Our industry’s drive for sustainability has always perplexed me: the incongruity of our industry making non-recyclables, striving to be “green.” Hah! I love it. It makes for good press.

There is a great analogy that struck me after reading Jason Mark’s introductory remarks in the spring issue of Sierra Magazine. He writes about the “good and bad” of renewable energy. Good, being the transition from fossils to clean, using wind and solar stimulated by the Inflation Reduction Act. The bad being the misinformation and growing polarization about replacing coal and oil and gas sourced energy. The debate rages between these two camps while reason and compromise, and common sense, are completely disregarded.

What I see from my eagle’s nest is a similarity with our industry’s contention of self-justification of being sustainable. On the one hand is the incredible ingenuity of our identification technology. On the other is the generation of non-recyclable by-product and a patent disregard for accepting responsibility for implementing solutions. Obviously, implementation costs money and I believe that is the major roadblock.

Here’s what really sets me off: the constant barrage of messages about sustainability: using renewable energy, using paper and film substrates that are recyclable, being landfill free, and so on. These messages miss the point, in my view. The OEM must take ownership for the mess that it’s created. Either provide solutions or take by-product back to a central consolidation point for further shipment to a processing facility.

A certain publication interviewed a certain manufacturer of pressure sensitive substrates. The message was, “Look how sustainable we are. Look at our clean technology.” The interview neglected to mention that the type of product they recycle represents only 20% of our industry’s use. Further, it ignored the basic problem the industry has: diversion of non-recyclable by-product, namely matrix, which is generated at the converter level. In other words, I think we miss the true issue our industry has – dealing responsibly with by-product. 

Of course, there is a solution. Liner should be collected by the label printer and matrix should be collected by the OEM, the pressure sensitive manufacturer. This is the only logical and practical solution. The label printer drops off finished labels and picks up spent liner. The PSA manufacturer drops off more PSA and picks up matrix. Granted, there are packaging issues that must be solved. The liner needs to be either baled or put in gaylords. The label printer either picks this up with its own truck or serves as the facilitator for service by a recycler. In the case of the matrix, the OEM will either take bales or rolls with cores on skids. This by-product is consolidated in a central location for full 20-ton truckload shipments.

 

This idea is similar to the concept of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) and the selected PRO (Producer Responsible Organization). Just so you’re aware, Minnesota is the fifth state to legislate EPR. There are 20 other states considering one form of EPR or another. It is coming! Our industry needs to be ahead of the curve, to be proactive and provide solutions.

Keep in mind that the average cost of landfilling continues to increase. In the latest analysis by the solid waste industry, the average tip fee for landfilling is $66.00/ton. It may be cheaper in South Dakota, but tip fees will continue to go up. Further, the tip fee only covers the cost to throw stuff away. It does not include transportation, rental fees, environmental taxes, etc. Actually, there may come a time when landfill diversion becomes cheaper than the landfill, and maybe sooner than later.

Extended Producer Responsibility is in its infancy. While it is being discussed at the Federal level, it is still a state by state policy legislation. Today, only five states have legislated an EPR regulation, and they are all different. There are three more states moving quickly on some kind of packaging EPR: Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

The issue, it seems to me, is developing policy that is practical and responsive to everyone. Just imagine the Republicans and Democrats agreeing! I mean, when California, one of the five states that has legislated EPR, spends its time debating the use of the chasing arrows symbol on packaging for recycling, whereas other states are requiring the symbols, how in the world can we get anything done?

I believe the bottom line to all of this – taking back non-recyclables, improved recycling products for both plastic and paper, reduction of substrate weight, and so on – has to be driven by an understanding that waste causes increased generation of CO2, which is contributing to climate change. If we don’t have common ground on this major issue, and we still don’t, how in the world will EPR work?

Barbara Grady, a contributor to GreenBiz, makes an excellent point that allows me to circle back to my earlier point of integrity of messaging. She writes in GreenBiz about investors and activists demanding an end to funding for lobby groups that oppose climate legislation.  This has been going on for a while, but maybe, just maybe, 2024 will be a watershed year. 

So far, there have been 54 shareholder resolutions, calling for companies to report their “climate lobbying” or “political spending” and how “that lobbying aligns with the companies’ climate targets.” 

Grady highlights a basic contradiction: “While many companies have pledged to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, they retain memberships in industrial lobby groups that block climate change policies.” 

In my view, this goes way beyond contradiction. This continuing practice is just plain wrong.

The Climate Voice, founded by Google and Facebook sustainability executive Bill Weihl, asks companies to:

• Leave associations that obstruct climate policies.
• Elevate climate policy as a company priority.
• Advocate publicly for effective, binding climate policies.
• Demonstrate real commitment to the collective action needed to fulfill the commitments agreed to at COP 28.

Look, our choice is simple: “Do the Right Thing.” The time for a commitment for change is now. Whether you’re an OEM or a label printer, you can’t wait for EPR to regulate what you have to do. You just need to do it, now, before you’re told to do it.

Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is [email protected].