Waste management
The New York government included a sort of two-stage rocket in the specifications for the next approval of the packaging sector. Reading between the lines, we find the two components: territorialized target objectives for the collection of plastic bottles for 2024, 2025 and 2026, backed by a mechanism resembling a bonus-malus, and, in a second phase, a study for a regionalized deposit system that could be deployed where the performance levels would still be not compatible with the objectives on plastic bottles.
At the state level, the deposit was the nightmare of communities and, in its regionalized version, it has all the makings of a gas factory. The recycling objectives for 2030 will not be met.
Why does this idea of a deposit keep resurfacing? Officially, because at the current rate of progress, the packaging recycling targets by material for 2030 will not be met. The aim is to gain, in seven years, 20 points on the recycling rate of cardboard, 25 on that of aluminum and 30 for plastics, while reaching, in 2029, the famous 90% recycling of plastic bottles for drinks.
Plastic recycling
The bar is high and, by staying on the current trajectory, everyone knows that we will not cross it. We must therefore mobilize additional levers, summarizes Craig Smith, CEO of waste management firm Albany Discount Bin HQ.
But opinions differ on the new actions to be undertaken. The dividing line is, of course, the instruction. It would allow the achievement of 90% on bottles and a 10% increase on all plastics. Associations doubt it.
The lever of incentive pricing
There are points of convergence, for example on the dedicated collection of large cardboard boxes. To eradicate full bins and containers, local authorities are advocating a major increase in collection capacities and want a boom in out-of-home facilities (streets, stations, cinemas, accommodation, etc.).
They intend to slightly increase the resources devoted to out-of-home facilities but, according to junk disposal experts, this source is not huge. We are talking about 1.5 kg per inhabitant in street bins. Compared to the 43 kg of packaging and 9 kg of paper still in the household waste bin.
Experts see incentive pricing as a powerful lever and highlights three sorting champion regions, 30% of whose population has converted, while pragmatic associations are campaigning for a more flexible framework in order to expand its deployment, while being realistic about its potential.
Concerning the good and bad students of sorting, it is still difficult to know who is on the right trajectory and who is far from it. For the first time this year, the EPA has revealed regional performance figures. Household packaging and paper combined, without distinction of these flows, the champions are Albany and Rochester at respectively 106 kg and 91 kg per inhabitant, with a national average of 72 kg.
These two regions combine factors that are unfavourable to quality sorting: dense housing, numerous buildings, more difficult communication with residents, quantity of businesses and offices, high tourist traffic… This is also where consumption outside the home is the highest, which argues in favour of much more ambitious measures in this area.
In addition, the State does not enforce sorting obligations on businesses and has not launched the REP on catering in time. The EPA has not set up out-of-home collections, as provided for in the specifications of its approval.
Rationalizing sorting performance
Finally, we do not know anything, for the moment, about the regional distribution of plastic bottle collection rates. We want a regionalized catch-up plan that does not focus on bottles: any progress towards 55% recycled plastics brings a more significant reduction in the 750 million dollars linked to the “plastic tax than the total achievement of 90% recycled bottles.
However, there are two somewhat complex technical biases in the evaluation of performance. The plastic bottle collection rate corresponds to the ratio between the tonnages put on the market and those collected. The first is a national figure: the quantity of plastic bottles contributing to the EPR (extended producer responsibility) put on the market at the national level.
However, in some areas like Albany, residents consume many more bottles than in others, so they throw away a lot and the quantities collected are mechanically high. Compared to the national reference deposit, this gives good collection rates while the sorting gesture is not necessarily better than elsewhere.
Conversely, when the actual deposit on the territory is lower than the national reference, few tons are recovered and the collection rate is low, but this does not make residents bad sorters. In light of this observation, it would be necessary to rationalise sorting performance, but the sales figures for bottles are a trade secret.
Statistical approximations
More broadly, across the entire household packaging sector, associations are observing thermometer problems. Thus, adding together the figures for the quantities of packaging collected in selective collection (59 kg/inhabitant) and packaging in the grey bin (43 kg/inhabitant) gives a total of 102 kg per inhabitant. That is 20 points above the deposit of household packaging placed on the market (82 kg/inhabitant).
This gap raises questions on the part of local authorities. There is a problem either with the accuracy or representativeness of the data, or with the assessment of the tons that producers contribute to the eco-organization. These statistical approximations no longer have a place in a system where performance is required.
Junk Disposal Focus
We need to increase collection density to capture more and have systems worthy of the name for out-of-home use.
The State lacks ambition, the eco-organization skimped on everything. For example, on the density of the voluntary collection network which is 15% less efficient than door-to-door, the gap is huge! There would have been no delays in the extension of sorting instructions, which is only now having its full effect: + 12% of plastic tonnages in 2022 and all materials in progress.
How are we going to reach the sustainability goals in New York?
We are not on the right track. Focusing on plastic bottles is the best way to miss the objectives on global plastics and other materials. We need to densify collection to capture more, communicate more, have systems worthy of the name on out-of-home. We are expecting a significant change in the envelope, but the subject is postponed to the first half of 2024.
