Blog

CalRecycle's Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study: Do EPR programs reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Posted by Chandler Slavin on Dec 7, 2012 11:59:00 AM

Cheerio!

Soooo do you remember CalRecycle? It’s the organization that Robert Carlson—who I met at my first SPC meeting in Atlanta in 2010 and I owe the largest debt of gratitude to for leading me down the path of discovery that culminated with the publication of our Recycling Report—works for; he has since changed areas of focus, however, and overseas the investigation and execution of EPR as it pertains to products, like carpet and tires, in CA. ANYWAY, I subscribe to CalRecycles email list, and on Wednesday night I received the most fascinating announcement:

CalRecycle has completed Extended Producer Responsibility evaluations of greenhouse gas emissions associated with several products. CalRecycle contracts with UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara (June 2010-May 2012) have produced the following purchasing guidelines and case studies that are now available for download. This project supported the California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan to address greenhouse gas emissions through an Extended Producer Responsibility approach.

As I scrolled over the list of items analyzed, you wouldn't believe my shock reading,

“Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study: The Potential Impacts of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) in California on Global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions.”

Holley molley I thought to myself! Packaging and EPR is SUCH a hot-button issue for the packaging industry, yet I don't know how the implementation of such would manifest itself in America, as most of the packaging EPR systems I have studied—including their successes and failures—have been contingent on the specific socio/political/economical construction of the country/Provence in which they were introduced. I know that countless SPC sessions have been devoted to this topic, and several organizations, AMERIPEN being one, are currently analyzing the various EPR-packaging models that exist, yet I am unsure what my position on the matter is, especially as a manufacture of packaging!

For those of you just joining us now, EPR is “a mandatory type of product stewardship that specifies, at a minimum, that a producer’s responsibility for its product extends to post-consumer management of that product and its packaging. In practical terms, this means that a producer (manufacturer, brand owner) designs, manages, and implements a product stewardship and recycling program. While there is government oversight, the product stewardship and recycling program is financed and operated by the private sector” ("Plastic Clamshell Container Case Study," CalRecycle, May 2012, p. 1).

So obviously the private sector, that is, those who will be financing the EPR program, are not super thrilled, especially as it puts American manufacturers at an even further disadvantage than our international counterparts, who not only don't have to conform to an EPR program, but don't even have to comply with as stringent environmental regulations...

Ohhhh the tension between environmental and economic sustainability; why do you have to be so fickle!?

The sustainability-minded part of my brain has always been under the assumption that recycling high-quality plastic packaging, like PET thermoforms, is good, for both the environment and the PET industry. I also have come to assume that EPR systems, though initially costly and complex, do facilitate increased recycling rates over time, supposedly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And, isn’t it the case that with adequate investment in recycling technology and infrastructure, the initial “tax” of managing the product at end of life would be mitigated by the value of the recovered material once the supply and demand equillibrium necessary to sustain the process of recovery itself is attained?

It is this need for context when discussing EPR, and the ambiguity I experience when trying to imagine how an EPR program in America would manifest itself, which intrigued me most about this report; finally, a regionally-specific investigation into the relationship between EPR and packaging!

So, what do you think?!?

Will CalRecycle find that through the implementation of a plastic clamshell packaging EPR program in California that:

1)    Clamshell recycling will increase; and,

2)    Greenhouse gas emissions reduced?

If so, at what cost to the industry?

The answer isn’t so black and white.

Click here for the report.

Commentary from an expert in EPR and a representative of the plastics industry to follow.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG:

LATEST POSTS: