California Law Limits 'Recycling' Logo in New Attack on Plastic Waste (msn.com) 37
"Most of the plastic waste in California is about to lose the recycling symbol," writes the Washington Post's "climate coach."
The "chasing arrows" symbol, created in 1970 by a college student inspired by the burgeoning environmental movement, has been stamped indiscriminately on plastic bottles, clamshell takeout containers, chip bags and more for decades. The majority of the items emblazoned with the mark have been virtually impossible to recycle for most people. California lawmakers say they want to end the charade: Under what's known as the Truth in Recycling law, plastics cannot use the symbol if they aren't collected by curbside programs serving 60% of Californians and sorted by facilities serving 60% of the state's recycling programs (with some additional requirements). If the law goes into effect as scheduled on October 4, more than half of the types of plastic packaging and products sold in the state can no longer carry the chasing arrows logo. That will affect plastic films, foam, PVC and mixed plastics...
Food and packaging groups have sued the state of California, calling the law a form of censorship whose vague restrictions violate the First Amendment and due process rights.... Advocates of the law counter that corporations deliberately misled the public by turning the recycling symbol into a marketing device that masks the fact that only a small fraction of plastic packaging is ultimately recycled... The mark was originally intended to informwaste processors what polymers a plastic item was made from. But the public reasonably assumed anything stamped with the symbol was recyclable. Millions of tons of worthless plastic trash have since poured into recycling facilities unable to process it....
States are now taking action. Seven have passed laws shifting the cost of recycling onto packaging makers. Oregon and Washington have lifted requirements that plastic containers carry the chasing arrows symbol.
The article notes that Norway already recovers 97% of beverage bottles, while Slovakia recycles 60% of plastic packaging. "But the U.S. only recovers about a third of its PET and HDPE bottles, and just 13% of plastic packaging, according to U.S. Plastics Pact, an industry-led forum.
"It won't be easy for the U.S. to reach higher levels of recycling: The necessary infrastructure and incentives are chronically underfunded, no federal mandate exists for minimum-recycled-content that would create demand and a mix of mostly unrecyclable hydrocarbons still dominates the waste stream."
Food and packaging groups have sued the state of California, calling the law a form of censorship whose vague restrictions violate the First Amendment and due process rights.... Advocates of the law counter that corporations deliberately misled the public by turning the recycling symbol into a marketing device that masks the fact that only a small fraction of plastic packaging is ultimately recycled... The mark was originally intended to informwaste processors what polymers a plastic item was made from. But the public reasonably assumed anything stamped with the symbol was recyclable. Millions of tons of worthless plastic trash have since poured into recycling facilities unable to process it....
States are now taking action. Seven have passed laws shifting the cost of recycling onto packaging makers. Oregon and Washington have lifted requirements that plastic containers carry the chasing arrows symbol.
The article notes that Norway already recovers 97% of beverage bottles, while Slovakia recycles 60% of plastic packaging. "But the U.S. only recovers about a third of its PET and HDPE bottles, and just 13% of plastic packaging, according to U.S. Plastics Pact, an industry-led forum.
"It won't be easy for the U.S. to reach higher levels of recycling: The necessary infrastructure and incentives are chronically underfunded, no federal mandate exists for minimum-recycled-content that would create demand and a mix of mostly unrecyclable hydrocarbons still dominates the waste stream."
"corporations deliberately misled" (Score:5, Insightful)
That pretty much sums up the plastics industry when it comes to recycling over the last 50+ years.
Re: (Score:2)
Half the time I don't even bother to put plastics in the recycling anymore. It it takes 2 extra steps to get to the other bin, I'll put my plastic in the trash instead of recycling.
I still try, because I know it could still be useful to have the plastics separated from the general waste stream in the future, when new industrial processes are invented. I just don't try very hard, because I suspect the current process dumps the plastics back into the general waste stream anyway.
Re:"corporations deliberately misled" (Score:5, Insightful)
Food and packaging groups have sued the state of California, calling the law a form of censorship whose vague restrictions violate the First Amendment and due process rights..
Arguing for the ability to lie through your fucking teeth to the consumer for decades under the guise of due process and Free Speech, sums up how Legal raped Justice right out of a system long ago.
Truth in Recycling? How about Punishment for Bullshitting instead. Because this is what you get otherwise.
Ok. So 45 years of "False Advertising" goes first (Score:2)
The plastic companies are known to have created the recycling logo, recycling advertising and recycling marketing in the 1980s without a viable way to recycle the plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me if someone uses that symbol on something that isn't actually recyclable should be charged with fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
"Technically" most types of plastics are recyclable but with limits. I was the sysadmin for a plastics company in the 90's. The owner, an absolutely brilliant man, used to like to shoot the shit with me now and then. He said, even back then, that recycling plastic was way too cost prohibitive to even consider. He would get in the chemistry of the whole thing and the molecular bonds and such which break down with things like UV, etc.. He said the plastics industry knew this all along and the plastics recycli
It's amazing how much the plastic industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Similarly finding out just how staggeringly evil the company that makes cookies for keebler elves actually is...
Like all these little tiny things that are just kind of part of the background noise of your life and as soon as you find out much of anything about them it's just horrifying.
Thinking about it AI data centers are going to fuck shit up for everybody in a way that I don't think people in America are ready for. We already have one in Utah being set up that uses more electricity than the entire state.
I wonder how long it will take people to get used to rationing electricity... Not like thinking a little bit about your power bill but like selling off your appliances because you can't afford the run them anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Heard it called this (Score:3)
Re:Heard it called this (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, examples like this are a counter argument. They make me think downcycling is a better idea than recylcing.
Most people would rather a bottle end up as a park bench than continue to make more bottles. Each bottle has a high chance of ending up in a land fill forever while the park bench is something that could last for decades and should theoretically replace other materials, such as iron or wood, freeing them up for better uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Educate (Score:2, Interesting)
>"The mark was originally intended to inform waste processors what polymers a plastic item was made from. But the public reasonably assumed anything stamped with the symbol was recyclable"
Then the problem is education, not the mark. Every product with the mark is ABLE to be recycled (methods do exist), but that doesn't mean it can be or will be in your area. I don't recall running across anyone who thought having the symbol means anything more than the number inside it is the type of plastic. And if y
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Educate (Score:2)
Good point! All we have to do is label everything as, say, poly-2-hydroxypropanoic acid or poly-oxyethyleneoxyterephthaloyl. Everyone will know exactly what that means â" itâ(TM)s unambiguous, after all â" and any resultant awfulness will just be the result of ignorance, aka Freedom!
Re: (Score:2)
"Then the problem is education, not the mark."
The Resin Identification Code(RIC) mark was deliberately chosen to look like the recycling symbol without actually being the recycling symbol.
That's clearly a problem with the mark.
Re: (Score:2)
>"The Resin Identification Code(RIC) mark was deliberately chosen to look like the recycling symbol without actually being the recycling symbol. That's clearly a problem with the mark."
Is it? The only reason to need to know the type of plastic is for recycling. And plastic can be recycled. Putting the number inside the symbol makes perfect sense to me.
Tires have a speed class rating number on them. That indicates the max safe speed for that type of tire composition before it will fail. It doesn't m
This is idiotic (Score:1)
Which is right up Cali's playbook. Now the bottle makers will take the lable off and you won't know what kind of plastic it is. They should just require the bottlemakers to put a fraction of the recycled plastic in their bottles which they probably won't do either. Or a better way would be put a tax on plastic bottles and move that money to the recyclers
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which is right up Cali's playbook. Now the bottle makers will take the lable off and you won't know what kind of plastic it is. They should just require the bottlemakers to put a fraction of the recycled plastic in their bottles which they probably won't do either. Or a better way would be put a tax on plastic bottles and move that money to the recyclers
Oh, fuck off with your bullshit. There is nothing that says manufactures can't stamp their shit with the resin identification code -- they just can't wrap it with the arrow loop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, who told you that, maybe you should educate yourself on plastic recycling. Plastic IS RECYCLABLE, PET and HDPE are 100% recyclable for 15 to 30% over the cost of producing it at scale. The problem is getting the plastic sorted and getting it recycled at scale and then getting the plastic manufacturers to use it. The problem is 1) getting people to get it to the recycling facility in a way that can be sorted 2) getting the recyclers to sort it and recycle it 3) getting manufacturers to buy recycled plas
Just pull the trigger (Score:5, Insightful)
Glass, aluminum, steel, and paper/cardboard, taken together, are suitable for packaging 99% of all products sold and are either compostable or infinitely recyclable. Just ban plastic packaging for that 99% altogether. Iâ(TM)m willing to pay three extra cents. Just get the fuck rid of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Just pull the trigger (Score:3)
Beef mince in UK supermarkets used to come in a hard plastic container with a soft plastic film cover. The hard plastic can go into the recycling bin but the film needs to be treated like plastic carrier bags, which in theory means taken back to the supermarket (where there is a bin for soft plastics) but in practice ends up in the non-recyclable waste at home.
A few years ago the packaging changed to a soft plastic pouch. âoeSame product now with 30% less plastic!â, said the labelling. Thatâ(
Re: (Score:2)
How to fix the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not that we do not recycle, but that we do not reward recycling enough nor do we punish the creation of non-recyclable waste. Solution: Tax the crap.
7 types of recyclable materials:
Type 1: PET: Most common and very recyclable /everything else. These things are never recycled because it is a catchall term - type 7 is not one chemical.
Type 2: HDPE: Common and recyclable.
Type 3: PVC: Poor attempts to recycle creates toxins. Most do not even bother. Very rarely recycled
Type 4: LDPE: Styrofoam, very rarely recycled
Type 5: PP/ Polypropylene: uncommonly recycled.
Type 6: PS/Polystere: (egg cartons) Very rarely recycled
Type 7: Other
Type 1 and Type 2 are the only ones that recycle more than 10%. Type 5 might someday graduate to more than 10%, but not yet.
Solution:
Tax the stuff that is NOT recycled.
No tax at all for Type 1 and 2 plastics. (PET and HDPE)
50% tax on type 5 plastics (PP)
100% tax on all other types of plastics
Note, instead of passing a law that taxes by type of plastic, better to make the law state that the tax rate is determined by what percent of the plastic produced over the past 5 years was actually recycled.
This will encourage people to change which plastic material they are using, punishing them for choosing types 3,4,6 and 7, and encourages the use of types 1 and 2 wherever possible. If this changes our the mix by only 5%, that would be worth it.
As a bonus it raises cash which could be used to fund recycling, while also encouraging the plastic makers to research how to improve recylcing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You fell for it (Score:2)
The Resin Identification Code is NOT a recycling mark, but it was intentionally designed to look like the recycling symbol. Looks like you were successfully misled.
no free speech in advertising (Score:4, Insightful)
Your right to operate a business based on lies is not constitutionally protected. Of course our judiciary has been sucking capitalist cock for so long that they are no longer capable of impartiality.
What rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly what rights do factories have for making toxic waste: There's a whole US department, the EPA, saying they don't have that right. Traditionally, it did say that.
They're arguing what: They have a right to say anything, such as "this can be recycled (if someone wants to lose money)", and if the people don't recognize the dishonesty, it's a "them" problem?
This is why self-regulation doesn't work: The 'regulation' changes to "Not my fault, that's a 'you' problem."
Good idea guys... (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously impunity is fun if it's only you that gets it; so the idea that you have a constitutional right to any and all lies is fun if only you get to advance it successfully; but if you try to advance an internally consistent argument for why fabricating the markings that indicate recyclability is a first amendment matter you more or less can't avoid negating any restrictions on packaging elements. I'm sure you'll see the humor when a competitor is producing copies of your packaging and your suppliers are just lying on their datasheets and bills of lading and you are getting invoiced for amounts unrelated to prices you thought you had agreed on.
Demonstrate? (Score:1)
Morons - what problem are they trying to solve (Score:2)
ho hum (Score:2)
If it is plastic, it goes in the recycling bin. Not my problem to figure out how to recycle it. If the powers that be don't like that, then it's up to them to either ban the stuff or figure out how to handle it.
Plastic recycling needs to be done with an industrial grade process using systems such fractional distillation, just like petroleum refining, in a closed cycle.
However, the arrow symbol is useful because it also tells me what the stuff is, e.g. hdpe, etc.
\o/ (Score:3, Insightful)
Being honest is an infringement of your rights?