Is Recycling Really the Saviour of Our Planet? The Plastic Industry Should Take The Blame, and the Burden

By Science and Environment Editor Leah Moynihan

We all invest a significant amount of time sorting our litter in the hopes that it will be reused. We are flooded with recycling campaigns persuading us that recycling will save us from our own destruction. Yet, is recycling really as good as we think it is, and can it save us from the current climate emergency?

The concept of recycling first became popular at the start of the 1990’s when “single stream” systems were introduced. This meant that consumers did not have to sort through their rubbish, it could simply all be tossed into a single bin. This caused more people to adopt recycling practices in their homes, however there was serious issues with contamination. Once an item is contaminated, it can no longer be used and any items in contact with it must also be discarded. Over-enthusiastic recyclers threw everything from banana peels to phone batteries into these blue bins. Even though the “single stream” system encouraged more people to participate in recycling, it ended up costing more. Even today, one quarter of the total waste that is thrown into recycling bins cannot be recycled. These valueless items reduce space, contaminate other materials, and disrupt machinery. Many experts in the waste management industry have all agreed that recycling does more harm than good, as it is uneconomic in the long term. Making new plastic out of oil is cheaper and easier than making it out of plastic waste. The recycled items must be collected, sorted, and melted down. Furthermore, plastic degrades each time it is recycled, and most cannot be used more than twice. This discourages the plastic industry in fully utilising recycled products. 

Knowing all this, why are we so obsessed with recycling when there are so many issues with the process? In the 1980’s, the amount of plastic was pilling up and it seemed that the world was nearing the point of no return. “The plastics industry was under fire - we got to do what it takes to take the heat off, because we want to continue to make plastic products”, Larry Thomas, the former President of the Society of the Plastics Industry explained in a tell-all interview. They wanted to change their wasteful image in order to continue selling plastics. So, in 1989, a quiet campaign began by the industry executives that not many people are aware of. The industry spent millions of dollars convincing us that we could keep consuming their product if we began to recycle it. Commercials and messages about recycling increased dramatically. The industry was trying to convince us that plastic is special. A product that was previously burned or buried was now being promoted as having value. One popular ad stressed the message “Presenting the possibilities of plastic!”. This may sound like an environmental campaign; however, these adds were paid for by the oil and plastic industry. “Feel good projects” for the public were also funded including recycling centres, sorting machines, and even inspirational art pieces made from plastic bags that cost millions to make. The industry feeds us this greenwashed message, knowing that most plastic will never be recycled. As the NPR aptly stated, “selling recycling, sold plastic”. 

One of the biggest problems with the plastic industry is that by telling us to recycle, they are shifting the burden onto the consumer. The most effective campaign by the plastic industry is the idea of the carbon footprint. It has been termed one of the most “successful, deceptive PR campaigns ever”. While these big companies are telling us to stress about our own carbon output, they can continue to pump out thousands of tonnes of new plastic with no responsibility. One famous ad from the 70’s shows a native American man canoeing down a river heavily polluted in plastic. The shot zooms into a single tear on his cheek as he gazes out at the destruction. The slogan dramatically appears on the screen, “People Start Pollution, People Can Stop It”. The ad was heavily funded by packaging companies who had a vested interest in proving to people that capitalism is not the thing that is destroying our planet. The individual gets the blame for the ecological crisis. This is once again another example of multinationals misleading people for profit.

However, it does not end there. Oil and plastic executives began a clever campaign in the 1980’s to authorize a symbol that now appears on all plastic products. The symbol shows what type of plastic the product is made from, depending on the number displayed in the middle of the triangle. It resembles the recycling symbol, however most of these products should stay out of our blue bins. There are hundreds of different types of plastics that cannot be melted down together. The infrastructure is not currently in place for them to be sorted; it is simply too expensive. However, these symbols manipulate the consumer into thinking that all plastic is recyclable when that is far from the truth. They are being misused as a ‘green marketing tool’. The public is led to believe that more plastics can be recycled than the reality, and this generates unrealistic expectations. We are being told that the environment is being saved and that we can keep purchasing plastic products once they are recyclable. People end up consuming more items, as they believe that it is alright to overconsume because it is going to be recycled. Creating new plastic is highly profitable and the plastic industry wants to continue selling as much as possible. $400 million is earned each year by the oil industry from plastics. Companies are now telling investors that their profits will increasingly depend on plastics, as oil demand for cars declines. 

Twenty fossil fuel companies can be linked to one third of the total global greenhouse gas emissions. The main culprits are Shell, BP and Chevron, who are responsible for more than 10% of emissions since 1965. There is now so much plastic that China has refused to take any more US rubbish since the material is too contaminated. There is simply too much plastic to deal with. According to National Geographic, only 9% of the plastics ever made are recycled. Yet there are reports proving that the big companies have known for years that recycling plastic is not realistic on a broad scale because of the high expense. The money spent on advertising that plastic is not bad could easily have been put towards developing cleaner materials or technologies to reduce plastic waste. 

So, should we give up on recycling? Certainly not. The EPA has confirmed that recycling has clear benefits and that there must be some level of personal responsibility. Many plastics can only be reused two to three times before the material begins to break down, however technology is always improving. Paper can now be recycled five to six times before the fibres degrade. 95% of the energy used to make new material is saved when aluminium cans are recycled. 60% of energy is recovered by recycling paper. By recycling a single glass bottle a light bulb can be powered for up to four hours. Natural resources are saved, and items such as metals and glass can be reused repeatedly without a decline of quality. 

However, recycling alone cannot save our planet. It is true that people can stop pollution, but not in the way that we are being told.

Plastic companies must be held accountable for their actions, and we as consumers have the responsibility to put pressure on these industries by switching away from using plastic products.

Consumer demand can drive manufacturers to create more environmentally friendly products that do not waste energy in being reused or recycled. While recycling is important, it is only a small drop in the ocean. “There’s no silver bullet to stop plastic pollution. We’re not going to be able to recycle our way out of the problem”, investigator Rob Kaplan states. We need to spend our energy on pressuring plastic companies to alter their ways, as systemic change is what will save us from this climate emergency. The big companies need to start taking responsibility, not the individual.