From South Shore Recycling Cooperative:
The time has come to discuss cost sharing for end-of-life management of packaging materials.  

Packaging materials make up about 30% of our disposed tons, and over half of our recycling.  Much of it is unnecessary, nonrecyclable, or not made with recycled material. Recycling markets are in a tailspin with no end in sight.  Costs to municipalities and recyclers have gone from 0 to $60/ton (and higher) in 8 months.  The volume and variety of packaging materials are a major factor in this crisis.
 
In February, the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture sent H447, An act to reduce packaging waste in the Commonwealth, to House Ways & Means with a favorable report.  The SSRC sent letters of support to all our legislators and to House Ways & Means last month.   
 
​Last week, cosponsor Rep. Jonathan Hecht convened a meeting at the State House to discuss the recycling crisis and figure out next steps to move H447 forward.  Eight other legislators sent staff, and several other stakeholders attended (see blog post above for list).  
 
The Environmental League of Mass., Product Stewardship Institute (PSI),and MassDEP are aware of and interested in this.  PSI is working with a large group in CT on a packaging producer responsibility bill there, and in a few other states as well. 
 
The stars may be aligning.  
​
A bill of this magnitude needs a lot of support.

• If you or your organization is interested in keeping H447 on the radar, you can indicate your support to your legislators. 
• If you would like to help improve it or engage more stakeholders for next session if it doesn't pass by session's end in July, please let me know. 

The front page article in the June 5 Boston Globe helps explain the current situation with recycling. The 3 R's have turned into the 4 R's: Refuse Reduce Reuse Recycle. 

Duxbury has gone to separating trash into separate categories to recycle (glass, corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, and mixed plastics), moving away from single stream recycling. This article explains the why behind that decision. 

rwww.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/06/04/new-china-policies-spark-disarray-region-recycling-industry/d9QH2JUtnVqRKaAL8kMkiL/story.html?s_campaign=breakingnews:newsletter

​Some answers to why Duxbury went to sorting recyclables.
 
The decision November 15 to separate our recyclables into corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, plastic/metal and glass came as a surprise to most residents who had become very comfortable with the single stream system that made recycling so easy. We at Sustainable Duxbury would like to paint a picture and give you “the story behind the story” in order to better understand why Duxbury made the decision they did.
 
Single stream allows for all recyclables to be co-mingled. Paper, cardboard, bottles, cans, glass and food containers are mixed together for recycling and helps municipalities recapture a higher quantity of recyclable materials. However, the quality of the material is generally poor.
 
Materials recovery facilities (MRFs) are responsible for sorting, baling and selling single stream recycled materials. This is achieved with mechanical sorting equipment and human staff on the sorting lines. When mixed together, single stream recyclables can form an amalgam of broken glass, wet paper and unwanted contaminants such as food and plastic bags. (MRFs do not want plastic bags mixed in with single stream recyclables as they “foul the machinery” and shut down the processing procedure. Better to not use these bags in the first place!). This process can reduce otherwise clean, marketable recyclables to low quality material that can eventually end up in the waste stream.
 
One of the benefits of recycling materials is that it generates a revenue stream through the sale of “clean” recyclables. (Other benefits to the environment include reusing our trash instead of burning or burying it. There are many reasons to recycle.) The town has to pay to remove the trash that goes in the blue bags; recyclables constitute income and trash constitutes cost. An upturn in recycling increases our revenue stream and therefore lowers disposal/tipping fees, leading to lower trash bills and a lower tax levy.
 
So what happened November 15? The key word here is “clean.” It is very difficult to sell single stream recycled materials right now. China has been the largest purchaser of this material and as of July, they placed very tight restrictions on the quality of imports. Processors have had to slow sort lines, run material through twice and hire more human sorters in order to improve the quality and make the bales more marketable. Our costs from Capital Paper Recycling increased for single stream from $47/ton to $65/ton which is more than our disposal cost.
 
What needs to be done:
 
Reduce contamination. Common contaminants include plastic bags, bagged garbage, bagged recyclables, food waste, hoses and other materials that people think might be recyclable but actually are not. We can do this by separating as much as possible at the source: Multi-stream produces a much better product that has more value and doesn’t have the high cost of sorting. Remember to Clean it up and Sort carefully!
 
 
 
The age-old saying “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” comes in that order for a reason. The ideal goal with trash is reduce, use less material. When you can reuse, do so. If all else fails, recycle.
 
Source of most of this information: South Shore Recyling Coopertive (ssrinfo.coop)

This article just recently came to my notice from a discussion board via Mass Green Network where we are all talking about alternatives to plastics that are compostable. It seems to be a very mixed review on compostable utensils and bags. They may not be so biodegradable. As we try to eliminate and cut down on the use of plastics, the alternatives are hard to come by.

Check out this website for information on how we can cut down on all the plastic we use. Then take a look at Plastic Pollution Coalition and learn more about how you can reduce and eliminate plastic in your life.