Trash in America Moving from destructive consumption towards a zero-waste system - 2021 EDITION - NJPIRG
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Trash in America
Moving from destructive consumption
towards a zero-waste system
2021 EDITION
Trash in America
Moving from destructive consumption
towards a zero-waste system
ADRIAN PFORZHEIMER, FRONTIER GROUP
ALEXANDER TRUELOVE, U.S. PIRG EDUCATION FUND
SEPTEMBER 2021
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Kate Bailey and Rachel Setzke of Eco-Cycle for their review of
drafts of this document, as well as their insights and suggestions. Thanks to Abi Bradford
for authoring the previous version of this report. Thanks also to Susan Rakov, Tony Dutzik,
James Horrox, Gideon Weissman, Elizabeth Ridlington and Lauren Phillips-Jackson of
Frontier Group for editorial support.
The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. Policy recommendations are those
of NJPIRG Law & Policy Center, Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center and
Community Action Works. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review.
This is an update of a report originally released in February 2018.
2021 NJPIRG Law & Policy Center. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. To view the terms of this license,
visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow
agendas, the NJPIRG Law & Policy Center offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public
interest. The NJPIRG Law & Policy Center works to protect consumers and promote good government. We
investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer citizens meaningful opportunities for civic participation. For more
information about NJPIRG Law & Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit njpirgcenter.org.
Environment New Jersey Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting
New Jersey’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and
decision-makers, and help the public make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the
quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment New Jersey Research &
Policy Center or for additional copies of this report, please visit www.environmentnewjerseycenter.org.
Frontier Group provides information and ideas to build a healthier, more
sustainable America. We focus on problems that arise from our nation’s material
and technological wealth – the problems of abundance. We deliver timely research and analysis that is accessible to the public,
applying insights gleaned from diverse fields of knowledge to arrive at new paths forward. For more information about Frontier
Group, please visit www.frontiergroup.org
Layout: To the Point Collaborative, tothepointcollaborative.com
Cover photo: Michael Courier, www.michaelcourier.com
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................8
AMERICA PRODUCES TOO MUCH WASTE.......................................................................................10
How much solid waste does the U.S. produce?.........................................................................................................10
What does America throw away?................................................................................................................................10
What does the U.S. do with its garbage?.................................................................................................................... 11
What are the impacts of America’s waste system?...................................................................................................12
Global warming.......................................................................................................................................................12
Air pollution.............................................................................................................................................................13
Water contamination..............................................................................................................................................14
Ocean pollution.......................................................................................................................................................14
Wasted natural resources......................................................................................................................................16
Why does the U.S. throw out so much stuff?.............................................................................................................17
Goods are cheap....................................................................................................................................................17
Most goods are made to be used once and thrown away.................................................................................18
There are few direct incentives to repair, reuse, recycle and compost.............................................................18
MOVING AMERICA TO ZERO WASTE...............................................................................................20
Steps to achieving a zero-waste system....................................................................................................................22
NOTES ................................................................................................................................................29
Executive summary
THE UNITED STATES produces too much • Americans throw out 4.9 pounds of trash
waste. per person every day – that’s nearly 1,800
pounds of materials per American every
Natural resources are continually extracted year. 3
to produce goods that are used in the U.S. –
often only briefly – before they are thrown • The majority of waste (62%) discarded
into landfills, incinerators or the natural by homes and businesses in the U.S.
environment. This system of consumption is ultimately dumped into landfills or
and disposal results in the waste of precious burned in incinerators.4
resources and pollution that threatens our
health, environment and the global climate. More than 91% of plastic was landfilled or
incinerated in 2018. 5
Because the costs of this system fall on
society at large – not on the producers and Every 15.5 hours, Americans throw out
consumers who drive it – there are few direct enough plastic to fill the largest NFL stadium
incentives for change. in the country, AT&T Stadium (the home
of the Dallas Cowboys), and the pile grows
To protect public health and the environ- larger every year.6
ment, conserve natural resources and land-
scapes, and address the mounting crisis Our trash leads to even more waste than we
of climate change, America should move see. The products we use and dispose of are
toward an economic system characterized created by processes like mining and manu-
by zero waste. To achieve that goal, federal, facturing, which generate far more, and far
state and local governments should enact more dangerous, waste.7
policies and programs that incentivize America’s garbage largely consists of goods
shifting to a “circular” or “closed-loop” that are used only briefly.
economy in which less is consumed and all
materials are reused, recycled and compos- Over 28% of all U.S. garbage is packaging,
ted in a continuous cycle. amounting to 82 million tons of material
that is typically thrown out after a product is
The U.S. produces more than 12% of the purchased or used.8
planet’s trash*, though it is home to only 4%
of the world’s population.1 Nondurable goods, such as clothing and
newspaper, account for 17.3% of U.S. garbage,
• In 2018 alone, the U.S. threw out over with yard trimmings (12.1%) and food (21.6%)
292 million tons of municipal solid waste accounting for a substantial share as well.9
(MSW) – the materials discarded by
homes, businesses and institutions, such The remainder (19.5%) of what homes and
as universities and libraries.2 businesses throw out is made up of durable
* In this paper, the terms “garbage” and “trash” will be used in place of “Municipal Solid Waste,” which refers to
materials discarded by homes, businesses and institutions, such as universities and government agencies.
PAGE 4
goods, like furniture and appliances, many America’s system of consumption and dis-
of which could be repaired or repurposed, posal encourages and incentivizes waste.
or have their materials recycled for other
uses.10 Society bears most of the costs and burdens
of waste – not the producers and consum-
America’s linear material economy, where ers who create it – removing incentives for
materials are extracted, made into goods, change.
and disposed of, is a one-way street that
creates massive environmental and public • Producers have few direct incentives
health impacts. to build products to last, to make them
easy to repair, to use less packaging, or
• Global warming pollution: Roughly 42% to make their goods or packaging easy to
of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reuse, recycle or compost. In fact, it is often
are created in the process of extracting beneficial for producers to make goods
resources, producing goods, disposing of intended to be used once or only tempo-
waste, and transporting materials at every rarily so that consumers continually buy
stage of that process.11 more.
• Air pollution: Incinerator emissions • Producers, distributors and waste haulers
include heavy metals and mercury, a have a stake in the U.S. waste system
neurotoxin that impairs brain function, continuing to operate as it does now and
as well as cancer-causing pollutants like have lobbied against changes.19
dioxin, one of the most toxic substances
known to humanity.12 The extraction A zero-waste economy is possible.
and production activities that support
the linear material economy also cause Nearly all of America’s trash could be
environmental degradation, air pollution composted and recycled.
and water contamination. • Food waste and yard trimmings make up
• Water contamination: Leachate from more than a third (33.7%) of U.S. garbage
landfills can escape into the environment
and threaten drinking water supplies.13
• Ocean pollution: An estimated 16.5
million tons of plastic washes into the
world’s oceans every year.14 This plastic
persists for hundreds of years and can
kill marine animals by entangling them,
poisoning them or blocking their digestive
tracts.15 Marine debris is considered one of
the great threats to biodiversity.16
• Wasted natural resources: It would take
321 million trees to produce the amount of
paper that was landfilled or burned in the
U.S. in 2018 alone.17 Thirty million acres
of cropland, roughly the area of Pennsyl- Figure ES-1. U.S. garbage composition by prod-
vania, is farmed each year for food that is uct category, 201820
wasted in the U.S.18
PAGE 5
and are organic and easily compostable, but bans on expanded polystyrene contain-
the U.S. lacks sufficient infrastructure.21 ers, and more are considering bans on
other single-use foodware, packaging
• Paper and paperboard, some of which and more.25
could be composted and the rest of which
could be recycled, make up nearly a • Several states have banned recyclables
quarter (23.1%) of America’s trash.22 from landfills, and in 2020 Vermont
became the first to ban all compostable
• Metals, glass, and plastics – another materials from landfills.26
quarter (25.2%) of America’s garbage –
are all readily recyclable, although many • Thanks to a variety of policies and
types of plastic are not.23 programs, such as making manufactur-
ers responsible for disposing of packag-
• Rubber, wood, leather, and textiles make ing, Germany now recycles 67% of
up the remainder (15.1%) of America’s household waste.27
waste and can also be recycled into
useful products.24 Textile recycling has • In July 2021, Maine became the first state
made great advances in recent years. in the U.S. to pass a law establishing
producer responsibility for packaging
U.S. cities and states, as well as other and paper products, shifting respon-
countries, are already taking strides sibility for the costs of recycling away
toward creating zero waste. from the taxpayer and onto the corpora-
• Eleven states have passed bans on single- tions responsible for producing those
use plastic bags, seven states have passed products.28
* “Other food management” includes animal feed, bio-based materials/biochemical processing,
codigestion/anaerobic digestion, donation, land application and sewer/wastewater treatment.
ǂ “Incineration” refers to combustion with energy recovery.
Figure ES-2. U.S. garbage handling, 201829
PAGE 6
America has the tools to shift away from 4. Make recycling and composting manda-
this wasteful, polluting and costly linear tory, universally accessible and less
system to a circular material economy that expensive than garbage disposal.
produces zero waste, conserves natural
resources, and limits pollution and global 5. Require that goods be built to last and
warming emissions. easy to repair, reuse, recycle or compost.
Efforts to reduce waste should prioritize 6. Ban the sale of single-use items that are
reducing material consumption first and not easily recyclable or compostable,
foremost; reusing, refurbishing and repair- including packaging, plastic bags and
ing everything possible; and recycling or food service ware.
composting all remaining materials. 7. Invest in repair, reuse, recycling and
By taking the following steps, the U.S. can composting facilities to support a circu-
incentivize the shift to a circular economy lar economy.
in which zero waste is created. These steps 8. Require producers to use recycled and
can be promoted through a variety of poli- reused materials in new products, and
cies and programs at the local, state and encourage businesses and govern-
national levels. ments to set procurement standards for
1. Set a goal to achieve zero waste. recycled materials.
2. Require producers to take responsibility 9. As waste is eliminated, ensure that all
for their products during their entire life remaining waste is disposed of safely.
cycle. 10. Oppose the construction, expansion and
3. Price goods to reflect the environmen- subsidization of landfills, incinerators
tal and public health impacts of their and plastic-to-fuel conversion facilities
production. marketed as “chemical recycling.”
PAGE 7
Introduction
THE ITEMS WE THROW in the trash or in the plastic waste exports to Thailand jumped
recycling bin seem to go “away” – picked up nearly 7,000% in one year.35 Alarmed at the
off our curbs weekly and immediately put influx, Thailand and many other neighboring
out of our minds. countries passed import restrictions of their
own – forcing America to finally confront the
But there is no “away.” The trash we discard huge volume of waste we produce.36
often comes back into our lives – sometimes
as a product made with recycled material, With little domestic infrastructure to sort and
but more often as plastic litter in a beach or reuse our own trash, the cost of recycling
park, or pollution from an incinerator. skyrocketed. In California, a bale of low-
grade mixed plastic that could be sold for $20
For decades, America has sent much of its in 2017 cost $10 to dispose of a year later.37
trash halfway around the world in search of Philadelphia, looking at a fourfold increase
a new “away.” in the price of recycling, started sending at
least half of its recycling straight to an incin-
Since 1992, for example, China and Hong erator.38 Franklin, New Hampshire, which
Kong accepted over 72% of the world’s had sold recycling for $6 a ton, now faced
plastic waste imports.30 The United States fees of $125 a ton to dispose of recycling at
exported over 750,000 tons of plastic to the local transfer station.39 Franklin became
China in 2016 alone, outsourcing the sorting one of over 100 U.S. towns to cut or pause its
and recycling of low-value plastic scrap.31 curbside recycling program since 2018.40
This made “recycling” in the U.S. cheap and
easy, allowing for the export of even imper- Today, with fewer opportunities to send our
fectly sorted plastic waste. Every day, ships plastic waste “away,” America faces a choice:
in U.S. ports unloaded products from China Continue down a pathway of increased
and filled nearly 4,000 shipping containers materials production and pollution – a
full of mixed recyclables.32 future in which communities and our envi-
ronment increasingly buckle under the cost
The waste we produced and shipped con- and strain of dealing with an ever-increas-
tributed to a 66 billion to 77 billion ton back- ing flow of garbage. Or boldly reimagine
log in China.33 Managing this waste and our entire relationship to the stuff we buy,
its pollution became so unsustainable that use and throw away.
in January 2018, China banned almost all
imports of mixed waste and plastic scrap.34 A zero-waste path is possible – one in which
we use less stuff, recycle and repair more of
Exporters frantically searched for the next what we own, and relieve our communities
“away” – turning to nearby southeast Asian and our environment of the burden of deal-
countries with underdeveloped recycling ing with ever-increasing volumes of trash.
infrastructure to offload their scrap. U.S. We can achieve it by setting zero-waste
PAGE 8targets, such as decreasing the overall ton- federal government can follow the longtime
nage of waste we produce and increasing leadership of countries like Germany, which
the landfill diversion rate, and then putting has shifted responsibility for the entire life
in place the commitments, policies and pro- cycle of packaging to producers, dramatically
grams that can make that economy a reality. increasing recycling rates.43 In 2021, Maine
became the first state in the U.S. to pass such
There are proven, common-sense policies a law. LD 1541 – “An Act to Support and
that can be enacted at the local, state and Improve Municipal Recycling Programs and
national levels that can begin to change this Save Taxpayer Money” – requires companies
system. Governments can follow the example using certain kinds of packaging materials to
of San Francisco, which now requires that all cover the recycling costs of those materials.44
food service packaging sold in the city, like
coffee cups, be recyclable or compostable.41 By coming to grips with our nation’s absurd,
Or they can follow the lead of states such as linear material economy, and by putting the
Hawaii, Washington, Maine, and New Jersey right policies and signals in place, America
and communities across the U.S. that have can move toward a more sustainable future
banned plastic bags from grocery stores.42 – one that recognizes that there is no such
To be even more ambitious, states and the place as “away.”
Photo: Walter Parenteau via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Bales of plastic are collected at Recycle Central at Pier 96 in San Francisco. Better sorting technology
leads to cleaner bales and more opportunities to sell them.
PAGE 9America produces too much waste
How much solid waste does the U.S. Industrial solid waste: approximately 7.6
produce? billion tons per year (2003 estimate).47
The U.S. produces more than 12% of the Mining and mineral processing solid waste:
planet’s municipal solid waste (MSW), 1-2 billion tons per year (2004 estimate).48
though it is home to only 4% of the world’s
population.45 Behind this mountain of trash, Construction and demolition debris: 600
however, is a larger one created by indus- million tons (2018 estimate).49
trial processes, often to make our household Municipal solid waste or garbage from
products that in turn, in many cases, end homes, businesses and institutions: 292.4
up as the waste we throw out. Activities million tons (2018 estimate).50
like mining, manufacturing and agriculture
create industrial solid waste, which is poorly Oil and gas exploration and production
tracked but may account for up to 97% of solid waste: 107 million tons per year (2016
America’s total waste.46 estimate). This figure does not include 4.5 bil-
lion tons of contaminated water per year.51
Based on available data, the categories of
solid waste in America, ranked by size are: Hazardous solid waste covered by the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA): 28.9 million tons (2017 estimate).52
What does America throw away?
The materials thrown out in the U.S. are
largely comprised of goods that are unneces-
sary or are used only briefly – for example,
over 28% of all U.S. garbage is packaging.53
Packaging is the largest single category of
waste thrown out in the U.S., amounting
to 82 million tons a year of garbage gener-
ated by materials of little direct use to the
consumer.54 Consumer goods, including
durable goods (e.g., furniture, appliances
and other products which are intended to
last) and nondurable goods (e.g., newspa-
pers, clothing and other products intended
Figure 1. U.S. garbage composition by product to wear out), together comprise 36.8% of
category, 201855 garbage – with a slightly higher amount of
durable goods than non-durable goods.
PAGE 10More than one-third of discarded materials
are organic, and are therefore compostable,
while over half are reusable or recyclable.
The components of U.S. municipal garbage
include:
1. Organic material (food & yard trimmings):
33.7%
2. Paper & paperboard: 23.1%
3. Plastics: 12.2%
4. Rubber, leather and textiles: 8.9%
5. Metals: 8.8%
6. Wood: 6.2%
Figure 2. U.S. garbage composition by material, 201856
7. Glass: 4.2%
What does the U.S. do with its garbage? an unknown fate.57 A great deal of unac-
counted-for trash also ends up loose in the
Nearly two-thirds – 61.8% – of garbage environment in the form of litter.
thrown out in the U.S. is ultimately
dumped into landfills or burned in incin- Because most discarded materials are
erators. Far less material – 38.2% – is com- dumped or burned, there are currently 2,629
posted, recycled or otherwise diverted landfills and 75 incinerators with energy
from disposal; some of it is exported to recovery in the U.S.58
* “Other food management” includes animal feed, bio-based materials/biochemical processing,
codigestion/anaerobic digestion, donation, land application and sewer/wastewater treatment.
ǂ “Incineration” refers to combustion with energy recovery.
Figure 3. U.S. garbage handling, 201859
PAGE 11Less than a quarter of trash in America is around the world that manufacture prod-
recycled. Single-stream recycling, where ucts and raw materials we consume.
different materials are disposed of in the
same bin and sorted at a recycling plant, is Using recycled materials instead of vir-
the most common method, covering 80% gin materials for manufacturing saves
of American communities in 2014.60 While energy and keeps materials out of incin-
single-stream is the simplest way to recycle, erators and landfills, both of which save
around 20% of the material collected in such significant amounts of climate pollution.67
systems is contaminated or unrecyclable.61 In 2018, recycling and composting in the
U.S. prevented more greenhouse gas emis-
Only 6.1 million households had access to sions than almost 42 million passenger
curbside food composting in 2017, resulting cars produce in a year.68 One 2008 study
in just 4.1% of wasted food being composted estimated that reducing waste generation
in 2018.62 However, many communities have and disposal via zero waste strategies
specific pick-up programs for yard trim- could enable the U.S. to reduce its green-
mings, helping the U.S. achieve a compost- house gas emissions by more than 406
ing rate of 63% for of yard waste.63 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per
year by 2030 – equivalent to shutting down
What are the impacts of America’s one-fifth of the coal-fired power plants in
waste system? operation in the U.S. at the time that study
was conducted.69
America’s linear economy and waste system
create massive environmental and public Food waste and yard trimmings, which
health impacts. make up 31.4% of waste sent to landfills,
produce methane – a greenhouse gas 86
GLOBAL WARMING times more potent than carbon dioxide in
The U.S. generates more CO2 emissions the short term– as they degrade in dark,
than any country other than China.64 The low-oxygen conditions.70 This is a large
consumptive or “embedded” emissions missed opportunity, because composting
from the U.S. waste system – that is, emis- organic matter builds soil and traps carbon
sions from the activities that the system by helping microorganisms and plants to
perpetuates, such as extracting resources, grow. In 2019, landfill methane produced
producing goods, disposing of waste, and the equivalent of 114.5 million metric tons
transporting materials at every stage of of CO2.71
that process – collectively account for 42%
Using recycled material instead of virgin
of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.65
materials also saves significant amounts of
That is more than any individual sector
energy – according to the Institute of Scrap
of the U.S. economy, such as transporta-
Recycling Industries, up to 95% for alumi-
tion (29%) or electricity generation (25%),
num, 75% for copper, 88% for plastic, 60%
though these sectors do overlap with the
for paper, 60% for steel and 34% for glass.
material economy.66
It also conserves natural resources. Recy-
Cutting back on these emissions by con- cling 1 ton of steel conserves 2,500 pounds
suming less would therefore be one of of iron ore, 1,400 pounds of coal and 120
the most effective strategies to cut global pounds of limestone; and recycling 1 ton
warming pollution. It would also reduce the of aluminum conserves more than 4 metric
unaccounted-for emissions from countries tons of bauxite ore.72
PAGE 12AIR POLLUTION can cause skin, blood, liver and reproduc-
Most waste ends up in landfills, which tive problems.76 Incinerators also release
release toxic air pollution. Construction and heavy metals and mercury, a neurotoxin
demolition debris that contains drywall can that impairs brain function.77
produce toxic hydrogen sulfide gas in land-
fills.73 Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless, highly A recent development in waste disposal is
flammable and explosive gas that smells the concept of turning plastic waste into
like rotten eggs.74 Hydrogen sulfide can fuel by treating it with various chemicals,
cause eye and skin irritation; problems with heat and pressure through technologies
respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological such as pyrolysis and gasification. These
systems, among others; cancer; and, in cases processes break apart plastics in high heat
of acute exposure, death.75 and low oxygen conditions and release
dangerous chemicals, including hydro-
Incinerators work by burning waste mate- gen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and new
rial at extremely high temperatures, pro- carcinogenic molecules not present in the
ducing ash and air pollution. Some of these original plastic.78 Toxic and environmentally
emissions include cancer-causing and harmful materials can then end up in the
highly toxic pollutants like dioxin, which facility’s waste streams.79
Photo: Doug Bradley via Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
Air pollution from the Blue Ridge Paper Mill in the town of Canton, North Carolina. Because the vast
majority of manufactured materials in the U.S. are ultimately dumped or burned, materials such as
paper need to be continually made anew. The processes by which these new materials are made create
air, water and global warming pollution.
PAGE 13While the extent of the risk to facility posed of with little regulation or oversight.
workers and neighboring communities For example, 11 million pounds of radioac-
remains unknown, existing pyrolysis and tive fracking waste was spread on Pennsyl-
gasification facilities for plastic waste have vania roads in 2016 – legally – for de-icing
been linked to hazardous emissions that and dust control.86
pose health risks to workers and nearby
residents. Gasification of plastic produces The U.S. has 2,629 active landfills and many
carcinogens that can be disruptive to respi- retired ones.87 Almost all need some level
ratory or neurological systems, including of monitoring, and some pose significant
phthalates, BPA and toxic brominated com- threats to the environment.
pounds.80 For example, the town of Lewisville, Texas
According to a European Commission alleged in a 2012 federal lawsuit that the
report on plastic recycling, detailed Camelot Landfill posed “an imminent and
knowledge of the environmental impacts substantial endangerment” to its drinking
and possible unintended consequences of water supply.88 Monitoring wells outside
industrial-scale chemical recycling “does the landfill near the Elm Fork of the Trin-
not exist.”81 A report by the nonprofit group ity River were found to be contaminated
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives with heavy metals and chlorinated hydro-
(GAIA) concluded, “The only thing [plastic carbons, which can impact central nervous
to fuel] recycles is toxic chemicals.”82 system function and cause kidney damage.89
Furthermore, diesel fuel produced via The groundwater at Lees Lane Landfill
chemical recycling emits higher levels of in Louisville, KY, was tested in 2012 and
pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, soot, found to contain arsenic levels up to 38
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.83 times the federal limit for drinking water,
and lead contamination levels as high as
Dumping and burning garbage rather than 130 parts per billion, nearly nine times the
reusing and recycling materials necessitates federal action level.90
perpetual extraction, manufacturing and
transportation activities, all of which also OCEAN POLLUTION
create air pollution. Much of our trash ends up loose in the envi-
ronment and is eventually carried into the
WATER CONTAMINATION ocean via stormwater runoff, littering and
The liquid that filters through landfills is illegal dumping. An estimated 16.5 million
called leachate, a complex mix of chemicals tons of plastic ends up in the ocean every year,
and contaminants that varies depending on and that figure could grow sharply by 2040.91
the makeup of the landfill. Toxic leachate A 2020 study estimated that there were 165
can threaten drinking water supplies, even million tons of plastic in the world’s oceans,
when landfills are protected with modern which may not biodegrade for centuries, if
plastic liners.84 Treated leachate is some- ever.92 The Pacific Ocean contains a massive
times released into surface waters, but a garbage patch which is estimated to be about
study by the U.S. Geological Survey found twice the size of Texas and has been growing
that even after wastewater treatment, leach- continuously.93
ate still contained potentially hazardous
levels of contaminants.85 A 2014 study estimated that there were at
least 5.25 trillion pieces of floating plastic in
Industrial waste is also often contaminated the world’s oceans.94 The majority of particles
with dangerous or toxic substances and dis- accumulate on the sea floor or break down
PAGE 14Photo: Alaska Department of Fish & Game
A Northern fur seal with a fishing net around its neck.
into smaller and smaller pieces, and eventu- found that seafood eaters consume up to
ally into harmful chemicals, which persist 11,000 microplastic particles every year, some
indefinitely in the environment.95 All of of which accumulate in the body over time
these bits of plastic are harmful to marine and may lead to long-term health impacts.97
species and a potential contributing factor In fact, humans may consume an average of
to species extinction.96 This is a problem five grams of microplastics per week, or the
for people who eat seafood, too. One study equivalent of a credit card.98
Figure 4. Since the 1960s, the amount of plastic produced has radically increased102
PAGE 15Figure 5. As plastic generation has increased, plastic recycling has stalled103
Marine mammals also frequently ingest down over the past 20 years, largely to
plastic, mistaking it for food or consuming manufacture paper products that could be
it inadvertently. One study found plastic made out of recycled material.105
in over 60% of dead sea turtles’ digestive
tracts.99 Larger pieces of plastic can also harm The impact of food waste reverberates
or kill seals and whales by entangling them throughout our globalized world. Each year,
– based on annual entanglement figures, the 30 million acres of cropland, roughly the
same study found that this affects at least area of Pennsylvania, is farmed for food
57,000 whales and seals every year.100 This that is wasted in the U.S.106 Globally, an area
tragedy is not limited to the seas – wildlife the size of Mexico is farmed for food that is
entanglement has been recorded in over 270 thrown away.107 Nearly a quarter of all water
species.101 used for agriculture nourishes crops that
become food waste.108 Because America’s
WASTED NATURAL RESOURCES food comes from around the world, much
of the habitat destruction occurring in
Virgin raw materials often cost less than other parts of the world is due to American
post-consumer recycled content, but only waste.109
because of the heavy subsidization of vir-
gin extraction, the fact that the natural In 2018, the U.S. landfilled or burned 32.6
resources that produce them are so under- million tons of plastic, much of it single-use
valued, and the failure to incorporate the plastic containers and other plastic prod-
environmental and social costs of their ucts for which sustainable replacements
extraction into their price. It took at least are readily available.110 The demand for this
321 million trees to produce the amount quantity of plastic requires large amounts
of paper that was landfilled or burned in of oil and gas, leaving lasting impacts on
the U.S. in 2018 alone.104 An area of Canada’s the millions of acres of land where the fossil
boreal forest the size of Ohio has been cut fuels are drilled, transported and refined.
PAGE 16COVID-19 INCREASED HOUSEHOLD WASTE, BUT LASTING IMPACTS ARE UNKNOWN
The COVID-19 pandemic upended every further hit by about 100 cities and towns
facet of the economy and daily life. suspending curbside municipal recycling
People stayed home; they cooked and services during the pandemic due to bud-
ordered takeout; businesses idled while get and safety concerns.114
medical workers worked around the
clock. The U.S. waste system, already COVID-19 also reshaped policies to
far from sustainable, was profoundly address the trash crisis. Many communi-
affected. ties that had banned single-use plastic
bags suspended these bans, uncertain
In just two months during the spring whether reusable bags could spread the
of 2020, the U.S. may have generated an virus. Even as it became clear that reus-
entire year’s worth of medical waste.111 able bags were extremely unlikely to
Fueled by takeout food and online shop- transmit the virus, some cities, states and
ping, residential waste was up 20% above private businesses were slow to reinstate
normal during the height of the spring bans on disposable bags.115
lockdowns, settling in at 7% to 10%
above normal at the end of 2020. Mean- As the U.S. moves beyond the pandemic,
while, commercial waste fell 10%.112 it is unclear whether and when changes
in waste patterns and litter habits will
The price of oil fell precipitously, and return to normal. Much will depend
with it, the cost of making virgin plastic on whether states, cities and towns
and the value of recycled plastic. The will remain committed to their waste-
recycled plastic used to make drink reduction goals. Forward-thinking com-
bottles became 88% more expensive than munities will look back at the increased
bottle-grade plastic made from virgin trash and ubiquitous litter of masks and
materials, reinforcing the need to move takeout containers on streets and in parks
beyond single-use plastics altogether.113 during COVID and redouble their zero-
The supply of recycled materials was waste efforts.
Why does the U.S. throw out incomes were low. Waste was limited
because it made economic sense to only buy
so much stuff?
what you needed, to repurpose everything,
The U.S. throws out immense amounts of and to produce and purchase durable goods
materials because goods are relatively cheap that could be easily repaired.
to produce and consume, most goods are
made to be used once or temporarily, and As the 20th century progressed, however,
there are few direct incentives to repair, new technologies made all sorts of products
reuse, recycle and compost materials. more affordable and disposable, so the bar-
riers to waste fell. A dollar in 2020 buys 44
GOODS ARE CHEAP times the electricity it did in 1902.116 The cost
Before the 20th century, households gen- of industrial minerals dropped by roughly
erated minimal amounts of waste. Raw 40% from 1900 to 2000.117 With raw materials
materials were expensive, manufacturing and energy falling in cost, new and cheaper
was relatively inefficient, and most people’s materials were invented. Modern plastics,
PAGE 17invented in the early 1900s, became very Food waste is another largely modern prac-
inexpensive to produce and ubiquitous in tice. The U.S. wastes up to 40% of the food
the latter half of the century. Many indus- it produces – around 133 billion pounds per
tries, inspired by Henry Ford’s assembly year.121 This waste is in large part due to the
line, adopted the practice of mass produc- spread of industrial farming in the 20th cen-
tion, which lowered production costs. tury, which has made it cheaper to produce
and consume food. Accounting for inflation,
At the same time that product costs were milk, ham and sugar in 2013 cost half or less
falling, people’s incomes were rising, fur- than half as much as they did in 1913, rice
ther lowering the barriers to consumption cost one-third what it had, and eggs cost
and waste production. The median house- only one-quarter what they had a century
hold income in the U.S. more than doubled ago.122 Producers and distributors routinely
in 50 years from $20,102 (in 1997 dollars) in discard food that does not meet high aes-
1947 to $44,568 in 1997.118 thetic standards and transport food long
distances with some of it spoiling along the
MANY GOODS ARE MADE TO BE USED ONCE
way.123 The relatively low cost of food also
AND THROWN AWAY
allows people to buy more than they eat – a
The 20th century saw the rise of dispos- family of four spends $1,500 every year on
able goods and packaging – a develop- food that does not get eaten.124
ment that accelerated dramatically after
the widespread introduction of plastic. THERE ARE FEW DIRECT INCENTIVES TO
In 1956, the editor of National Packaging REPAIR, REUSE, RECYCLE AND COMPOST
magazine declared “the future of plastics America’s wasteful system of extraction,
is in the trash can.”119 He urged the plastics consumption and disposal continues – even
industry to stop thinking about reusable though it harms public health and the
products and instead to focus on single-use environment, wastes natural resources, and
products – things that can be used once contributes to dangerous global warming
and thrown away – because that would – because its true costs are spread across
create a never-ending sales opportunity. society and even across generations. The
It required behavior change for people to absence of policies that hold companies
start using disposable goods, but advertis- accountable for managing their packaging
ing campaigns were effective and now red and products means that these costs are not
plastic cups and plastic forks are American felt directly by the producers who create the
staples. problem, who therefore have no incentive to
Disposability even began to extend to change their behavior.
durable goods. “Planned obsolescence” Producers are typically not responsible for
was thought up in the 1920s, when the the goods they produce after they are sold
national automobile market reached satu- or their warranty runs out, so they do not
ration. General Motors famously started have to pay to dispose of those goods when
introducing new design models every year they are ultimately thrown out. Produc-
to convince consumers that their cars were ers, therefore, have little incentive to build
out of date so that they would buy new products to last, to use less packaging, or
ones.120 Today’s smartphones continue that to make their goods or packaging easy to
tradition, with designs that make them repair, reuse, recycle or compost. In fact,
so difficult to repair they might as well be it is often beneficial for producers to make
replaced.
PAGE 18goods intended to be used once or only tem- In most communities, consumers do not
porarily so that consumers continually have directly pay to throw out their garbage, or
to buy more. they pay the same fee regardless of how
much they throw out, so they also have no
Similarly, since companies’ profits increase direct incentives to repair, reuse, recycle
when we buy new products, it is in these and compost.
companies’ interests to make it harder to
repair our old ones. Many companies have The broader costs of this system – the
for this reason attempted to control the meth- harm to public health and the environ-
ods of repair, with some even going so far as ment, the waste of resources, and the
to try and block technologies and discourage endangerment of future generations
laws that enable electronics to be repaired.125 through global warming – are also dis-
placed and largely invisible. Even Ameri-
Many groups have a vested interest in keep- cans who feel the public health impacts
ing this system as it is. Manufacturers, dis- of this system or who see the loss of natu-
tributors, retailers and waste haulers have ral areas may not draw the connections
lobbied against measures to limit waste between these burdens and the fact that so
like container deposit laws (bottle bills) and many materials are discarded in the U.S.
bans on plastic bags, all while lobbying for
expansions of their facilities.126
PAGE 19Moving America to zero waste
AMERICA HAS THE TOOLS to shift from a materials are ultimately dumped or burned,
wasteful, polluting and costly linear econ- this process must repeat from the extraction
omy to a circular material economy that stage to replace those lost materials. Extract,
produces zero waste. produce, consume, throw out, repeat – this
system is effectively a one-way pipeline
The U.S. material economy is linear – that converts natural resources into ever-
natural resources are extracted to produce growing piles of garbage and plumes of
goods, which are purchased, used and incinerator smoke.
ultimately thrown out. Because most
ZERO WASTE IS POSSIBLE – AN EXAMPLE FROM GERMANY
Thanks to strong public participation dard so it can be easily reused or recycled,
and policies that hold producers respon- leading to an almost 90% recycling rate.130
sible for their waste, Germany now
recycles 67% of its household waste and When German manufacturers began pay-
has a 97% recovery rate for packaging.127 ing a fee based on packaging type and vol-
ume, plastics in packaging fell by nearly
• Manufacturers pay a fee on all one third, and one million tons of packag-
packaging based on recyclability of ing overall was saved over five years.131
packaging materials, encouraging
producers to make packaging much Producer responsibility programs are
easier to recycle.128 among the most impactful policy inter-
ventions to reduce trash, and interest is
• There are uniformly colored bins growing in the U.S. In February 2021,
throughout the country for food waste state legislators representing nine states
(brown), paper (blue), packaging (yellow), announced a coordinated plan to intro-
and garbage (black). This simple, univer- duce producer responsibility legislation in
sal system makes sorting easy and their states.132 In 2021, Maine became the
habitual. first U.S. state to pass such legislation. LD
• Manufacturers are required to meet 1541 – “An Act to Support and Improve
ambitious recycling targets, which Municipal Recycling Programs and Save
have risen over time.129 Taxpayer Money” – requires that com-
panies using certain kinds of packaging
Before construction debris can be dis- materials cover the recycling costs of
posed of, it must be sorted to a high stan- those materials.133
PAGE 20Photo Credit: UCI Sustainability via Flickr, CC BY-ND 2.0
Students sort their waste at a University of California Irvine sustainability event. Composting and
recycling should be mandatory, less expensive than garbage disposal and available everywhere there
are trash services – at home, school, work and in public.
It doesn’t have to be this way. discharges to land, water, or air that threaten
the environment or human health.”134
America can create a circular material
economy that moves towards producing This goal can be achieved by replacing the
zero waste. wasteful linear material economy with a
circular, or closed-loop, economic system. In
The Zero Waste International Alliance, which this system, less would be consumed, prod-
in 2004 established a peer-reviewed, inter- ucts would be built to last and be easy to
nationally accepted definition of zero waste repair and, once they fulfilled their original
to help guide businesses, institutions and purpose, would be easily reused, recycled
communities in creating zero-waste goals, or composted, eliminating the need for
currently defines zero waste simply as “the harmful landfills and incinerators. Then,
conservation of all resources by means of new products would be made using the
responsible production, consumption, reuse, reused and recycled materials, replacing the
and recovery of products, packaging, and need for harmful and wasteful extraction
materials without burning and with no processes.
PAGE 21Steps to achieving a zero-waste system producer responsibility laws covering over
The following steps can help create a zero- a dozen types of products exist across the
waste economy and can be promoted U.S.135
through a variety of policies and programs Producer responsibility programs can be
at the local, state and federal levels. particularly useful in collecting, recycling
1. Set a goal to achieve zero waste. and reimagining paper and packaging
products (PPP). For over a decade, British
A zero-waste goal is a critical step in driv- Columbia has been running a successful
ing the adoption of policies and practices program that holds producers respon-
that can achieve that aim. It is not enough sible for managing several product waste
to set goals to increase recycling and com- streams, including paper and packaging
posting rates. To achieve zero waste, prod- waste. In 2019, the program recovered 78%
ucts will need to be made using reused and of eligible material and recycled 90% of
recycled materials, be built to last, and be it.136 These programs also spur producers,
easy to repair, reuse, recycle or compost. To who are required to pay for the collection
make that possible, governments will need of their products, to innovate new con-
to adopt strong policies and provide finan- tainers and packaging that are easier to
cial and other support for waste reduction recycle and use fewer resources. Producer
programs, reuse programs, research and responsibility programs for PPP dramati-
infrastructure. cally increase recycling rates by providing
sustainable funding that enables equitable
2. Require producers to take responsibility collection of materials for all residents
for their products during their entire life in a jurisdiction and by streamlining the
cycle. materials that are collected for recycling.
Producers are usually not responsible for Further, many producer responsibility pro-
their products once they are purchased or grams charge producers by weight for the
their warranty runs out, so they have no packaging they bring to market and charge
financial incentives to use less packaging, more for materials that are harder to recy-
to build products to last, or to make their cle. These charges can encourage producers
products or packaging easy to repair, reuse, to reduce their packaging and to use more
recycle, or compost. environmentally friendly materials. As of
July 2021, Maine became the first state in
Producers should be required to fund the the U.S. to pass a law establishing producer
collection and recycling of hard-to-recycle responsibility for PPP.137
products after their useful lives. This will
encourage them to improve the design of In 2021, U.S. Rep. Alan Lowenthal and U.S.
their products to be easily reusable, repair- Sen. Jeff Merkley (re)introduced the Break
able, recyclable or compostable, and will Free From Plastic Pollution Act in Congress,
increase the recycling rates of difficult-to- an ambitious set of policies that includes,
recycle products. among other reforms, a ban on several
single-use plastic items, a national bottle
Product stewardship laws already exist bill, a pause on new permits for plastic pro-
across the country, and are effective at duction and chemical recycling facilities,
making manufacturers responsible for the and a nationwide producer responsibility
collection and disposal of specific hard- program for packaging.138 Individually,
to-recycle or hazardous materials, such as each of these measures would meaning-
batteries, carpets or paint. More than 115 fully reduce the amount of unwanted waste
PAGE 22and pollution; taken together, the bill would opportunities for technological innovation
upend our extractive, one-way waste system in the materials we regularly interact with,
and greatly improve the sustainability of all one example being the growing variety of
sectors of society. certified compostable foodware – though
infrastructure for collecting and managing
3. Price goods to reflect the environmental compostables has so far lagged behind.
and public health impacts of their pro-
duction. 4. Make recycling and composting man-
datory, universally accessible and less
The price of goods often does not reflect expensive than garbage disposal.
the impact of their production on the envi-
ronment or public health. This has led to Mandatory recycling and composting laws
the proliferation of cheap goods that have are among the most effective ways to reduce
serious environmental and public health waste. Through these laws, residents, busi-
impacts that society must ultimately pay for. nesses and institutions are required to
recycle and compost all appropriate materi-
If products were priced to reflect the envi- als. The burning of plastics or any waste for
ronmental and public health impacts of energy recovery should not be considered
their production, such as the social costs of recycling.
greenhouse gas emissions or other forms
of pollution, consumers and businesses To enact these laws, recycling and compost-
could make more informed purchases, ing services must be made available every-
which would reduce the amount of mate- where there are garbage disposal services
rial needlessly thrown out. This would also – at home, at work and in public. The state
encourage the development of safer and of Vermont, for example, now requires that
more environmentally friendly products, publicly owned spaces provide recycling
lowering the societal costs of environmental bins next to trash bins as part of its Univer-
and public health impacts. There are clearly sal Recycling Law.139
Figure 4. Material economic systems– linear versus circular
PAGE 23The success of mandatory recycling and There are other policies that can incentivize
composting programs depends on public recycling and composting. Bottle bills, for
education. For instance, in implementing its instance, tack a small deposit onto products
Universal Recycling Law, Vermont has estab- that come in bottles or cans. If consumers
lished an education program in public schools return the bottles and cans to be reused
that provides support and materials for teach- and recycled, they receive the deposit back,
ers, such as sample lesson plans.140 This pro- providing a direct incentive to return the
gram aims to make recycling and composting bottles and cans instead of throwing them
second nature for children, so that they will away. In 2018, of the 10 states with the high-
influence their families at home and carry est recycling rate for common containers
these behaviors into adulthood. and packaging materials, eight had bottle
bills.142
Mandatory recycling and composting laws
need to involve a system of accountability Furthermore, the recyclable material col-
to be effective. In some places, waste haul- lected as a result of bottle bills is of higher
ers can be fined for continually dropping off quality because it is separated and does
excessive quantities of unrecyclable garbage not get contaminated by other materi-
in their recycling and composting loads als, thereby commanding higher value in
and vice versa. Residents, businesses and the marketplace.143 This is especially true
institutions can also be issued warnings for glass, which is easily contaminated in
and fines when they do not sort their waste single-stream recycling collection.
properly.
5. Require goods to be built to last and easy
To further incentivize consumers to reduce to repair, reuse, recycle or compost.
the amount of garbage they produce, com-
munities should ensure that it is more To move toward zero waste, policymakers
affordable to recycle and compost than to should encourage the production and sale
throw materials away. In many communi- of products that are built to last and easy to
ties, garbage is collected for free or at a flat repair, reuse, recycle or compost.
“all you can throw” rate, giving consumers When products do break, it should be easy
no incentive to reduce the amount of waste and cost-effective to repair them rather than
they produce and throw away. throw them out. Many products are inten-
Pay as you throw (PAYT), also known tionally or inadvertently made to be difficult
as Saving Money and Reducing Trash or impossible to repair, so they must be
(SMART) programs incentivize consumers replaced when they break.144 It is also often
to waste less and to recycle and compost cheaper to buy new products than to repair
more. PAYT is an effective policy tool that existing ones. Policies that require the man-
uses a modest price signal to encourage con- ufacturers of certain products to warranty
sumers to more carefully consider the waste their goods for a substantial length of time
they produce. 9,000 communities across could encourage the sale of higher-quality
the U.S. have some version of PAYT. One products that are less likely to be thrown
study of 20 Maine communities found PAYT away prematurely.
programs generated 45% less trash and had In addition, some manufacturers hold the
a 62% higher recycling rate.141 These pro- rights to all of the tools, parts or software
grams should be implemented everywhere needed to fix their products – a situation
and fees should be sufficient to incentivize that can make it difficult or prohibitively
composting and recycling. expensive for consumers to have prod-
PAGE 24ucts repaired. Policymakers should enact 6. Ban the sale of single-use items that are
“Right to Repair” reforms to remove these not easily recyclable or compostable,
barriers. These reforms require that infor- including packaging, plastic bags and
mation, parts and tools needed to repair food service ware.
products be made available to consumers.
These reforms also expand consumers’ Packaging and containers make up 28%
rights to adapt and modify products to of the materials thrown out by homes and
extend their useful lives. businesses in the U.S.147 Producers should be
required to limit the amount of packaging
Electronics are becoming a notorious they use and to make all packaging easy to
example of products that break quickly recycle or compost.
and are difficult to repair. Impossible-to-
open products and a restricted supply Policymakers should tax, limit or ban prod-
of original replacement parts can lead ucts with limited usefulness that will most
to consumers choosing to replace rather likely end up as waste. Single-use plastic
than repair.145 Properly recycling electron- bags, for example, almost all end up as
ics to reuse the valuable elements within waste and often as litter in our communi-
requires specialized recycling facilities, ties and waterways. These items are used
but these can be scarce or hard to find. for mere moments and then take decades
This is problematic because electronics to centuries to break down, harming the
contain toxic substances that can find their environment and our health in the process.
way into our air and water if thrown out To stop this nonsensical cycle, eleven U.S.
in the regular trash. states and many cities have banned single-
use plastic shopping bags.148 Many other
Many products, such as lightweight and cities, counties and states in the U.S. have
mixed-material packaging, are difficult to programs to tax or limit plastic bags or
recycle. To avoid this, lawmakers should increase their recycling rates.149
set standards for products sold in the U.S.
to be recyclable, repairable or compostable. Many communities are also banning the
The U.S. should also support research into sale of polystyrene, commonly referred to
new materials that are more recyclable or as “Styrofoam,” a particular brand name.
compostable, or less polluting, as well as These communities are banning polysty-
new recycling applications for discarded rene, or specific polystyrene products like
materials. take-out food containers and packing pea-
nuts, because they are typically not recycla-
Products should be clearly labeled in a way ble, do not biodegrade, and create harmful
that that facilitates recycling. Most plas- litter. In Massachusetts alone, at least 47 cit-
tic is labeled with what appears to be the ies and towns have restricted polystyrene.150
universal recycling symbol: three “chasing
arrows” forming a triangle, with a number Single-use plastic foodware products, which
between one and seven inside. Confus- are used for minutes but last for centuries,
ingly, this refers to the type of plastic, not should also be banned. This includes bever-
its recyclability, a fact 92% of Americans age containers, polystyrene and to-go boxes.
don’t know.146 Truthful labeling laws, The use of disposable food service ware –
which restrict misleading recycling claims straws, coffee cups, plastic forks, to-go con-
or symbols, can help people avoid mis- tainers, napkins, paper towels, paper plates,
placed confidence in plastic recycling. solo cups, etc. – should be limited to products
that are easily recyclable or compostable.
PAGE 25You can also read
