The article in the url below summarizes a bill that has been introduced in the California Legislature aiming to restrict use of the commonly-used recyclable logo:
The bill is designed to solve a problem that the logo's critics describe as false advertising:
"The triangular 'chasing arrows' recycling symbol is everywhere: On disposable cups. On shower curtains. On children's toys. What a lot of shoppers might not know is that any product can display the sign, even if it isn't recyclable. It's false advertising, critics say, and as a result, countless tons of non-recyclable garbage are thrown in the recycling bin each year, choking the recycling system."
Although it might seem obvious, the California bill is designed to prevent companies from using the logo in a misleading way. What is surprising is that California is the first state in the U.S. to try and do this explicitly:
"A bill passed by the state's assembly would ban companies from using the arrows symbol unless they can prove the material is in fact recycled in most California communities, and is used to make new products."
Although this piece of legislation is aimed at the logo, it is really part of a much wider effort to address the woefully poor record of recycling that we have:
"Though materials like paper or metals are widely recycled, less than 10 percent of plastic consumed in the United States is recycled, according to the most recent estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency. Instead, most plastic is incinerated or dumped in landfills, with the exception of some types of resins, like the kind used for bottled water or soda."
An important part of this broader campaign is a multi-state effort to try and constrain companies' willingness to greenwash:
"This summer, Maine and Oregon passed laws overhauling their states' recycling systems by requiring corporations to pay for the cost of recycling their packaging. In Oregon, the law included plans to establish a task force that would evaluate 'misleading or confusing claims' related to recycling. Legislation is pending in New York that would, among other things, ban products from displaying misleading claims. In the past year, a number of environmental organizations have filed lawsuits seeking to combat misleading claims of recyclability by major corporations."
Importantly, the recycling industry is fully on board with the California legislation, for obvious operational reasons:
"Recycling companies say the move will help them cut down on the non-recyclable trash thrown in recycling bins that needs to be transported, sorted and sent to the landfill. Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Republic Services, one of the country's largest waste and recycling companies, said in an interview that more than a fifth of the material his company processes nationwide is non-recyclable garbage. That means that even on its best day, Republic is running at only 80 percent efficiency, processing materials it shouldn't be processing, he said."
And, in case you are wondering, the article identifies the most common forms of unrecyclable trash that people try and recycle:
"Some of the most common forms of non-recyclable trash marring operations at Republic's 70 facilities across the United States, which processes six million tons of curbside recycling a year: snack pouches, plastic film, grocery bags and packing material. Plastic bags, in particular, can't be recycled in most curbside recycling programs and notoriously gum up recycling machines."
Of course, those companies that produce packaging are less enthusiastic, responding with an extremely convoluted argument:
"The plastics and packaging industry has opposed the bill, saying it would create more confusion for consumers, not less. An industry memo circulated among California lawmakers urges them to oppose the bill unless it is amended, arguing it 'would create a new definition of recyclability with unworkable criteria for complex products and single use packaging.' The letter was signed by industry heavyweights like the American Chemistry Council, the Plastics Industry Association and Ameripen, a packaging industry group. California should wait for Washington to come up with nationwide labeling standards, the groups said."
The opposition's clinching argument? That products that are not recyclable should not be identified as such because then we would not try and recycle them, even though they are not recyclable and actually increase the costs of recycling those materials that are recyclable:
"The Plastics Industry Association, which represents plastic manufacturers, warned that the bill would determine a slew of products to be unrecyclable and therefore would be landfilled. (Supporters of the bill point out those products are landfilled anyway, despite displaying the recycling symbol.)"
Hmmmmm, cunning.
Take care
David
David Chandler
© Sage Publications, 2020
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler5e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Bill Says Recyclable Logo Should Mean Something
By Hiroko Tabuchi and Winston Choi-Schagrin
September 10, 2021
The New York Times
Late Edition – Final
A17
