Policy Measures the U.S National Recycling Goal by 2023
Executive Summary
The third alternative - funding an improved classification system - serves as the most practical way and the best choice for achieving the National Recycling Goal after a close evaluation of efficiency, social acceptability, and technical feasibility. In response to a low recycling rate of plastic containers in 2018, Andrew Wheeler, former Administrator of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, announced the National Recycling Goal to increase the domestic recycling rate to 50 percent by the year 2030. This objective can be achieved through three alternatives: 1) Maintaining current recycling regulations at the federal level with innovations of recyclable materials and products, 2) Enhancing Environmental Education Programs to promote environmental literacy, and 3) Funding an improved and convenient waste classification system at the collection stage.
Background & Problem Definition
The current recycling system in the U.S. has not achieved its maximum effectiveness as only about 8.7 percent of the plastic that is properly disposed to recycle bins was able to be recycled in 2018. Plastic pollution is still a major environmental challenge as the ocean ecosystem is seriously affected. In November 2020, the U.S. EPA drafted a National Recycling Strategy to prioritize the innovation on research and development of new technologies in recyclable materials. To respond, the U.S Department of Commerce proposed a Presidential Plastics Action Plan to urge a change in purchasing behavior of the federal government in single-use plastic items to reusable products as the federal government served as “the single latest purchaser of goods” in the U.S. While current implementations left the cost and reserved the recycling practices to a federal level, a more efficient and inclusive practice should be promoted into every American’s daily life.
Criteria
This memo evaluates alternatives that address the ineffectiveness of the current recycling system using the following criteria:
Effectiveness: To what extent will this alternative achieve the National Recycling Goal, increasing the recycling rate of plastic items?
Social Acceptability: To what extent will this alternative be acceptable and supported by residents and local businesses?
Technical Feasibility: To what extent of availability of technology will this alternative need for implementation?
Recommendations
The U.S. EPA’s policy objective is to increase the domestic recycling rate to 50 percent by the year 2023. The U.S. EPA can achieve this policy goal through the following three policy alternatives.
Alternative 1: Maintaining Current Recycling Regulations at the Federal Level with Innovations of Recyclable Materials and Products (Status Quo)
The U.S. EPA sets a partial goal of increasing processing efficiency by encouraging public and private funding research and development of new technologies that can be implied to the sorting process of new product designs in order to increase the recycling rate. The policy is contained under different levels of government to the extent that local manufacturers are subsidized and funded. New developed materials and products are expected to increase the efficiency of sorting recyclable materials and to decrease the residential waste per household, thus effectively increasing the recycling rates and achieving the National Recycling Goal.
Alternative 2: Enhancing Environmental Education Programs to Promote Environmental Literacy
The Environmental Education Programs, supported by the U.S EPA, are enlisted under the National Recycling Strategies as an increased encouraged participation in the recycling process will lead to an increased recycling practice in households,. In addition to educating on environmental issues and challenges, a need to promote recognition of the existing recycling system is crucial. A survey that was conducted by the Consumer Brands Association revealed that about 68% of participants recognized the Resin Identification Code as the guide to recycling, which should be used to classify the materials of plastics. As a result, the promotion of environmental literacy at more practical levels allows residents to not only notice the action of recycling but also participate in an effective recycling process, reaching its National Recycling Goal.
Alternative 3: Funding an Improved and Convenient Waste Classification System at the Collection Stage
The third alternative is to construct a more visualized waste classification system to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the generation and collection phases of the recycling process. With the regulation of printing pre-classified color labels on the packaging instead of the ones of the RIC system, residents are able to categorize these wastes more easily, thus becoming more willing to classify those wastes before disposing to the central trash bins. The new system also required trash bag manufacturers to produce products with different colors in accordance with the standard. With clearer labeling and guidance to distinguish recyclable products, residents can better perform recycling on their ends. The pre-classification action becomes helpful to collectors and processing facilities in response to the ineffectiveness of the single-stream system that the U.S. currently uses for recycling, resulting in the most effective and convenient solution to reach the National Recycling Goal.
I recommend that the U.S. EPA should consider Alternative 3 and construct a more visualized waste classification system to reach its goal. All three alternatives are considerably effective. However, the effectiveness of Alternative 1 would be significant only if a rapidly developed technology can be commercialized in a short period of time. Although Alternative 2 can adequately educate individuals to practice recycling properly daily, the effectiveness will depend on individual motivations to actually practice under no mandatory standards. In contrast, the effectiveness of Alternative 3 can be realized more conveniently as there is no further technology needed and recycling is practiced under mandatory scrutiny. While all three alternatives might face a challenge in social acceptability, Alternative 3 has the greatest potential to be adapted because both Alternative 1 and 2 do not directly involve residents and local businesses who would care about the issues. Finally, both Alternative 2 and 3 require no technical renovation, being able to practice immediately in society. For these reasons, Alternative 3 will be the best candidate for achieving the National Recycling Goal by 2023.
