When Is Recycling Not the Answer?

Read on to learn how Eco-Cycle’s work and mission are helping inform a global plastics treaty!

Key Takeaways:

The Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling (AMBR), cofounded by Eco-Cycle, sent a delegation to the fifth round of negotiations for the global plastics treaty in Busan, South Korea.
AMBR representatives pushed back against recycling being positioned as the solution to the plastics crisis, advocating for global limits on plastics production and against false solutions like chemical recycling (also referred to as “advanced recycling”).
The negotiations did not result in a final treaty as planned, and another round of negotiations will be held in 2025.
The plastics crisis affects all people, communities, and ecosystems globally and must be addressed through international actions, like the treaty, and local efforts, like Eco-Cycle’s work to reduce single-use plastics in Colorado.

At the end of November, more than 3,300 delegates, including representatives from more than 170 nations and observers from upwards of 440 organizations, gathered in Busan, Republic of Korea, for the fifth round of negotiations to develop a global plastics treaty to end plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.

The Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling (AMBR), an organization cofounded by Eco-Cycle, participated in the negotiations. AMBR brings together some of the nation’s first mission-driven recycling organizations, including Eco-Cycle, to advance a shared vision worldwide. Together, we advocate for keeping natural resources in the ground, eliminating waste and pollution, and ensuring all products are reused, refilled, recycled, or composted.

Recycling Is Not the Answer to the Global Plastics Crisis

At the negotiations, AMBR colleagues met with US legislative leaders, fellow advocates within the global Break Free From Plastic movement, and representatives of the petrochemical and packaging industries.

Our message: Recycling is NOT the solution to the global plastics crisis.

As Boulder County’s recycling operator since 1976, it may seem ironic that Eco-Cycle is advocating against recycling as the solution. However, decades of experience building Zero Waste communities illustrate both the opportunities and limitations of recycling in tackling the plastics crisis.

While recycling is essential to a Zero Waste, circular economy, it cannot solve the plastics crisis alone. The massive volume of plastic produced, its toxic composition, and the lack of demand for recycled materials from the plastics industry make it impossible to recycle our way out of the crisis.

False solutions such as chemical or “advanced” recycling also exacerbate the problem. These carbon-intensive technologies worsen climate change and fail to address the root causes of the plastics crisis. Eco-Cycle has consistently and vigorously opposed chemical recycling, from local advocacy in Colorado to AMBR’s work on the global stage.

Why a Global Plastics Treaty Matters to Coloradans

While these negotiations happened on the other side of the globe, and ocean plastics are identified as a top concern, the outcomes could benefit communities everywhere, even in landlocked Colorado, by reducing single-use plastics, toxic chemicals, pollution, and plastic waste exported overseas.

If successful, the treaty could lead to:

Limiting Plastic Production

A global treaty could lead to less unnecessary plastic packaging in our stores and restaurants. The Bridge to Busan declaration, signed by 85 countries ahead of the negotiations, calls for clear limits on plastics production. Eco-Cycle and AMBR support these provisions and advocate for strict limits on plastic production.

Studies demonstrate that plastics production equals plastic pollution. There can be no successful solution to plastic pollution without first limiting the outpour of plastics being produced.

Phasing Out Toxic Plastics

Plastic packaging could become safer. Many countries are also demanding the phase-out of the most harmful plastic products and chemicals used to produce plastics. Locally, Eco-Cycle and the Boulder County Recycling Center stopped accepting some of the most toxic and non-recyclable plastics like #3 PVC, #6 PS, and #7 PC. These materials are harmful, rarely recyclable, and have little to no market value.

Eco-Cycle has also helped implement Colorado policies banning #6 polystyrene food and beverage containers and incentivizing recyclable packaging. AMBR partners in California and Minnesota are introducing similar measures, showing the nationwide potential of these efforts.

Even the packaging industry agrees that some plastics and additives are so bad they should be eliminated!

A Return to Reuse

Remember when coffee shops served “for here” orders in ceramic mugs, or when milk came in glass bottles? A successful treaty could bring back reusable systems. AMBR is advocating for treaty provisions supporting reuse models, such as producer-return systems or refillable containers. We’re already seeing these systems piloted (again) in the United States, including by our fellow AMBR founder Recycle Ann Arbor, which is testing the viability of reusable packaging with recovery supported by their recycling facility.

Reducing US Plastic Waste Overseas

The US produces and wastes more plastic than any other nation by far. We lead the world in plastics production, making about 286 pounds of plastics per person in one year. And that amount is predicted to increase. Some new rules have prevented the global plastic waste trade. In 2018, China passed the National Sword policy, banning the import of most plastics, stating they no longer wanted to be the “world’s garbage dump.” Furthermore, the Basel Convention developed in 2019 placed strict limits on plastic waste from rich countries being exported to poor countries (though of the 180 nations that signed the agreement, the US was not among them).

These global policy changes have had an impact: US exports of plastic waste to poorer countries have been declining. But far too much of our plastic waste is still ending up overseas. The US still sends more than 220,000,000 lb (or 100,000,000 kilograms) of plastic waste overseas each year, disproportionately affecting countries lacking the infrastructure to manage it effectively.

A global treaty could build on these policies and their reach by further limiting waste exports and providing financial support to recipient nations to manage plastic waste sustainably. Simplifying the global plastics trade would reduce environmental and human harm worldwide.

When Is Recycling Not the Answer?