A useful discussion, sparked by the long message at the bottom.

From: Pui Yi Wong

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 07:43

Subject: Re: [bffp.discussion] Messaging around recycling

To:

Hello all, please allow me to add my 2 cents.

1. In some places, domestic recycling does not work well because recycling cannot happen without the accompanying services - waste separation-at-source and collection. Upriver deep in the interiors of many parts of Southeast Asia, there is no household waste collection even. The river is the waste clearance service provider. 

2. But sometimes fixing the waste management system is not straightforward when there are so many other things in the country that require fixing. When the rule of law is weak, redefining recycling properly on paper may not account for much... when the state puts industrial investments above the people's interest, when mafia run scrap yards and illegal dumpsites (with open burning), when factories bribe or threaten enforcement officers so they won't take action, when residents are bribed or threatened so they won't complain about pollution.

3. In some places, recycling may work; in others, it may not and it's not easy to fix. Plastic waste must not be exported from places where plastic waste recycling works better to places where recycling largely does not work. Exports by rich economies - EU, Japan, US, Canada, Australia - must end, hopefully led by the EU.

4. Narratives like this - "the cause of plastic pollution are broken and non-existent waste-management and recycling systems" - is extremely unhelpful, especially when incinerators are seen as important parts of that system. Hope the focus on phasing out petrochem and plastic production manages to counter this. 

Thank you for this discussion, involving those of us not at INC as well.

Best regards, Pui Yi--Pui Yi, Wong

Asia Pacific Project Coordinator - Waste Trade

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 2:10 PM Gilbert Kuepouo > wrote:

 On Sun, Dec 4, 2022, 5:21 PM Monica Barach

This is an important discussion and thank you all for your hard work.  The concern about the livelihood of waste pickers and taking away jobs at municipally run recycling centers can be alleviated by creating a system of reuse. Waste pickers can  collect the reusable bottles and containers and deliver them to recycling centers where they can be washed, and made ready for distribution to be reused. Creating a system of reuse instead of continuing the status quo of recycling would be most beneficial for our planet. Let’s change this conversation from recycling to reuse. 

Monica Barach

ClimateCrisisPolicy/EarthBillI 

On Nov 30, 2022, at 7:47 PM, Judith Enck wrote:

I appreciate this discussion but there is a major problem with recycling of plastics that cannot be minimized. 

A recent report by  Beyond Plastics and the Last Beach Clean up  documented a plastics recycling rate of 5 to 6%. The  US Dept of Energy released a report at about the same time pegging  it at 5%.    What I typically say is that I am a strong supporter of recycling, that I started my town's recycling program and that everyone should continue to recycle paper, glass and metal and compost food and yard waste. However, plastics recycling  has been an abysmal failure.  Plastics gives recycling a bad name. I do recycle #1 and #2 plastic. And then it is very important to explain the presence of toxic chemicals, the presence of colorants and the various resins that make it so difficult to recycle plastics.  

The public is confused because brands put the iconic recycling symbol on packaging that is not recyclable. The public gets confused because Big Plastic has spent millions on advertising that is deceptive.. The public is confused because many waste haulers instruct their customers to put all plastics, #1-#7 into recycling bins - knowing full well that most will not get recycled, but  people think it is and have little incentive to then look for alternatives if they think it is being recycled.

The problem is so serious that the California Attorney General has launched an investigation into deceptive advertising of plastics.

And now we see the same PR machinations being used to promote "compostable" plastics.

For people who collect recyclables,  one of the best things we can do is to work to adopt container deposit laws.  in communities that have bottle bills in place, work to expand it to cover more beverage containers and increase the deposit so people receive more funds. doubling the deposit from a nickel to a dime will double that income stream. Of course, livable wages with health insurance is what is what we all should be advocating for.

Thank you for all your great work on the plastics treaty and beyond.

Cheers, 

Judith Enck

Beyond Plastics

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:26 PM Jim Puckett wrote:

Dear Lynn:

Thanks for your positive note.  The problem is that my focus on production and toxics is central to my need to expose plastics recycling as a false solution to the crisis. That is, it is because of the toxicity (and several other key concerns) that recycling needs to be exposed.  And one of the best arguments for eliminating production is that the material is just not circular.   Trying to make plastics circular is like putting a square peg in a round hole.  Can’t be done.

Best,

jim  Jim Puckett

Executive Director

Basel Action Network

Website: www.ban.orge-Mail: jpuckett@ban.org

Lynn Hoffman Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 at 8:57 PM

Subject: RE: [bffp.discussion] Messaging around recycling 

There’s important work to do to align around the nuanced role recycling should/shouldn’t play in addressing the harms of single-use plastic, and under what conditions, while we work towards ultimate elimination. (Please consider AMBR allies in that space!)  Plenty about recycling needs improvement, and so often it is misused as a false solution. But as Neil illustrated so well, discarding it wholesale is as problematic as saying it is THE solution. 

I appreciate Neil’s suggestion to focus on the source (production and toxics) as clear, unifying, strategic, and intersectional messaging that can build power and avoid unintended consequences of over-simplified messaging.   

Lynn 

Co President 

Zero-Waste Hotline: 612.NO-WASTE (612.669.2783)

Founding Member & National CoordinatorAlliance of Mission-Based Recyclers

On Behalf Of Enzo Favoino

Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 12:36 PM

To: Marcus Eriksen

Subject: Re: [bffp.discussion] Messaging around recycling 

Another great email - discussing (some of) the tools to have the weak sides of recycling improved

BTW - both are included in the EU proposed Packaging Waste Regulation that went out today. Big push back from petrochem industry, not from recyclers (which also showed supportive to reduction and reuse legally binding targets)

Which is great evidence that

1. such strategies are not the smokescreen of the petrochem industry

2. recyclers are not instrumental to the petrochem - they have different agendas

3. one may work on recyling, while supporting a longer term trajectory to reduction.

Thanks

Marcus ---

Il 30/11/2022 18:22, Marcus Eriksen ha scritto: 

Neil, excellent points and a needed reminder.  I would add there are two important points about demand and design that are unifying for EJ and SJ groups. As you all know, the industries advocating all types of recycling typically reject design standards to make recycling easy, and any policies that mandate manufactures to use recycled plastic, which is a significant driver of recycled plastic use.  

Design standards that make recycling easier would increase the range of items waste pickers can collect and the value of what they collect.  At the same time, legislating for high post-consumer recycled content (PCRC) in new manufacturing would increase demand for the material waste pickers supply.  Design Standards and increasing demand for recycled material both contribute to the livelihoods of waste collectors and drives the conversation upstream to producer and manufacturer responsibility.  

Marcus Eriksen

RESEARCHER

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:27 AM Lubna Anantkrishnan wrote:

Thank you for raising this, Neil  I agree with your point of view, and believe that more nuanced and clear (consensus and) messaging around recycling is critical to preserve solidarity within our movement. I am happy to join discussions on this topic.  

Best,

Lubna   

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 9:17 PM Dana Winograd wrote:

Hi Neil, 

Thank you for writing this email. I have been becoming increasingly worried by the messaging I was hearing, feeling that it may be more harmful than helpful. 

Your message is clear and to the point, and I hope that it resonates with people so that we can focus as you have said on the production phase. 

Best regards,

Dana   

Dana Winograd

Director - Operations

Plastic Free Seas 

On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 18:07, Neil Tangri wrote:

Good morning, all! I apologize if you are receiving this multiple times,but it´s important and urgent to reach everyone.

In the last couple of days, I heard a number of us make highlyproblematic statements about recycling, and I am asking you to please reconsider and reframe your messaging (not your demands). I heard thatplastic recycling is bad, it’s toxic, it’s a sham, and that it has to end.

This messaging is divisive, unstrategic, and self-defeating. Please stop.

As we all know, the problem is in the production phase. I believe everycivil society member here shares the demand that plastic production muststop using toxic additives and polymers. Focusing on recycling shiftsattention away from production towards downstream – precisely whereobstinate countries like the US want us to focus our energies. Butending recycling of toxic plastics is not going to improve the safety ofplastics in use if toxic additives and polymers continue to be produced.

Second, this message is a direct attack on the recycling sector, bothformal and informal. This includes not only waste pickers but formalsector recyclers like AMBR (members of BFFP) and municipally-runrecycling programs, which have a huge base of popular political support.Frankly, the waste pickers here in Punta are furious, because they seetheir livelihoods and their life work being disrespected and attacked bypeople who have never had to worry where their next meal comes from.Through Dakar, there has been excellent mutual support betweenenvironmental groups and the waste pickers, with environmental groupssupporting waste pickers’ access and the waste pickers clearly echoingthe demands of environmental groups, like an end to most plasticproduction. I would like us all to recognize the radical nature of thatposition from the waste pickers, which is echoed by AMBR and otherformal sector recyclers. But our alliance is being shredded by thoseamong us who attack recycling.

We are all aware that the petrochemical industry has used recycling as afig leaf and distraction to justify continued expansion. But the enemyis the petrochemical industry, not recycling. When we attack recycling,we are falling for the industry’s game plan: we focus our energy on thedistraction and drive a wedge amongst natural allies. Honestly, if thistreaty negotiation becomes a fight between environmentalists and labor,it is going to be a complete failure. We have the petrochem industry onthe back foot now; do not allow them any breathing room.

My request for messaging is to focus on the production phase. It is easyenough to say that plastic production exposes consumers, the generalpublic, and workers in both the production and recycling sectors, tohazardous chemicals. Therefore, toxic polymers and additives must beremoved from production. That framing, or anything similar, focuses themessage and is inclusive of waste pickers, other recyclers, and labor ingeneral.

We all know that this fight cannot be won by a small number of NGOs orone sector. We have representatives from fenceline communities,Indigenous Peoples, trade unions, women’s groups, youth organizations,communities in the global south, global north, and other territories,and many more. It is hard work to build trust and alignment between thisdiverse array of people, but it is absolutely necessary to our success.

I am more than happy to meet anyone to discuss this topic, in a largegroup, small group, or one-on-one. Please reach out so we can find waysto work together fruitfully. And please stop trashing recycling.