Why Plastic Pollution Is a Producer Responsibility
I was reminded of this recently when I ordered a set of carbon filters for my countertop compost bin. (Like most people, I don’t care for smelly kitchens.) The package arrived in a layered-plastic bubble envelope.
Inside I found another clear plastic bag
encasing the filters. Finally, adding insult to injury, each filter
was wrapped individually in plastic. That made at least three layers of plastic
for each filter.
Frustratingly, in an effort to
reduce waste, I had created more. And I’m not alone. A recent landmark study confirmed that the
United States is the most plastic-polluting country in the world. Every 16
hours Americans throw away enough plastic to fill a football stadium.
Adding to my frustration was a sense
of helplessness. There was no way I could have known or changed the fact that
these products were shrouded in layer upon layer of disposable plastic
packaging.
I know millions of Americans feel
the same way. We want to reduce our waste, particularly our use of disposable
plastic, but we’re rarely given the opportunity. Even when sustainable products
are minimally packaged or designed for reuse, they often must be purchased
online (delivered in more packaging, often disposable) or at specialty stores
(rarities). Countless times I’ve wished that I could have avoided buying things
that created so much trash.
But what if, in demanding better of
ourselves, we’re missing the point? The companies that design our products and
packaging to be disposable not only created this system but are rewarded by it.
Waste equals profit through cost avoidance.
Disposable products are cheap for
industry, but costly to the rest of us. As taxpayers we have to pay for trash
collection and recycling. As citizens we’re exposed to pollutants from
excessive manufacturing and microplastics shed
from disposable products into our drinking water and food.
Meanwhile our oceans and waterways
are being bombarded with millions of tons of plastic every year, killing wildlife and spreading disease.
The cost to the companies making
these wasteful products? Zero. In a shareholder profit-maximizing world, making
disposable junk wins every time.
But what if these companies were held responsible for their products? Would it prevent the onslaught of plastic junk filling up our landfills and too often ending up in the ocean? History suggests manufacturers would design products to be more reusable, repairable and resilient, because they’d want to limit the waste they would have to manage.
Which brings us to an idea known as
producer responsibility.
Producer responsibility programs
have existed around the world for decades and have successfully increased
collection, recycling and reuse for the products they cover. For the most part
these programs regulate hazardous, hard-to-dispose-of products such as
batteries, paint, mercury thermostats, carpet, pesticides, tires and
pharmaceuticals. Dozens of states already have programs in place for these
items.
For example, thermostat makers are
required to finance and sometimes run convenient recycling programs to keep
mercury, a potent neurotoxin, from escaping and causing damage. Not all
programs require producers to collect their own trash, but they all require
adequate financing for safe collection. Producers that redesign their products
to be less dangerous or more reusable can often avoid higher fees.
Unfortunately we don’t have programs in place for single-use packaging and foodware, despite the fact that those products are also hazardous and hard to dispose of. That’s why we need to create them. British Columbia has already implemented producer responsibility legislation, and a handful of U.S. states — from Washington to Maine — are considering similar programs.
If implemented, these programs would create jobs, generate revenue streams for
local municipalities to further reduce waste and, in the long run, improve
human health and help fight climate change.
With support and pressure from
residents, we could see laws pass as early as 2021, forcing our product-makers
to either be better or pay out.
The idea is even gaining
support at the federal level,
as members of Congress respond to growing calls from constituents to address
the plastic pollution crisis. Even the remote possibility of a federal program
may push states to establish their own programs first.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, industry
groups that represent manufacturers of these products have already opposed efforts to hold their
clients responsible, which is why we must continue to push our legislators to
support these programs now and into the future. In other words, the jig is up —
but only if we say so.
Alex
Truelove is United
States Public Interest Research Group's director of zero waste campaigns.
