We humans are destroying the world with plastic. From the deepest trenches of the oceans to the highest mountains, there is no place on earth that is not polluted by plastic.
Fish, birds, and land mammals choke on it, or become entangled in it. The chemicals in plastics can disrupt our hormones and make us sick in ways we’re only just beginning to understand. Even human blood and breast milk contain microplastics.
The petrochemical industry led us down this path, convincing us that single-use plastic is cleaner, easier, and modern. As for what to do with plastic waste and garbage, corporate public relations offices told us in the 1970s that recycling would solve that problem. Today, only 6-9% of the plastic in the stream is recycled.
The plastic industry puts those familiar “recycle” triangles on containers to make us feel better about using them. Even toothpaste tubes display a bright green recycle logo. Many of these containers are theoretically recyclable, but no recycling program will accept them. Plastic bottles that can be recycled usually do not become new containers. It is shredded and used to make clothes, shoes, and furniture, little of which is recycled. In the end, all of this is buried in landfills, burned, or sent abroad to poor countries where it is burned, with harmful health consequences, or thrown into the ocean.
Where do we go from here?
Our fastest chance is to convince the Connecticut General Assembly to pass legislation for Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging. What does that mean?
In fact, you are already familiar with EPR. If you need to dispose of a computer or television, you can take it to a transfer station or an electronics collection event free of charge. That’s because the manufacturers or importers pay to recover and dispose of the materials in the products. You can take leftover paint to designated paint stores because disposal costs are included in your paint purchase. We have similar EPR programs in Connecticut for mattresses, thermostats, and, soon, gas cylinders.
The EPR’s proposed legislation for packaging – including “packaging-like materials” such as straws, drink stirrers, and single-use cups and utensils – is a key element of a multifaceted method to reduce plastic waste.
Manufacturers (or importers) must pay a variable disposal fee, with the level of the fee based on the nature of the materials involved. These fees will be used to support recycling facilities that can handle more types of plastic and thus increase the percentage of plastic that can be reused to make new products.
Fees will be lowest for packaging made of plant-based, compostable materials. An intermediate charge applies to packaging designed to be easily recycled. The highest fees are for problematic mixed materials such as plastic bonded to cardboard or different types of plastic bonded to each other. Some plastics – such as polystyrene or “Styrofoam” – can and should be banned now that compostable foam is available.
Examples of successful EPR programs in British Columbia and Europe give us confidence that this approach will work in Connecticut. Some states have passed EPR laws that will take effect in the coming years. But last year, Connecticut’s EPR bill for packaging, SB 115, failed to get a vote in the Environment Committee, even though it received a hearing.
A local waste hauler argues that the current system is very good, and that EPR for packaging is the “death knell” for the company – a false argument because waste must always be taken to processing facilities. Some argue that SB 115 will burden households and businesses with higher costs, causing hardship for low-income consumers. That argument was contradicted by a study of EPR results in British Columbia. Packaging generally accounts for 1-2% of the cost of consumer goods. Simplifying packaging will not noticeably increase its cost.
Even some environmentalists, while supporting most parts of last year’s bill, opposed a provision for the future “chemical recycling” of plastic – a process that breaks the polymer chains of waste. plastic and use the molecular components to make new plastic. Whether this provision is dangerous or prudent is debatable, but either way it is unlikely to have a significant impact in the coming years. On a large scale, it is cheaper to make plastic from oil than to separate, clean, and reformulate the used plastic.
The important point is to ask our legislators to act, because it takes several years to establish an EPR program. There is a widespread consensus that we need to stop making and using disposable plastic items. In July 2021, Connecticut’s ban on single-use checkout bags went into effect. Shoppers have adapted to bring their own reusable bags or pay for paper bags. Beginning in January 2023, our state’s bottle tax covers several types of beverage containers. These are important steps, but small compared to the deluge of plastic people are throwing into nature. EPR for packaging will open another path to slow down and reverse the scourge of plastic waste. The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection strongly supports this legislation.
Some large companies are already reducing their use of plastic packaging. They support the EPR legislation because it encourages the latter to comply. Have you heard the business community say it prefers “market-based” solutions to pollution? That’s exactly what EPR programs are all about.
John C. Hall is the Executive Director of the Jonah Center for Earth and Art based in Middletown and Portland.
