debuting a new recycling blog series, ReLoop, which will address different recycling topics, questions, and concepts. Danielle kicks the series off with a primer on single stream recycling. If you have a specific recycling topic you would like covered here in the future, let us know!

There are three primary ways to collect household recycling: single stream, source separation, and no separation from trash (or “all in one”). Each of these methods poses unique benefits and trade-offs for recycling. This first installment of ReLoop tackles single stream recycling, which is quickly becoming a national trend.
Single stream recycling requires households to use two separate collection bins for their waste, one for trash and one for recycling. Residents place all of their recyclable materials in one bin, separate from their trash container.1 On collection day, the materials are transported to a Material Recovery Facility, or MRF. The MRF will use a combination of hand sorting, sensors, magnets, and gravity to sort the materials. You can find a great animation of how a MRF works here. After sorting, the materials are baled and sold to market.
Many communities are transitioning to recycling carts that are of equal size to trash bins. This enables and encourages residents to collect more recycling than they could fit into a small tote bin or bag. Communities may even use the same trucks to collect trash and recyclables, minimizing any additional transportation or operating costs. The same truck may pick up your trash one week and recycling the next. Trucks can also be designed with dividers, so that trash goes in one section and recycling in another.
The Good: Putting all recyclable materials into one container makes recycling easier for households. Ease of use, and the prevalence of large bins, allows high collection volume. Participation in recycling is also incentivized when communities reduce trash collection to twice a month and provide increased recycling collection to compensate.
The Bad: While volume is increased, the quality of the materials that are recovered can suffer. When recyclable materials are lower in quality, they fetch a lower price at market and may be used in lower quality products. For example, if a glass jar full of sauce breaks during the recycling process, the sorting equipment may not catch the glass and the sauce will contaminate other materials, like paper. Sorting is also an imperfect science, though the technology continues to evolve.
It is important to place empty and clean materials into your bin, and follow all recycling instructions provided by your community. If you have any questions or comments about single stream recycling, leave us a comment below!


1. The US EPA definition of single stream recycling: “Single stream” collection programs allow participants to put all recyclable materials (e.g., paper, bottles, cans, etc.) into one collection container… These materials are then collected and separated, usually at a central point such as a materials recovery facility (MRF)… For single stream recycling to work, the processing facility must sort the recyclable materials properly and thoroughly to meet market specifications.”
 
Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

A Day at the MRF

The SPC Spring Meeting in Toronto just wrapped up, and one of the highlights of the meeting was a tour of the Peel Integrated Waste Management Facility. The facility is the largest of its kind in Canada and houses a single stream Material Recovery Facility (MRF), a waste transfer station, in addition to an organics composting plant. Scott Ballantine, Packaging Project Manager for long-term SPC member company Microsoft, shot some great footage from the tour that captured the inner workings of the facility. Enjoy!

 
 

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Massachusetts Aims High at MassRecycle Conference

In late March, I had the opportunity to present at the Massachusetts Recycling Coalition 2012 Recycling & Organics Conference & Trade Show. Members of the Massachusetts Recycling Coalition (MassRecycle) include over 350 local recycling coordinators, non-profits, individuals, and businesses involved in the recycling and organics industry. I had the pleasure of meeting some of those members and presenting during a session on packaging waste with Eric Hudson, founder of Preserve Products.
One thing at the MassRecycle event was clear: this is a group of ambitious and passionate people. Ken Kimmell, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), delivered the morning’s keynote. Kimmell outlined Massachusetts’s goals to reduce organics disposal and increase anaerobic digestion and recycling. He wants his state to be the national leader in recycling, reuse, and diversion, with a goal of 2 million tons of waste annually diverted from disposal by 2020. Kimmel plans to attack this through improved permitting processes, increased infrastructure, improved collection programs, and a gradual phase-in of disposal bans.
Waste management structures and recycling economics vary significantly across the country, with no exception in the northeast. For example, landfill fees in Massachusetts hover close to $80 per ton, while fees in the southeast are closer to $30 per ton. Waste incinerators are commonplace in the north, but not elsewhere where land is cheaper and therefore landfilling is more common.
Waste management is a complex field. I continue to ask myself, as a professional focused on product sustainability, how can I best translate my knowledge to consumers who have limited time to commit to recycling, composting, and sustainability? This is one of the motivations behind the SPC’s How2Recycle Label: communicating clear and consistent information to consumers to make it easier for them to recycle. Consumers often do not realize that they have incorrect assumptions about recycling, making the task that much more difficult, and important.

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Down the Rabbit Hole: An International Tour of Packaging Recycling Systems

Lately I have been feeling like a character in one of the children’s novels I have loved and reread numerous times over the years. Maybe it’s Alice in Wonderland, The Phantom Tollbooth, or perhaps Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The central plot of these books features an average person transported to a fantasy world for a series of adventures each more fantastic, silly, puzzling, absurd, or amazing than the next. Oh, and of course the main character always learns important lessons along the way.

After almost four years of research and writing about what happens to packaging when we consumers are done using it, I have traveled the world and encountered packaging recovery systems of all shapes, sizes, flavors, and textures. The result of all this travel is my report, Closing the Loop: Road Map for Effective Material Value Recovery, a detailed analysis of international packaging recovery systems with lessons of what we can learn for the anemic US system.
Luckily for me, my adventures and the people I encountered were rarely puzzling, absurd, or silly. Instead, I discovered that there are as many effective ways to deal with packaging waste as there are groups who want to recover it. The trick is how to learn from the best ones and avoid some of the pitfalls experienced by the others.
Some of the most fantastic and amazing things I saw:

  • The Belgian household packaging recovery system run by Fost Plus is stunning in its simplicity, common sense practicality, and effectiveness.
  • Recycling drop-off centers where Swiss citizens routinely bring everything recyclable from their homes, including their mattresses, batteries, and even used Nespresso coffee capsules, and sort them into specific bins.
  • A state of the art material recovery facility in Oppin, Germany, where fourteen different optical sorters in a row made hand-sorting of recyclables a thing of the distant past.
  • A waste-to-energy facility in the middle of Vienna, Austria, accepted by Viennese citizens and now a tourist landmark because of its beautiful architecture.
  • Vertically integrated companies in Australia with a built-in “design for recycling” feedback loop: they make packaging, collect the recycling, and reprocess collected materials back into new packaging.
  • A new design for on-the-go recycling bins in Toronto, Ontario, that accept trash, cigarette butts, and recyclables, while providing an easy-to-use foot pedal allowing grime and germ-conscious citizens to recycle without soiling their hands.

A few of the most puzzling (dare I say silly?) things I saw:

  • South Australian tractor-trailer trucks transporting loads of counted, brand-sorted, uncrushed, empty (and therefore lightweight) beverage containers from collection depots to super-collectors, to be re-counted once again.
  • In the space of two blocks on the same street in the London Borough of Camden, four different types of on-the-go recycling bins, each of a different size and shape, collecting different combinations of packaging materials, with different labels.
  • Workers in Australia hand-sorting recyclables from household trash and organics in the tipping hall of a facility in a constant spray of mist, used to keep down the dust.

Without a doubt, the best part of this whole adventure was the opportunity to meet dedicated and passionate people working in all of these countries who make sure packaging materials are recovered for a beneficial purpose at end-of-life. My hosts were energetic, knowledgeable, curious, patient, and generous with their time. Despite the variety of methods they use to operate their state or country’s material recovery system, all of them have helped to set and achieve ambitious recycling and recovery goals. When it comes time to measure impact, there is no question that they do a far better job of recovering materials than the typical US system, which, like Milo in The Phantom Tollbooth, appears stuck in the doldrums and in dire need of rescue by the Armies of Wisdom.
The main lesson I learned is that there is a veritable candy store of ways to run a material recovery system, one that will suit every country. Not everyone will love Wonka’s “Whipplescrumptious Fudgemallow Delight”—some may prefer an everlasting gobstopper or some three-course chewing gum. But there is definitely no need for the US to start from scratch in figuring out how to improve our society’s use of valuable materials. Of course, not all of the ideas I encountered will work in the US. However, there are too many good options in existence that can be adapted to the US experience that we ignore them at our own peril, and that of our pocketbooks, material resources, and environment.