Oregon takes lead again on recycling/reuse front

Oregon broke new environmental ground 55 years ago with the bottle bill. It was the national pilot for a new generation of “extended producer responsibility” measures, designed to force producers to share in ensuring environmentally challenging consumer products are channeled into recycling and re-use to the maximum extent possible — and safe disposal when not.

Our state has since followed with fee-based programs mandating similar handling for paint, electronic waste, prescription drugs, mattresses and — most recently and sweepingly — packaging materials, food serviceware and paper products.

The vehicle for the latter was 2021’s Senate Bill 582, the Plastic Pollution and Recycling Modernization Act. It is just now beginning to fully take force, following several years of navigating implementation and litigation challenges, largely successfully.

One legal challenge remains under the auspices of the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, but a February ruling in federal district court narrowed the scope to just two elements and exempted only NAW member firms from continued rollout and enforcement of the act.

Once again, Oregon appears to be leading the way domestically, following the lead of Canada in the 1990s and the European Union in the 2000s. And once again, it is already attracting followers of its own, including California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Maryland, Washington and New Jersey.

The new law exempts companies generating less than $5 million in revenue or one metric ton of subject waste, and partially exempts companies generating less than $10 million or five metric tons. That leaves about 3,000 companies, which are expected to pay about $2 billion into the program over the next 10 years.

The law targets paper, plastic, glass and metal packaging material; material used in shipping, moving, packing and storage, including single-use bags; disposable plates, cups, bowls, cutlery, straws, lids, wraps, foil and clamshells; and paper used in newspapers, magazines, fliers, brochures, booklets, catalogs, phone directories and other home and office applications.

The fees assessed to producers — and let’s not kid ourselves into thinking they won’t ultimately be passed along to consumers — will be used to develop and oversee both programs and facilities associated with collection, sorting, transportation, disposal and remanufacturing.

So, is this a good thing? We have reservations, but in the main, yes, we do.

Government action always comes at a price, of course, and it can sometimes seem pretty steep. On the other hand, the same can be said of government inaction, and the price there can prove even steeper.

Remember, we have only one world to work with. Elon Musk may be looking to colonize Mars, but we don’t see moving to a new world and starting to devastate that one in kind carries even a grain of feasibility — not with humankind now surpassing 8.3 billion and our climate rapidly becoming ever less hospitable.

One complaint from the regulated and potentially regulated carries particular resonance for us: Including newspapers among the target trash, considering they were among the first waste products to become widely recycled and enjoy a higher degree of both recycling and re-use than just about any other element of the human waste stream. However, we’ll content ourselves with small-producer exemptions and continuing lobbying efforts to ease the pain on that score.

There is no denying that excessive packaging, particularly plastic packaging, is a plague of modern manufacturing.

Plastics require vast chemical and petroleum inputs that defy natural biological breakdown. Upon being landfilled, they pollute high-value soil and water resources for generations.

If extended producer responsibility legislation succeeds in materially reducing such lavish and irresponsible use, it might well prove worth the monetary and bureaucratic burden on that score.

Simultaneously, Oregon is moving to standardize its recycling rules on a statewide basis and begin expanding curbside recycling into more rural, less-populated territory. An infusion of new energy and money should materially help in that regard.

Standing in place never works out. If we can’t muster the will to continue moving forward, then we will most assuredly begin to find ourselves sliding backward instead.