300 likes | 410 Views
What Should EPR for Packaging Look Like?. Susan Hubbard, Principal, Nothing Left to Waste, CRADLE2 Steering Committee - Minneapolis, MN Eric Lombardi , Executive Director, Eco-Cycle - Boulder, CO Susan Collins , President, Container Recycling Institute - Culver City, CA
E N D
What Should EPR for Packaging Look Like? • Susan Hubbard, Principal, Nothing Left to Waste, CRADLE2 Steering Committee - Minneapolis, MN • Eric Lombardi, Executive Director, Eco-Cycle - Boulder, CO • Susan Collins, President, Container Recycling Institute - Culver City, CA • Gary Liss, Grassroots Recycling Network (GRRN) Board member, Chair of GRRN EPR Committee - Loomis, CA • Usman Valiante, Partner, Corporate Policy Group, Ontario, Canada • Matt Prindiville, Associate Director, Product Policy Institute - Rockland, ME
EPR for Packaging: 101 Background, Perspective, Insight Matt Prindiville March 7, 2013
Bright spots: Several US Cities > 70% diversion rate California: 65% diversion rate Container Deposit Laws = 80% avg. recycling rate
Problem: Packaging Waste * Source - US EPA Municipal Solid Waste: Facts and Figures
Packaging + Printed Paper * Source - US EPA Municipal Solid Waste: Facts and Figures
Problem: Low Recovery Rates * Source - US EPA Municipal Solid Waste: Facts and Figures
Enough aluminum is discarded annually to produce 25,000 Airbus 320 planes
Costs to our Communities Avg. Tipping Fees = $50/ton Avg. Collection Costs = $85-$250/ton Landfilled or Incinerated: 165 million tons 1/3 packaging
Bottle Bills: the Original EPR • Early 1900s: Started Voluntarily by Beverage Industry • Refillable Glass Containers • 1974: First Bottle Bill Passed in Oregon • Today: Ten State laws • Eight run by Beverage Companies = EPR • 80% Average Recycling Rate
As You Sow: Shareholder Resolutions Industry: 60% of PET by 2018 Company: 50% of PET, Glass and Aluminum by 2015 Industry: 50% of PET, Glass and Aluminum by 2018
2010: False Choices… “We’ll support EPR for Packaging in exchange for your bottle bill.”
Nestle Waters • 16-Month Stakeholder Dialogue: • Brands • Domestic Manufacturers • Government Officials • Public Interest Groups Building Business Support Developing Policy Rationale Supporting Legislation: RI, MN
EPR Ecosytem: Business Brands: Mostly Opposed or “On the Fence” Retailers: Keep Recycling out of our Stores Manufacturers: Desperate for Clean Material Haulers/Processors: Don’t Want to Lose Control
Canada EPR Action Plan Phase 1 (by 2015) Packaging Printed materials Mercury containing lamps Other mercury-containing products Electronics and electrical products Household hazardous and special wastes Automotive products Phase 2 (by 2017) Construction materials Demolition materials Furniture Textiles and carpet Appliances, including ozone-depleting substances (ODS)
CHANGE Coalitions Mercury Phase-out 13 EPR Laws Multi-State Mercury Campaign 24 EPR Laws Chem. Reform
Packaging Strategy Get the Policy Right Organize in Battleground States Engage the American Public
Packaging Platform Establish producer responsibility as the primary approach for managing each type of discarded packaging Drive source reduction and phase out the use of non-reusable and non-recyclable packaging Prohibit incineration of packaging materials Set high environmental standards and let innovation happen Set and enforce reuse and recycling targets by commodity type, not in aggregate.
Packaging Platform • Require accountability and transparency, and ensure the public’s right to know • Provide convenient, no-charge options for consumers to reuse or recycle packaging • Include packaging from multi-family, public space, events, restaurants, and office and institutional settings, not just single-family households • Ensure clean streams of materials and require recovered packaging to be put to its highest and best use • Build on high performing reuse and recycling infrastructure, and grow American jobs and promote local economic development
Matt Prindiville Associate Director 207-902-0054 matt@productpolicy.org www.productpolicy.org