Page 2 of 3

"The bins that we've been sending to China have had a lot of garbage in them, and that's the beginning and end of why China has stopped receiving shipments," Murray said.

Plastics lie at the root of the problem. Murray said the recycling industry only has the capability of processing PETE #1 and HDPE plastics. The National Sword Policy has made it clear that plastics always have had limited recycleability, yet a battle over the recyclability of non-bottle plastics — such as plastic cups, food trays, and bubble wrap — is still being waged.

"Tin, aluminum, steel, cardboard, and glass we know are very recycleable," Bourque said. "They can be used many times. Most plastics just aren't like that."

The dispute over plastics is even baked into the very way that local governments calculate their recycling rates. Rates are not set based upon how much waste is actually reprocessed into new materials. Rather, they are typically based upon the volume of material diverted away from U.S. landfills.

For decades, local governments, especially those on the West Coast with easier access to Asian ports, had an incentive to collect non-bottle plastics and ship them overseas, Murray said. Local governments and their contractors did this even if they couldn't guarantee that the shipments were actually being reprocessed into new materials in the end-markets. The practice artificially increased the volume of materials diverted away from U.S. landfills and helped municipalities hit their recycling goals.

It is unsurprising then that when the American Chemistry Council and the plastics packaging industries launched campaigns touting the recyclability of these non-bottle plastics years ago, many local governments took the bait, or were pressured to fall in line.

Bourque agrees with Murray's assessment. "The plastic industries are the ones with the powerful oil lobbying groups behind them," he said. "They have a major incentive to keep convincing people that these things are recyclable."

Over the years, haulers and processors in Alameda County have disagreed regarding the recyclability of non-bottle plastics. This has lead to inconsistencies in collection standards between cities, which confused citizens who live in one city and work in another.

"The Ecology Center took a lot of heat for only accepting type 1 and type 2 plastics that we knew we had good markets for," Bourque said. "We held off accepting these non-bottle plastics in the bins until around 2013 when cities all around us were beginning to accept them."

While many of the larger hauling and processing companies in Alameda County remain cagey about non-bottle plastics, both Bourque and Murray believe that in order to adequately address the National Sword policy, local governments need to start being more transparent about what materials are actually recyclable. And this means getting honest about plastics.

Environmental advocacy groups across the state believe that cities should stop collecting non-bottle plastics in recycling bins altogether. They reason that because non-bottle plastics cannot actually be reprocessed into new materials, it would be preferable if they ended up in landfills in the U.S. That way, environmental agencies can regulate and monitor the materials rather see them shipped out overseas where U.S. haulers and processors have little knowledge or accountability of where they ultimately end up. Some California cities, including Sacramento, have already stopped accepting them in recycling bins.

StopWaste, a clearinghouse for recycling entities located in Alameda County, has recently organized a National Sword Policy task force that brings together haulers, processors, and city departments. Representatives from StopWaste say there is disagreement amongst members of the task force regarding the recyclability of mixed-plastics. Nevertheless, Communications Manager Jeff Becerra said that Alameda County residents should "look out for changes in what will be accepted in bins in the coming years."

The Battle Beyond the Curb

While the recycling industry battles out the fate of mixed-plastics, local governments and their partners are pursuing more actionable changes. Many are implementing dual-stream recycling programs that collect can and bottle recyclables in a separate receptacle from cardboard recyclables.

Berkeley and a half-dozen other cities in California already have launched such programs. Dual-stream reduces processing costs downstream. Materials are already sorted, and are less susceptible to food and water contamination, ultimately creating higher-grade, and thus, more valuable recyclable materials.

Foodware is another item that local governments are directly able to control. Municipalities are working to reduce waste volume in landfills by cutting down on the amount of single-use plastic foodware. "We've been focusing on not making more recyclable or more compostable foodware, but trying to reduce single-use foodware overall," Bourque said. In July, a new Berkeley ordinance will take effect that will require restaurants in the city to supply reusable dishware regardless of whether their business offers counter or sit-down services. The ordinance also will enforce a 25-cent charge for all single-use cups, which will encourage patrons to start using reusable containers more diligently.

But local actors can only do so much. The fight against waste cannot simply be won via more and better recycling; it also needs to be waged by reducing our use of non-bottle plastics at the manufacturing and consumer stages. To implement the sweeping changes necessary in the wake of National Sword, players in the recycling industry are calling on California legislators to step in and pass major legislation.