Setting the record straight on plastic recycling

An Albany Times Union article titled “The truth about plastics is that much of it can’t be recycled,” published March 9, presents an incomplete and misleading view of plastic recycling and does operators and policymakers a great disservice. While challenges exist, recycling remains a strategic part of the waste management business model. Advancements in technology and a commitment by the private market to invest in modernizing recycling infrastructure continue to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.

The article states that “plastic recycling has been an abysmal failure” and that “virtually none” of the plastics placed in recycling bins is repurposed into new products. This is not true. The carpet in your home or office and the polar fleece clothes you wear are made from recycled plastic. About 20 percent of the municipal waste stream is plastic, made up of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) water bottles, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) milk jugs and detergent bottles, polypropylene (PP) yogurt cups and low-density polyethylene grocery and dry cleaner bags.

The U.S. recovers about 30 percent of PET and HDPE bottles. It is still early days on PP cottage cheese, pill bottles and yogurt cups, which more modern facilities are able to process. The prospects are good to recover a similar percentage of PP packaging as innovative technologies support separating these items at the recycling facility.

The economic viability of recycling

The article suggests that municipalities have lost money on recycling since China ceased importing U.S. recyclables in 2018. China’s “National Sword” policy issued in 2017 did disrupt global recycling markets, but it also accelerated MRF operators shifting away from an unpredictable commodity-based model to a manufacturing/process fee-based model.

That helped drive a multibillion-dollar investment in modernizing domestic processing facilities. The U.S. significantly has expanded its recycling capabilities since 2018, including investments in sorting technology, chemical recycling and identifying domestic end markets for recovered materials.

Further, the assertion that “we actually pay more for recycling than we would if we trashed it” should surprise no one. It does cost more per ton to collect and process recyclables than it does to collect and dispose of trash. The more we handle the waste stream, the more it will cost per ton. However, recycling is worth the investment as it can generate reasonable returns on capital deployed and produce reusable materials as feedstocks for other products.

The role of policy and corporate responsibility

The article highlights New York’s proposed Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act, suggesting that reducing plastic packaging is the only viable solution. All the data show that a producer-responsible recycling model does not lead to improved design for recycling, change packaging composition or meaningfully improve capture rates. If New York residents want a better recycling outcome, then they need content commitments. That will lead to sustainable, healthy resale markets for recovered plastics. The proposed legislation would become a grocery tax on consumers.

Most of the plastic targeted by the Packaging Act proponents is used in food packaging. More than one type of plastic often is used in this type of packaging, which makes it difficult to reuse. Over time, science will figure out how to break these combinations of different plastic compounds into individual compounds.

None of the proponents of the act is honest about the risk to food security and safety. Waste reduction is important. A balanced approach that considers food security, recycled-content commitments, recycling modernization—including the benefits of enhanced recycling infrastructure—and consumer education is essential. Companies like Coca-Cola and Unilever have committed to using 50 percent recycled content in packaging by 2030, according to a 2023 Ellen MacArthur Foundation progress report. Content commitments stabilize recovered materials prices, leading to better recovery rates. Private-sector initiatives, combined with smart policy frameworks, can drive higher recycling and reuse rates.

Plastic pollution is a serious challenge, but dismissing recycling as ineffective is both inaccurate and counterproductive. Rather than focus solely on reduction, we should invest in better sorting infrastructure and expanding innovative approaches to recycling. Recycling is not a failure, it is an evolving solution that, when supported by innovation and policy, can lead to a significant reuse of plastic packaging and contribute to a sustainable future. Misrepresenting the capabilities and potential of recycling only serves to discourage efforts that would lead to real environmental progress.