David Newcorn [10]
Yesterday at our Sustainable Packaging Symposium (SPS) [11] in Chicago, something remarkable happened. You could feel a visceral shift in the fault lines surrounding the end-of-life recovery question for packaging. The debate over biodegradability vs. compostability that has characterized recent industry discourse was largely absent. Instead, it was replaced by a vigorous debate over recycling -- how to increase it, and who pays for it. I'll let my colleague Anne Marie Mohan [12] report on the particulars.
But one idea that kept recurring throughout the day was that of "keeping molecules in play"--whether metal, glass, paper, or polymers. Composting may present a satisfying storyline--just throw that bottle or bag away and it turns into dirt--but it's actually very slow and inefficient way of returning that molecule back to re-use as a package relative to recycling. That was the observation of Tony Kingsbury, Executive-In-Residence, Center for Responsible Business, Berkeley, and an executive for Dow Chemical, and a speaker at SPS.
Even NatureWorks, a company that was midwifed into existence by Dow (but now completely separate), chimed in. Long a lighting rod for the PLA and compostability debate [13], Natureworks disavowed (at SPS) composting as a viable end-of-life packaging recovery strategy, except in very limited cases such as foodservice, and even then only in cases where composting facilities exist. (A marketing executive for the company said at the event that it has always focused on packaging sourced from renewable materials as a sustainability benefit, not on composting.)
The impromptu debate that broke out at our SPS event over recycling--who pays, how to increase, whether the current system is broken--was fascinating, and at times, tense. As I say, look for Anne Marie's report for details, because there were some particularly enlightening perspectives, particularly from Coke's Scott Vitters, Starbucks' Jim Hanna and Marks & Spencer's Andrew Speck.
So, given all the above, I have some questions for you. Is it your impression that much of the recent debate in packaging has focused on compostability, not recycling? And what has dominated your internal company discussions for viable end-of-life recovery--recycling or composting?
David, quite frankly, I have stated on here before and I will again, I don't view composting as a short to medium viable sustainable option. Why? The majority of people, at least in the United States, do not have access to composting. People who live in cities don't have a means by which they can create home composting. Additionally, their are only a select few municipalities that offer composting to their communitieis. As such, my estimate is that over 98% of the US population does NOT have access to a composting facility.
The focus, at least for the near term (several years), should be on recycling. Re-using of materials will preserve our natural resources. Paper, for example, can be re-used many times in different applications. Granted, a level of virgin fiber needs to be continously introduced, but overall that virgin demand drops with higher recycle rates. Where we truly stumble is in the area of plastics recycling. Overall, a majority of plastics currently cannot be recycled. One resin that is constantly discussed, PET, can be recycled. Yet, overall, less than 24% of PET water bottles are actually reclaimed and reused. Most municipalities do not offer public recycling.
Recycling takes material OUT of the waste stream, which is very important. Over the last 30 years, while the US has become a more disposable society, the number of landfills has dropped dramatically, from over 18,000 landfills in 1979 to 3,100 last year! Further, the US recycles roughly 10% of their total waste, while Europe is closer to 50%! And more specific to our industry, packaging accounts for roughly 33% of waste in a landfill. While I applaud compostable packaging, I believe a majority of this packaging ends up in a landfill. As such, the benefits of composting are not realized. Additionally, composting doesn't reduce demand for resources, doesn't necessarily address weight reduction of pacakging.
To me, their is no argument. I believe in further research on compostable packaging. However, not at the expense of using acreage for packaging. PLA is a horrific direction and should not be considered a viable packaging option. Recycling, while still not at the levels we should recognize, offers to most impact today. I gould like to see Federal and/or State legislation and focus on reclaiming and recycling materials.
Rather than looking at ways to re-use, recycle or compost our packing, we should simply look at ways to reduce it in the first place. Then you have taken waste out of the waste stream regardless of what facilities consumers have access to.
That's funny..... I thought recycling was a means of reducing waste. Reduction alone is not the answer, as the previous comment suggests.