Recycling : EPR in US set to kick off debate on state self-governance

In the move towards green growth and a resource efficient economy, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is increasingly being recognised as an effective waste management policy. As municipal recycling costs have burgeoned, EPR as a concept introduced the idea of producers taking responsibility for the collection, recovery and disposal of their own products. As such, material recovery and disposal would not be financed through municipalities, and, indirectly, the taxpayer’s own pocket but via the self-same manufacturers profiting from the sale of the products in question.

Since the OECD started implementing EPR, the concept was rolled out under universal acclaim in the European context, with Asia, Africa and South America similarly following suit. Selectively, EPR has also existed in the US, within the range of certain products such as the paint, battery, carpet, pharmaceutical, batteries and mattress industry though never in a unified national context. The EU-wide mandate of EPR works well for member countries but can’t be transferred one to one to the US on account of the differing policy context for EPR.

Neil Seldman, Co-Founder of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) and the director of its Waste to Wealth Initiative wrote an article on that self-same subject. He argues that from a historic point of view, Europe and the US have always had fundamentally different recycling regimes. Whereas in Europe, bottle bills, that is the practice of adding a small surcharge to plastic or glass bottles that is refunded to the customer when he or she returns said bottle for recycling, have been imposed from the top down via the Packaging Directive, consumer agitation is what finally forced US packaging companies to pledge to zero waste packaging (packaging that can be reused or recycled) by 2030.

The bottom-up recycling system helped bring the US recycling rate up, from 5% in the 1960’s to 35% in the early 2000’s, serving as a counter-argument to the Ellen McArthur Foundation’s claim that EPR is ‘the only proven pathway’ to recycling, as Seldman continues to explain.

The alternatives to EPR described by him are manifold and successfully tested within a regional context as well. As such, US states, cities and counties have implemented waste charges while proposing taxes to hybrid plastic packaging with investment in in polypropylene and film plastic recycling soaring. State-wide ‘right to repair’ legislation do not only cut electronic waste but come with the potential of generating thousands of new jobs.

This does not, however, spell out an outright rejection of producer controlled EPR. In places such as rural Vermont, where local government is unable to provide waste management services, it makes sense for manufacturers to assume responsibility for recycling whereas in neighbouring Maine, where government does provide services, having the industry reimburse the municipality appears logical.

Nonetheless, debate on whether or not to go with producer led EPR, reimbursement of EPR or no EPR is beneficial in that it helps flesh out the individual responsibilities of relevant parties in establishing an effective recycling regime within a US context