Who Killed Recycling?

June 12, 2018

June 12, 2018


Who Killed Recycling?


Today’s Guest Blog is by Chaz Miller. It was originally published in Waste360 on June 01, 2018.

 

The harm to recycling has been inflicted by recycling’s friends, not its enemies.


Recycling is in the dumps. The Chinese government’s decision to ban mixed plastic and mixed paper recyclables imports sent recycling markets into a tailspin. Media outlets are running stories of recyclables going to disposal instead of end markets. Worse yet, this turbulence is likely to continue for another year or longer. Recycling will survive this storm as it has survived others, but will we learn from it or will we continue to repeat our mistakes?


When I started to write this column, my idea was to focus on who “killed” recycling. Yet the reality is that very few people actually tried to kill recycling. Instead, the harm has been inflicted by its friends, not its enemies.


Nonetheless, let’s start with recycling’s “enemies.” Both private and public sector disposal facility owners supposedly see recycling as unnecessary competition that diverts material from their facilities. In addition, the “anti-recyclers” have always opposed mandatory recycling programs for philosophical reasons.


Both suspects have solid alibis. Virtually all of the local governments and companies that own disposal facilities are fully integrated with garbage collection and recycling operations. They know that recycling programs can be profitable when markets are good. More importantly, their commercial and residential waste collection customers demand a recycling program. Companies don’t stay in business long if they ignore their customers. Local governments, too, have to offer a recycling program when their residents demand it. However, the cyclical nature of commodity markets means bad markets make recycling unprofitable. Like garbage collection and disposal, recycling is a service that must be paid for regardless of whether markets are good or bad. As for the anti-recyclers, they can kick up a storm, but they have little political power. 


So, who are the friends who inadvertently helped create this mess? They are the state legislators, environmental officials and recycling advocates who supported unrealistic recycling goals without taking into account the need for end markets, the risk of commodity price fluctuations and the reality of what it takes to change human behavior. 


Too many state legislators voted for laws mandating aggressive diversion or recycling goals without first finding out if those goals were achievable. If they were going to set a 50 percent or higher recycling goal, why didn’t they analyze what could be recycled, at what rate, from which generators before passing the law? Instead, they kicked that bucket to their state recycling officials and to local governments and businesses. 


Recycling advocates, whether in state government or advocacy groups, either ignored or downplayed the obstacles to achieving recycling goals. All too often, a sort of magical thinking prevailed that said if a law is passed, markets would appear and people would automatically recycle. We were so determined to increase recycling, we thought that all that was needed was a state law or local ordinance and success would follow. 


Advocates need to be ruthlessly realistic about the difficulties of changing human behavior so that we don’t just recycle, we recycle right. Recycling advocates need to back up their efforts with real data based on existing and potential markets and the realities of human behavior. The time for rosy scenarios is over.


Waste and recycling companies and public officials failed to ensure their customers, and residents knew that recycling is not free. Sometimes the cost of recycling was hidden in waste management bills or fees instead of being spelled out. Whether this was done by the collectors or by local governments doesn’t matter. The damage was done.


China also helped cause this mess. Buyers create the specification that counts. If they willingly pay for bales of paper that are full of plastics and other contaminants, they are encouraging sellers to ship dirty bales. For years, Chinese mills were knowingly buying bales that did not meet industry specifications and using cheap labor to clean them up. They created a race to the bottom.


Finally, the American public, you and I, share responsibility. We demand that our wastes be recycled. We tell pollsters we want to buy recyclable products and have a green environment. Yet we can’t seem to be bothered to recycle right. We fail to place the right materials in our home recycling bins. We throw trash in recycling bins in businesses, airports and public spaces because we are in a hurry. Human nature is complicated. We all need to become more open about our fallibilities as recyclers and design programs with realistic goals and collection options that entice recycling right. 


Is recycling dying? No. But to successfully sustain recycling programs and to spring back from the current market mess, we need to become realistic about the problems facing recycling. We need to start setting goals based on real-world analysis, not subjective wishfulness. We need to create a business atmosphere that encourages the development of viable manufacturing facilities that can be substantial recycling markets. Recycling can succeed if we acknowledge its costs, set realistic goals and design our programs to accommodate human behavior. Why not start now?


Chaz Miller is a longtime veteran of the waste and recycling industry. He is also an Ex Officio member of NERC’s Board of Directors.

NERC welcomes Guest Blog submissions. To inquire about submitting articles contact Athena Lee Bradley, Projects Manager at athena(at)nerc.org. Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Brian Shane | OC Today-Dispatch April 30, 2026
(May 1, 2026) Worcester County collected millions more pounds of recycling last year, but generated less revenue – and taxpayers are covering the difference. The shift reflects a sharp drop in the market for recyclable materials, which has undercut what the county can earn from selling paper, plastic and metal. County officials say they sometimes hold materials for weeks or months, waiting for a buyer, Public Works Director Dallas Baker told the county commissioners. “Cardboard still sells really well. Metals sell really well. Plastic is kind of horrible,” he said at an April 14 budget work session. “For most of the year, plastic might not sell at all – like, you have to pay somebody to come take your plastic.” The county is projecting $150,000 in recycling revenue for fiscal year 2027, against more than $1.2 million in costs – a shortfall absorbed by the county’s general fund, according to Enterprise Fund Controller Quinn Dittrich. He added that recycling revenue has declined in the last two fiscal years, falling about $80,000 in 2024 and $15,000 in 2025. Low prices for plastics are driving the decline, according to Bob Keenan, the county’s recycling manager. Vendors are offering just a few cents per pound for plastic. “There is simply no market in it,” he said. “There are warehouses and warehouses of plastic that (vendors) can’t get anybody to buy.” Other materials have also lost value, Keenan said: Corrugated cardboard has fallen from $125 a ton to as low as $60. Mixed paper has dropped from $120 a ton to $70. Aluminum sells for $1.09 by the ton through a broker, though market prices are closer to 80 cents. At the same time, recycling volume is up. Last year, the county collected 1,985 more tons of recyclables – that’s almost 4 million pounds – than in 2024. Totals for 2025 came to 12,236 tons for residential recyclables and 24,707 for commercial, according to Keenan. He noted that the county has been promoting recycling through outreach, in part by hosting 14 school field trips in the last year to its Newark processing facility. “We send them home with a lot of literature about what you can and can’t recycle,” Keenan said. “I want people to know what we do, and that we’re not throwing their recycling away.” Worcester’s revenue decline mirrors a broader trend. A March 2026 report from the Northeast Recycling Council found recycling commodity values hit a five-year low in 12 states, including Maryland and Delaware. Industry reports also show at least five U.S. plastic recycling facilities have closed since early 2025 as demand has weakened. Ocean City officials faced a similar reality years ago. The resort pulled the plug on its traditional recycling program in 2009 after determining it was too costly to maintain. In its final year, the city spent $1.2 million on recycling and brought in $200,000 in revenue, according to Public Works Director Hal Adkins. Since then, Ocean City has contracted to truck its rubbish to waste-to-energy incinerators outside Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. “It was just not sustainable,” Adkins said. “It doesn’t make money.” Read on OC Today-Dispatch.
By Cole Rosengren | WasteDrive April 29, 2026
A combination of EPA and USDA funding has resulted in numerous changes throughout the city, including free commercial recycling service, residential recycling carts and organics infrastructure. Providence, Rhode Island, is starting to see tangible results from multiple organics and recycling programs funded by federal grants. This work was spurred by $3.34 million from the U.S. EPA’s Solid Waste Infrastructure for Recycling grant program awarded in 2023, as well as $255,850 from a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant awarded in 2024. Now, multiple years in, the city has funded new vehicles, carts and other infrastructure. Back in November 2023, Mayor Brett Smiley described the EPA funding as a big opportunity to advance sustainability efforts. “By helping divert food waste, in particular, from the waste stream we can extend the life of our Central Landfill, but also help meet our climate justice goals,” he said at a November 2023 Northeast Recycling Council event. Smiley noted this would also help address recycling issues. “We know that we’ve got a major education gap to fill with residents and business owners. The recycling rates in the city of Providence are quite low [and] there’s a very clear equity gap in terms of which neighborhoods recycle and how.” Commercial recycling One unique aspect of Providence’s grant-funded programs is free commercial recycling service, which is still coming to fruition. In his NERC speech, Mayor Smiley noted this idea was driven in part by “a problem with overflowing dumpsters” that “degrades the quality of life” in certain commercial areas with a lot of restaurants. The SWIFR grant, which has funding until January 2027, helped fund the purchase of a rearload recycling collection truck for approximately $200,000. This truck is run by the city’s Department of Public Works and initially focused on offering free service in two neighborhoods. Federal Hill and the West End were chosen for their high density and proliferation of restaurants. Participants can receive two to three carts, which will be collected twice per week. The Center for EcoTechnology is helping manage the outreach and technical assistance for this as well as a separate technical assistance program for commercial organics. Kevin Proft, Providence’s deputy director of sustainability, said in a recent interview there was a long lead time to procure the truck and progress has been slower than hoped. The city’s goal was to recruit up to 75 businesses, but so far about 10 had signed on as of early April. This is yielding an estimated half a ton to 1 ton per week. “Surprisingly, we haven’t been able to get businesses to jump at the opportunity as easily as we thought we would,” said Proft, adding the pitch is “it could potentially reduce your hauling costs by reducing the amount of waste in your dumpster.” Lorenzo Macaluso, chief growth officer for CET, said his team is working to create testimonials of participating businesses and plans to continue expanding outreach. The city is also looking at potentially expanding the program to include other neighborhoods. “Sometimes selling a free thing is harder than you think ... what we find is decision makers often need to hear things more than once,” he said. Macaluso also noted some businesses may feel recycling creates extra work, even when technical assistance is available to help with bin setup and signage. “So we’re trying to compress that learning curve as much as possible and give them those tools, but that perception is hard to overcome.” Residential recycling Providence has an estimated 2.4% recycling rate and 47% contamination rate , despite prior goals to reach 30% by 2020 as well as “eliminate contaminated recycling” by 2030 . The city recently began rolling out 55,000 new curbside recycling carts , along with an updated citywide education campaign, in an effort to reverse these trends. This came together with $1.8 million of EPA SWIFR funding, $625,000 from The Recycling Partnership and $5 million in financing from Closed Loop Partners’ Catalytic Capital & Private Credit Group. That latter commitment was backed by American Beverage’s Every Bottle Back initiative. The carts align with a new curbside collection contract awarded to WM last summer. That contract included an amendment stipulating the company pay $50,000 for recycling education in the first year and offer services at that value in the following years. A WM spokesperson confirmed that education funding is managed by the city. Another new aspect of this contract was the inclusion of WM’s Smart Truck camera technology in collection vehicles. This allows for targeted contamination monitoring and education feedback. Keefe Harrison, CEO of The Recycling Partnership, said during a recent interview this would allow for more targeted education efforts and reduce some of the need for manual cart checks or tagging. “We will be able to use cameras in the trucks to identify households that are doing a great job recycling versus the ones that are having a harder time, and then target those ‘oops’ tags for the ones that are having the harder time.” WM confirmed this is the first deployment of its technology in New England, following prior launches in other parts of the country . Proft said data reliability has been inconsistent for certain routes, but was optimistic about its long-term potential. “The sensors are a little bit sensitive and they’ve been breaking ... there seems to be a myriad reasons that we’re struggling to really get that running smoothly,” he said, while noting that “even the data we’re getting now is useful based on the capacity.” “WM is happy to be deploying this new technology in the City of Providence. With any new program there will be an implementation period, but we are pleased with the process so far and are excited about its future,” said Garrett Trierweiler, a regional director of public affairs for WM, via email. Organics In 2019, the city set a goal to “eliminate food waste” by 2040 . The recent federal funding has been used to help boost processing infrastructure, collection and education. Providence dedicated approximately $200,000 of SWIFR funding to support Groundwork Rhode Island’s West End Compost Hub. The site, an in-vessel composting project, is currently under construction and could open later this summer, according to Groundwork. USDA funding also helped cover five new organics drop-off sites managed by Groundwork, raising its total network to 16 sites . On the commercial side, SWIFR funding helped purchase two trucks for Remix Organics, a hauler in the city. This included a unique vacuum truck to collect brewery wastewater, which had become a concern for state regulators due to how it was previously managed. “They had more more customers asking for their service than they could service,” said Proft, describing this as an opportunity to “help our local economy by supporting this local business and also diverting more food waste from the landfill through these big chunks of commercial businesses.” Additionally, USDA funding covered a contract for CET to conduct outreach and education to businesses about organics recycling. This helped line up customers with vendors such as Remix and start collection service at a notable new location, the Rhode Island Convention Center. Other areas covered by the USDA grant included education that led an estimated 350 new households to participate in subscription pickups or free dropoff sites, as well as mentorship for setting up backyard composting at about 60 households. The grant also helped the Rhode Island School Recycling project set up food recovery and organics recycling at multiple elementary schools. Read article on Waste Dive.
By Marissa Heffernan | Packaging Dive April 21, 2026
The Northeast Recycling Council’s PCR Material Demand Hub centralizes resources to help packaging developers and buyers. Dive Brief: The Northeast Recycling Council launched a PCR Material Demand Hub to help companies, whether they make packaging or just purchase it, tap into domestic recycled content markets. The hub includes information on numerous materials commonly used in packaging, including paper, plastic and aluminum. While the main focus is recycled content, there’s also information on waste diversion, reuse, carbon impacts and other life cycle assessment variables. NERC hopes to add to it in the future, including resources for creating contracts. For those newer to PCR purchasing, the hub has a road map for getting started, as well as a Q&A on how to identify and buy plastic products with PCR. The hub draws on work from the Association of Plastic Recyclers in that area. Dive Insight: Companies and organizations looking to buy postconsumer recycled content and help shore up faltering domestic recycling markets have a new place to go for support. The Northeast Recycling Council launched the PCR Material Demand Hub to help counteract the recent strain on recycling markets as some brands loosen recycled content goals and resin imports surge . Megan Schulz-Fontes, executive director of the Northeast Recycling Council, said it’s the latest iteration of past programs. “We wanted to create a hub which pools all the resources that NERC had developed historically, as well as new ones that have come about since, to make it easier for organizations, whether they’re private or public, to purchase sustainable materials,” she said. In the past, NERC had worked with APR on the Government Recycling Demand Champions Program, which focused on getting governments, nonprofits and academic institutions to buy recycled materials. By 2022, activity in that program had started to lapse, Schulz-Fontes said. “We had done a lot of outreach. It was my impression that it wasn’t a need as much anymore, because those organizations had established sustainable procurement programs,” she said. However, markets shifted, most notably for PET, and today, we all “see and feel the impacts of processor closures due to the cheaper imports coming in and the chronic oversupply of virgin,” Schulz-Fontes said. There was a need again. As APR relaunched and redesigned the Recycling Demand Champions program and the National Stewardship Action Council started its “Remade in America” pledge, Schulz-Fontes said NERC wanted to support those programs and also reinvigorate some of its own. The Demand Champions Program suggests that organizations commit to PCR use, establish long-term supply agreements and think outside the box by using PCR in non-standard formats. To support those goals, the hub has a directory of manufacturers, vendors and suppliers of a variety of products with recycled content, as well as a Recycled Content and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Directory with all levels of governmental resources, purchasing specifications and certification standards. That Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Directory is based on work that former NERC Executive Director Lynn Rubinstein did to develop an environmentally preferable purchasing specifications document, which is helpful for those who are just getting started, Schulz-Fontes said. In addition, the hub will link procurement professionals and others working in adjacent roles via an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Network listserv called EPPnet. That’s also one of NERC’s older programs that needed new life breathed into it, Schulz-Fontes said. “We’re hoping that’s something that’s useful for folks,” she said. Anyone who is working directly on procurement is welcome to reach out to be added to the group. Other directories that NERC’s hub link to are the EcoPaper Database; Intertek’s Sustainability Certification Directory; the Electronic Product Assessment Tool; SCS Global Services Certified Green Products Guide; EPA’s CPG Product Supplier Directory; and APR’s Buyers and Sellers Directory. Read the article on Packaging Dive.