Commentary: Plastic recycling isn’t working; what are we going to do about that?

A. J. Jacobs, writer for The New York Times, shared his attempt to avoid plastic in an article published Jan. 15, 2023: “On the morning of the day I had decided to go without using plastic products—or even touching plastic—I opened my eyes and put my bare feet on the carpet, which is made of nylon, a type of plastic. I was roughly 10 seconds into my experiment, and I had already committed a violation.”

Jacobs had 164 violations at the end of the day.

Plastic is everywhere; it’s unlikely to disappear from our daily lives. It is amazingly versatile, but there are downsides: It relies on finite resources, accumulates in landfills and oceans, persists for decades and breaks down into microplastics now present in water and food with yet-unknown impacts on human health.

In his article, Jacobs quotes Dr. Salazar, an environmental scientist and public health expert: “Remember, it’s not about plastic being the enemy. It’s about single use as the enemy. It’s the culture of using something once and throwing it away.”

That observation is fair. Yet, convenience is deeply embedded in modern culture, and simply asking people to opt out won’t work. Without meaningful policy, disruptive thinking and a cultural shift that makes recycling habitual, trusted, economic and valued, keeping plastic out of landfills and oceans will remain an aspiration.

Data underscores the urgency. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s "Global Plastics Outlook: Policy Scenarios to 2060" says global plastic production and use might nearly triple between 2019-2060, but recycling rates are only projected to go up roughly from 9 percent to 17 percent for all plastics.

Sabert has been involved in the plastic industry in the U.S. for the better part of 45 years. Over that period, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles—one of the easiest plastic to recycle—still achieve only about a 30 percent recycling rate in the United States. Why? Recycling is hard, and recycled material is expensive.

The scale of effort aimed at solving this problem stands in contrast to the results. The U.S. has more than 32,000 registered environmental organizations, with roughly 5,500 focused on plastics and waste, and thousands of grassroots groups. But the “2024 State of Recycling Report” from The Recycling Partnership indicates that 76 percent of recyclable material in American households still ends up in the trash. Greenpeace USA recently called plastic recycling a failure. Stating a problem without offering a path forward is counterproductive—and we believe there is a solution. It requires thinking differently about the problem itself.

Policy that drives meaningful change

Recycling will never scale if we keep pretending it can survive on good intentions alone. It has to work as a system. Today, it doesn’t. Slow-moving state-level extended producer responsibility (EPR) implementation, low penalties under statewide postconsumer resin (PCR) mandates and fragmented state-by-state patchwork all but guarantee mediocrity. As long as virgin resin and imported PCR remain the lowest-cost options, they will win—regardless of sustainability pledges or the closure of domestic recycling plants and associated job losses.

The electric vehicle industry succeeded through a deliberate “carrot and stick” approach. Tax credits for buyers created demand, while strict emissions standards forced manufacturers to innovate.

Recycling requires a similar carrots and sticks approach: serious investment incentives, like the federal tax credits envisioned in the CIRCLE Act, to modernize domestic recycling infrastructure, paired with nationwide PCR mandates imposing regulatory penalties set at or above the price gap between virgin resin and PCR, or tiered EPR fee structures tied to recycled content, up to full fee reductions for high-PCR packaging. We need to make ignoring PCR mandates economically irrational. Just as important, industry and policies must stop creating unnecessary hurdles by clinging to rigid accounting methods that add cost, slow progress and do little to improve real recycling results. Flexible, verified chain-of-custody models for mechanically recycled PCR, such as ISO 22095, can enable scale without driving up costs or emissions. Smart policy that harmonizes national standards, such as PACK Act, for what can be recycled and how materials are labeled will help reduce confusion, curtail contamination and increase participation.

Simplify the system

Today, recycling feels like a graduate-level exam. Most consumers face a dizzying array of plastics, inconsistent labeling and conflicting local rules. When people are unsure, they either throw everything in the trash or wishcycle, which results in nonrecyclables contaminating the stream.

Shouldn’t we just have four clear labels and the same acceptance nationwide instead of patchwork of different counties:

• No. 1 Recycle, for products and packaging that can be processed through mechanical or advfanced recycling technologies;
• No. 2 Compost, or certified compostable products and packaging;
• No. 3 Reuse, for durable products and packaging designed for multiple uses.
• No. 4 Trash, for products and packaging that cannot be recycled or composted.

This approach can extend beyond plastics to other packaging formats, eliminating consumer confusion, reducing contamination and making recycling intuitive.

Consolidate efforts to drive a cultural shift

Recycling must become a source of pride, not a chore. Consolidating resources at various environmental organizations and corporate-funded campaigns into coordinated, large-scale messaging could shift behavior. A nationwide, multiyear awareness effort—using trusted messengers and consistent, honest storytelling—can make the consequences of waste impossible to ignore. This does not require sensationalism, but it does involve honesty, repetition and credible voices such as health professionals, respected public persona/officials and educators. Behavioral change will only stick when the message is repeated, compelling and unavoidable.

Engage consumers

Recycling needs to be seen as a shared responsibility with consequences and rewards that are visible, personal and immediate. It should remain accessible, but careless contamination undermines the system and increases costs for everyone.

People are influenced by social comparison, but waste becomes invisible once it leaves the curb. Scaling initiatives like household waste reports that benchmark trash against neighborhood averages and pay-as-you-throw systems can make waste visible and drive higher recycling and composting rates.

Behavior change at scale is difficult, but history shows it is possible. Smoking, drunk driving and seatbelt use all shifted dramatically through layered interventions: science, regulation, economic incentives and social norms. Recycling needs to follow suit.

A sustainable future is not about vilifying plastic (or any other material) but transforming our relationship with it. Real progress requires one coordinated national effort to make it intuitive, trusted and economically viable, supported by smart regulation, clear labeling, streamlined infrastructure and compelling cultural messaging that inspires pride rather than confusion or guilt. While this challenge might seem daunting, our capacity for innovation and change is proven. What lies ahead for plastic recycling—and our planet—is up to us. We must move forward in one direction with ONE GOAL: engage consumers to reduce waste and recycle while implementing policies that make domestic recycled materials economically viable.

Albert Salama is founder and CEO of Sabert, while Richa Desai is the company's chief sustainability and strategy officer. More information on Sabert can be found at https://sabert.com.