Mass-scale curbside recycling programs spread throughout the United States in the late 1980s, largely when decision makers began to understand that convenient methods of recycling lead to higher consumer participation rates.
Known as dual stream programs, these early recycling initiatives did indeed boost convenience and participation: consumers put their paper into a bin, glass and containers into another, and placed the bins at the curb. The recyclables were then picked up by municipalities and sent to material recovery facilities (MRFs) to be further sorted and sold to companies that would convert them into valuable post-consumer products.
The high quality of the materials recovered from these early dual stream programs was due, in no small part, to the fact that paper remained separate from plastics and glass. In comingled recycling streams, broken glass, chemicals, food residues, and other organic materials can easily contaminate paper, eroding its quality and value. The lesson to be learned from dual stream models, then, is that recycling programs must strike a balance between consumer convenience and quality of yielded materials.
Fast-forward to today, and that balance has been disrupted by the growing popularity of single stream recycling programs. Designed to further increase convenience and participation rates while decreasing municipalities’ collection costs, single-stream allows consumers to place all recyclables into one receptacle for curbside pickup—no sorting necessary. Experiencing tremendous growth over the past decade, single stream programs account for 80% of curbside recycling programs today, up from just 29% in 2005.
At first glance, there may be good reason for such growth: single stream programs do lead to increases in materials collected when compared to dual stream. Yet due to comingling, contamination rates have also increased, and consequently, the quality of the recycled fiber supply is decreasing.
Even with increased resources going toward sorting and cleaning single-sourced materials, some MRFs still cannot find buyers who will accept their low quality fibers. Domestic converters of high quality folding cartons and other paper products generally avoid such low quality paper, so until recently, much of it has been exported to China and other overseas markets. Yet with its “Green Fence” initiative, even China has begun to reject contaminated materials.
Thus, high processing costs and slippery demand—and not to mention the fact that U.S. recovered paper prices have decreased by 50% over the past four years—have been exerting tremendous downward pressure on the recycling industry as of late. With the economic incentive to recycle drying up, the supply of recycled fibers could be in danger, and not only in terms of quality. Today, considering the plummeting value of recycled paper, some municipalities are sending their collected recyclables straight to incinerators to be burned for fuel. Whereas the ideal recycling market is a “closed loop” system in which consumers and producers use and reuse materials many times over, waste-to-energy initiatives sever that loop completely.
A Move to Mixed Waste?
Even with the current challenges facing the recycled fiber supply, some groups are pushing for the implementation of mixed waste collection systems that could degrade recycled fiber even further. Mixed waste programs take consumer convenience to the extreme, as all waste—recyclables, food remnants, soiled diapers, etc.—is collected at the curb in a single large bin. While this ease does, again, encourage participation, mixed waste systems see even higher contamination rates than single stream. (It’s no surprise that mixed waste recovery facilities have gained the nickname “Dirty MRFs”.) And with this low quality, the push towards waste-to-energy becomes even greater.
Consequences for the Folding Carton Industry
A recent report from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development asserted that the paper industry relies on a single-integrated wood fiber system that contains both virgin and recycled fiber. In fact, recycled fiber today comprises 50% of all papermaking fibers. That said, the demand for cartons and other paper products cannot be met without a healthy supply of recycled fiber. The folding carton and paper industry at large has done much work to nurture and expand demand for green, recycled paper and packaging, but if the recycled fiber supply continues to degrade and shrink, we could struggle to meet that demand.
Furthermore, if paper recycling becomes ineffective, we may not be able to protect ourselves from Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) sanctions. EPR legislation aims to shift the cost of packaging disposal from municipalities to producers. In response, our industry generally asserts that paper products should be exempt as they are already successfully being recycled. Yet this compelling argument may become invalid if the current recycling system falters.
What Can I Do?
First, you should remain current on this complex and fast-changing issue. As our industry depends on a healthy supply of recycled fibers, PPC will provide you with frequent updates so you can easily stay on top of the latest trends and initiatives that could affect you.
Next, you can use this knowledge to support our industry at the local level. Business owners can have great pull with their local and state legislators, so PPC may ask you to tell our industry’s important story to your representative. Today, changes to complex issues such as these begin, not at the national level, but with the states—and that is where you can truly make a difference.