Colorado Environmental Law Journal > Printed > Volume 34 > Issue 1 > Potential for Less Plastic Pollution: Colorado’s Recycling System and Plastic Bag Ban

Potential for Less Plastic Pollution: Colorado’s Recycling System and Plastic Bag Ban

March 14, 2023 by Robyn Smith[1]*
No comments

Table of Contents

Introduction

I. Background

A. Post-Consumer Waste Is Increasing on a Global Level

B. Current Processing Facilities for Recyclables Are Insufficient

C. Historical Federal Recycling Initiatives

D. Recent Federal Legislative Initiatives

II. States Have Divergent Recycling Frameworks and Varying Rates of Success

A. Components of Recycling Frameworks

1. Deposit Refund System

2. Curbside Recycling

3. Single-Use Plastic Bans

4. State Regulation and Oversight of Recycling

5. Landfill Costs

B. 50 States of Recycling Report

C. Case Studies

1. Maine

2. Vermont

3. Colorado

A. Current Recycling Performance

1. Findings About Colorado’s Recycling System from the 50 States of Recycling Report

2. Weaknesses in Colorado’s Recycling System

3. Additional Explanations for Low Performance

B. Colorado’s Legislative and Policy Initiatives

C. Likely Impact of HB 21-1162

IV. Proposal for Colorado

A. Enforce HB 21-1162

B. Implement a DRS

C. Implement Universal Bundled Curbside Recycling

D. Convert Curbside Recycling Programs to Cart Systems

E. Evaluate and Increase Landfill Costs

Conclusion

Introduction

In a world plagued by plastic pollution that threatens ecosystems, natural resources, and human health, state-level recycling programs play a significant role in dictating the success of recycling within any state. In 2021, Eunomia, a consulting agency that focuses on both the environmental and commercial outcomes of its clients, published a report called The 50 States of Recycling.[2] This report evaluates state-level recycling programs on a case-by-case basis and provides valuable insights about what elements of a state system can lead to the greatest overall recycling rates. The elements considered include landfill tipping fees, curbside recycling programs, deposit return systems (“DRS”) that allow customers to return bottles for a cash refund, and legislation that supports recycling incentives, among others.[3] The states with the best recycling performance consistently have a DRS and higher landfill fees.[4] Recycling performance is calculated by the percentage of the common set of containers and packaging materials (“CCPM”) the state’s recycling system captures relative to what ends up in a landfill or incinerator.[5]

States with lower performance, such as Colorado, lack at least one and often all these elements in their systems. Colorado has no DRS and low landfill tipping fees.[6] The presence of these two elements typically indicates favorable recycling rates and their absence produces opposite results: a recycling rate of CCPM of only thirty-three percent and placement among the twenty worst performing states for recycling.[7] Colorado’s system leaves much to be desired and should be updated to reflect the lessons learned by other more successful states.

Part I of this note will discuss the current state of recycling in the United States, the overall weaknesses of the system, and the federal legal framework that applies to recycling. As will quickly become apparent, this is an area that has suffered from a lack of meaningful oversight. Recycling has largely been left to the states to manage, which contributes to the lack of consistent commitment to the issue.[8] Part II will discuss the most common elements of state recycling systems and the 50 States of Recycling report in greater detail. It will discuss several case studies of states with the most successful recycling programs and the elements that may be unique to those states. Part III will address Colorado specifically and some of the shortcomings in the state’s program. Colorado recently passed HB 21-1162, legislation that implements a ban on plastic bags and polystyrene takeout containers that will be phased in over the next few years.[9] In addition to the details of the bill, Part III will highlight likely effects the bill will have in the state. Finally, Part IV recommends steps Colorado can take to improve its recycling rate and reduce the amount of plastic packaging that ends up in landfills or incinerators. To achieve a higher recycling rate and more sustainable waste management system, Colorado should bolster its legislative recycling initiatives, make improvements to the infrastructure of its existing recycling system, and disincentivize reliance upon landfills for disposal of packaging waste.

I. Background

A. Post-Consumer Waste Is Increasing on a Global Level

Global production of plastic waste has reached enormous volumes. According to recent Congressional findings reported in HB 2821, the situation surrounding plastic waste is dire:

It is estimated that global production of plastic has increased from 2,000,000 tons of plastic per year in 1950 to 400,000,000 tons per year today, and of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic ever produced globally, 6.3 billion metric tons has become plastic waste.[10]

The solution to this problem must be multifaceted and is not simple. As the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) recognized in a 2021 initiative, the National Recycling Strategy, addressing our global recycling and waste crisis may require an entire rethinking of how our economy works. The EPA recommends shifting away from a single-use, resource consuming model of waste to a circular economy.[11] A circular economy:

refers to a systems-focused approach and involves industrial processes and economic activities that are restorative or regenerative by design, enable resources used in such processes and activities to maintain their highest values for as long as possible, and aim for the elimination of waste through superior design of materials, products, and systems (including business models).[12]

In other words, the goal of a circular economy is to keep products in use for as long as possible, minimize the use of new resources, and avoid end-of-life disposal of products in a landfill or on community streets and public spaces. These are all considerations that, ideally, the manufacturer of a product would incorporate during the design process. A shift to a circular economy will help address current issues with pollution and health issues resulting from improper disposal of plastics. Communities located near waste disposal centers, including both incinerators and landfills, are disproportionately burdened by adverse environmental conditions that lead to long-term health issues for these community members.[13] A circular economy can help keep some amount of material out of these facilities and potentially lower the adverse health impacts on these communities.[14] It may also result in an enormous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the production, use, consumption, and disposal of materials.[15]

Regardless of the approach chosen, it is vital to acknowledge the issues the world currently faces because of plastic pollution. We must find a way to reduce reliance upon plastic and drastically decrease the amount of plastic material that contaminates our natural world.

B. Current Processing Facilities for Recyclables Are Insufficient

Collecting recyclable materials is just the first step of the recycling process. To have an effective recycling system, those materials must then be processed and manufactured into recycled feedstock, the “new” recycled material, that can be used to make new products. Processing facilities sort, clean, reduce in size, and package materials for transportation to the manufacturing facility.[16] Manufacturing facilities then transform the recyclables into recycled material feedstock. Unfortunately, the United States has relied on other countries for much of this processing and does not have a robust domestic system at this point. Currently, no easily accessible data set outlines the number of recycling facilities located in Colorado, the United States, or elsewhere around the world. However, it may be more readily available in the future as compiling this sort of data on the overall components of the U.S. recycling system is one of the problems that S. 923, the RECYCLE Act of 2021, described below, seeks to rectify.[17]

Previously, the United States shipped a significant amount of its recyclable waste overseas to countries like China and India.[18] The 2018 Census Bureau report indicated that “157,000 large 20-ft shipping containers (429 per day) of U.S. plastic waste w[ere] shipped to China and other countries, countries that are not known to be recycled plastic users or exporters.”[19] Some of this waste was recycled, while some was destined for landfills in those countries.[20] In 2017, the landscape changed significantly when China’s State Council introduced new rules banning the importation of “foreign garbage,” which included solid waste and scrap plastics.[21] The plan was to stop importing solid waste by December of 2020.[22] According to Chinese officials, much of the recyclable material they used to import was too dirty to use and considered garbage.[23] This reduction in the market for recyclable materials left many U.S. municipalities without anywhere to send their recyclables.[24] Some municipalities outright abandoned their recycling programs during this time, recommending that customers instead put the items in their trash bin.[25] Others found the costs of their recycling programs soaring as they had to pay exponentially higher costs to have materials recycled.[26]

Addressing the creation of new facilities is beyond the scope of this Note. However, ensuring that recyclables are effectively collected is an important first step in encouraging the development of U.S. based recycling facilities. Once the facilities exist, having a supply of clean and recyclable materials will increase profitability. Plastic bags are one of the most common contaminants in recycling facilities, so reducing their presence in the state should necessarily reduce their presence as a contaminant in the recycling process.[27] Investing in domestic recycling infrastructure will support job creation in processing and manufacturing as well.[28] It will help retain “key critical minerals” within the United States that are needed for manufacturing.[29] Domestic recycling facilities will also decrease the costs to municipalities of recycling the materials they collect by reducing the distance they have to transport the materials and expanding the market for those facilities.[30]

C. Historical Federal Recycling Initiatives

At the federal level, there is some historic record of attempts to address waste disposal through legislation. Congress passed the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act (“SWDA”) to address the relatively unchecked disposal of waste in the United States at the time.[31] Lack of regulation over waste disposal in an era that predated the EPA led to polluted air and water sources around major cities.[32] This pollution had implications for public health concerning air and water quality, but also greater disease concerns resulting from the vermin the improperly managed landfills attracted.[33] The SWDA attempted to address this issue by creating minimum safety requirements for landfills and providing a framework for states to use in attempting to control waste disposal.[34] The SWDA was not very successful and the garbage problems persisted.[35] Additionally, in the 1960’s awareness grew regarding the uniquely difficult issue of dealing with hazardous waste disposal.[36]

The formation of the EPA in 1970 created further federal involvement in waste management.[37] The EPA has the authority to promulgate regulations to implement any environmental statutes that Congress passes, as well as the power to enforce those same regulations.[38] In addition, the EPA provides generous grants to state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and others to help facilitate the development of environmental initiatives at a state level.[39] The agency has a significant focus on education and partnerships with many different entities in an attempt to spread concern and education for environmental wellbeing far and wide.[40] At the time of its inception, the EPA and the work it began provided greater access to information and statistics about the pollution problem.[41] Unfortunately, what the EPA discovered through its information gathering and analysis was that the current legislation, the SWDA, was not doing enough to solve the pollution problem.[42]

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) is a significant piece of waste management legislation that Congress passed in 1976.[43] The RCRA largely addresses the management and disposal of hazardous waste and is an amendment to the SWDA, though it is so comprehensive that it is referred to by its own name.[44] It has had some positive influence on the implementation of recycling programs across the United States as well. Some of Congress’s goals in establishing the RCRA were protecting human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, conserving energy and natural resources, reducing the amount of waste generated, and ensuring that wastes are managed in an environmentally-sound manner.[45] The RCRA is intended to be “a pollution prevention measure . . . [and] a joint federal and state enterprise.”[46] The federal framework allows states to create their own individualized systems for waste management within the restrictions of the RCRA’s framework.[47] This autonomy is important because it should ideally allow states to structure their waste management systems to best fit the state’s needs, resources, and economies.

The Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments (“HSWA”) to the RCRA, passed in 1984, had important implications for recycling.[48] The HSWA required the EPA to look at the state of solid waste landfills.[49] The EPA’s collection of data in fulfilling this requirement created greater transparency regarding the state of waste management because it gave the agency the hard facts about what was happening at landfills.[50] This new information led to further EPA action encouraging an integrated approach to waste management.[51] Within the first twenty-five years of the RCRA, about 62 million tons of waste were diverted from landfills annually by recycling, and the national recycling rate approached twenty-eight percent.[52] By contrast, prior to the RCRA the national recycling rate was below seven percent around 1960 and had risen to about thirty-two percent by the end of 2021.[53]

Overall, the most significant pieces of federal legislation addressing environmental issues and waste management have shed some light on the recycling issue. However, federal legislation such as the HWSA and the RCRA are more focused on the most hazardous or toxic materials, rather than everyday recyclable packaging. To some extent this is a logical focus as these more hazardous materials have immediate and significant health consequences for humans and the environment. However, in the years since disposable packaging has become commonplace in U.S. society, enough plastic has entered the environment that it may be just as toxic to human health as the more regulated materials. Up to this point, Congress has not passed any significant recycling-focused legislation for the EPA to implement or enforce. There have been some attempts in recent years, discussed below, that show that the recycling and plastic pollution issues are becoming more universally understood as significant issues.

D. Recent Federal Legislative Initiatives

Several federal bills addressing plastic waste have been introduced in recent years, including two pending proposals by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in the 2022 session, but their predicted success rates are low, and they have not been passed into law at this time. Due to the partisan nature of environmental issues in the current political climate, bills like those discussed below gain little traction and are often voted down by more conservative politicians. Since 2020, only the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and the RECYCLE Act provisions in the 2021 infrastructure bill have passed. S. 1982, The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, was passed in December 2020 and aims to combat marine debris.[54] S. 923, the RECYCLE Act of 2021 was signed into law as part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.[55] The RECYCLE Act of 2021 requires the EPA to “develop a model recycling program toolkit for States, [Native American] Tribes, and . . . local government[s]” and establish a grant program to support improvement of community recycling programs through public education and outreach, among other goals.[56] Federal legislation is relevant to the issue of state-level recycling because, up to this point, there has been no federal oversight of recycling. Because of the state-controlled nature of recycling programs, commitment to recycling varies by state, region, and the political administrations of each state. A significant piece of federal legislation creating uniform standards or requirements for states to meet could drastically change how recycling programs are run and potentially improve recycling rates nation-wide. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity to see what the effects might be because no major legislation has passed. The bills described below, though, are indicative of what that legislation may look like if it finally passes at some point soon.

1. HR 2821: The Plastic Waste Reduction and Recycling Research Act

HR 2821, the Plastic Waste Reduction and Recycling Research Act, was introduced in the House on April 22, 2021.[57] It was proposed under the Biden administration and sponsored by Representative Haley Stevens, a Democrat from Michigan.[58] After being referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the bill has made no further progress towards becoming law.[59] Acknowledging many of the shortcomings in the United States’ current recycling system, HR 2821 suggests that the federal government “can play an important role in supporting research and development and facilitating standards, tools, and technologies needed across the different stages of the plastics production and recycling ecosystem.”[60]

The bill proposes the creation of a Plastic Waste Reduction and Recycling Research Program, which would aim to make the United States a global leader in plastic recycling.[61] This goal would be achieved by supporting the research and development of recycling technologies and new, more easily recyclable plastic materials.[62] The program would also encourage public-private partnerships to maximize the use of available resources.[63]

HR 2821 also calls for the creation of an interagency committee that would include representatives from major relevant agencies. These agencies include: the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the EPA, the Department of Transportation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and “any other Federal agency as considered appropriate by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.”[64] This interagency committee would be tasked with defining key terms in the field of plastics recycling and establishing strategic plans every three years for plastic waste reduction and plastic waste remediation.[65]

This commission would be significant because it would represent a coordinated, national effort to strengthen the recycling infrastructure in the United States. A robust plan on the federal level would lead to coordinated implementation of strategies among the states to meet the federal goals. It is likely that the EPA would be delegated with authority to implement this type of environmentally focused legislation through the promulgation and enforcement of regulations, meaning there would be actual federal oversight of state action. This oversight would encourage states to develop recycling infrastructure more proactively in accordance with the federal plan. With a more robust infrastructure in place and the implementation of progressive recycling technologies, states would also not face the same hurdles of finding an end user for recyclable materials because there would likely be more facilities in the United States in place ready to accept them. A stronger market for recyclable materials would allow states to expand collection programs more successfully because the states would know there would be a buyer for the materials they collect, which would justify the financial investment required to expand a recycling program.

2. S. 984: Break Free from Plastic Pollution Act of 2021

S. 984, or the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021, was introduced in the Senate of the 117th Congress on March 25, 2021, also under the Biden administration.[66] If passed, S.984 amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act and proposes a number of actions, including a reduction in the production of plastics and increased “efforts to collect, recycle, or compost products and materials.”[67] The bill includes a ban on some single-use plastic products beginning in 2023, a new tax on carryout bags, and incentives to have other single-use items like beverage containers returned by consumers for a monetary reward.[68] S. 984 also aims to pin some of the responsibility for the end-of life of materials back on the producers of those materials. It makes producers of some single-use products “fiscally responsible for collecting, managing, and recycling or composting the products after consumer use.”[69] Unfortunately, like HR 2821, S. 984 has not made any progress since being introduced.

As these two bills make clear, a comprehensive piece of federal legislation focused on recycling innovation and a cradle-to-grave design of plastic materials may be on the horizon. The depth of coordination involved in these bills reflects an awareness of the need for more systemic investment in recycling infrastructure on a national level. Until more federal legislation changes the way recycling is addressed in the United States though, management of any system is left up to the states. As discussed below, states have varying levels of success with their individual systems.

II. States Have Divergent Recycling Frameworks and Varying Rates of Success

States have highly variable success rates with recycling. The recycling systems in place vary enormously from state to state, as they are designed at the local level. There are about 9,000 different recycling systems in place across the United States.[70] Each of these systems has its own policies, infrastructure, and unique list of what can be recycled.[71] Despite the wide variety within local recycling systems, certain system components seem to increase the overall recycling rate in a given area.[72] The main components of recycling systems are DRS, curbside recycling, plastic bag or single-use-plastic bans, recycling policies or legislation, and landfill fees. States employ some, none, or a combination of these policies within their recycling schemes with varying success. While each component will help to strengthen a recycling system, DRS, curbside recycling, and landfill fees seem to be the best predictors of a higher recycling rate.

A. Components of Recycling Frameworks

1. Deposit Refund System

DRS incentivize consumers to recycle effectively. A DRS, also known as a “bottle bill,” is a system that encourages the return of beverage containers and other packaging by consumers. Purchases of products that are included in a DRS are subject to a small additional tax.[73] In exchange for returning the containers to designated collection points, the consumer receives that tax as a refund.[74] Typically, consumers receive up to 10 cents per bottle returned, depending on the state and type of packaging being returned.[75] Some DRS are operated or funded by the producers of the packaging themselves.[76] This type of DRS places some of the responsibility for the end-of-life of product packaging back in the hands of those responsible for creating it in the first place. For most DRS, the retailer pays a deposit to the distributor for each bottle.[77] Then, when the customer purchases a beverage with an eligible container, they pay a deposit to the retailer.[78] If the customer returns the bottle for a refund, the retailer will refund the deposit to the customer and then recoup the costs from the distributor.[79]

Oregon created the first DRS in the United States in 1971.[80] The law applied a refundable tax on all beer and soft drink containers.[81] As of 2020, about forty countries worldwide have implemented this type of system, suggesting its somewhat universally useful application.[82] The countries with DRS include Australia, Canada, much of Europe including Scandinavia, Iceland, and Ecuador.[83] Other countries have introduced legislation to implement a DRS in the near future or are holding discussions to consider the possibility of creating such a system.[84]

Eight of the ten most effective recycling states have a DRS for beverage containers.[85] According to a recent report, almost a third of all “non-fiber packaging (rigid plastic, glass bottles and jars, and steel and aluminum cans) that is recycled nationally is estimated to be containers that are collected through DRS in [ten] states.”[86] When broken down by type of packaging, the recycling rates achieved by DRS are truly impressive. On a national level, DRS accounts for forty-seven percent of all glass bottles and jars, fifty-one percent of all aluminum cans, and sixty-two percent of all PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles recycled throughout the United States.[87] In addition to bringing more material into the recycling stream, DRS also provide the added benefit of being more efficient systems because they encounter fewer contaminants and result in lower processing loss of material than that seen in single-stream recycling systems.[88]

2. Curbside Recycling

Curbside recycling programs are a significant element in many recycling systems. They are designed to collect recyclables primarily from single-family households.[89] Single-family households in this context consists of housing buildings containing between one to four dwelling units.[90] In 2020, curbside recycling programs in the United States captured an estimated 11.9 million tons of recyclable material.[91] However, this number represents only about a third of the available recyclable materials that could be collected from American households.[92]

One of the major issues with curbside recycling programs as they currently exist is the inconsistency in offerings across the nation. A 2020 report by The Recycling Partnership suggests that about fifty-nine percent of single-family homes, which include dwellings with one to four units, had curbside recycling services.[93] About twenty-one percent of single-family homes had access to drop-off services, fourteen percent had access to subscription-based curbside services but chose not to participate, and six percent had no recycling services available to them at all.[94] Regardless of the type of service offered, it is estimated that the average curbside participation rate is about seventy-two percent of households, or only about fifty-two percent of all single-family households when multiple-dwelling unit households are accounted for.[95]

It is hard to pinpoint exactly why participation in recycling programs is so low. However, municipalities that have worked diligently to improve their systems have seen both greater participation and collection of cleaner recyclables after providing extensive education to their citizens.[96] One case study in Sarasota, Florida, noted that a revamp of its recycling program, including both new lidded roll-carts and extensive education, increased participation, the quality, and the volume of recyclables collected.[97] The volume of recyclables collected in Sarasota increased by about seventy-one percent during a one-year period from 2019–2020.[98] Most importantly, the educational initiatives connected the importance of recycling to something Sarasota residents valued, their pristine nature and waterways.[99] Providing education in the context of community values is one way to encourage greater participation in curbside recycling.

For those households that do participate in curbside recycling, the actual material collected is still imperfect. Only about sixty-one percent of recyclables generated in each household make it into the curbside recycling system.[100] The materials collected are not evenly distributed either; a far higher percent of cardboard is collected than aluminum and steel cans, for example.[101] This discrepancy matters because some recyclables have higher monetary value than others and make the systems more financially viable. For example, plastics degrade in quality when they are recycled and can typically only be recycled once.[102] Glass and aluminum cans, on the other hand, can be endlessly recycled.[103] The endless recyclability of these materials means they hold a higher value than plastics or paper that will eventually degrade to the point that they cannot be further recycled.[104] On a national level, the value of recyclables collected does not currently meet the cost of collection.[105]

Several curbside recycling system elements seem to encourage higher participation. Automatically provided curbside recycling services draw higher participation rates than opt-in subscription services.[106] This finding is not surprising, as opt-in services often require the user to pay additional fees and take a proactive step to sign up for the service. Other design elements have more surprising results, though. For example, providing users with recycling carts instead of recycling bins or bags increases the annual average number of pounds collected from a household by almost 100 pounds.[107] Recycling carts are typically lidded and have wheels, making them easy to use and maneuver, whereas bags or wheel-less bins can be more cumbersome for customers. The 2020 State of Curbside Recycling Report by The Recycling Partnership noted that 242 of the 435 recycling programs it analyzed offered a recycling cart for curbside recycling.[108] While not a complete analysis of all U.S. recycling systems, this data point suggests that recycling cart usage is increasing, which bodes well for improving recycling rates. This simple switch can deliver significant improvements in performance of curbside recycling systems, even without increasing the number of households served.

3. Single-Use Plastic Bans

Single-use plastic bans frequently come in the form of plastic bag bans. Effective plastic bag bans often implement a simultaneous, small fee for single-use paper bags.[109] These fees intend to disincentivize customers from simply continuing to rely on disposables and encourage the use of reusable bags.[110] Plastic bag bans do tend to cause a slight increase in the purchase of new, thicker plastic garbage bags because some consumers reuse single-use plastic bags as garbage bags in their homes.[111] In one California study, though, even with the increase in purchased plastic garbage bags, a plastic bag ban still led to a seventy percent decrease in the use of plastic overall by shoppers at the stores under examination because the shoppers were not receiving single-use plastic grocery bags at checkout.[112]

There are other benefits to plastic bag bans besides the obvious decrease in use. Plastic bag bans reduce the number of plastic bags that improperly end up in the recycling system.[113] Plastic bags contaminate collected recyclables, binding up recycling machinery and increasing costs, so any reduction is a positive one.[114] The bans also remove plastic bag litter in the immediate environment and prevent the plastic bags from breaking down into microplastics.[115] Finally, eliminating plastic bag use means a decrease in their manufacturing and incineration.[116] Both ends of the life cycle of a plastic bag release toxins that are harmful to human health.[117]

4. State Regulation and Oversight of Recycling

States with greater regulatory control over waste management tend to have higher recycling rates.[118] These recycling policies include strategies like banning certain materials from landfills, banning materials in general, mandatory recycling, data reporting requirements, and disposal surcharges.[119] Increasingly, popular single-use plastic or plastic bag bans fall into this category.

Vermont, which will be discussed in greater detail below, is one state that has had success with landfill bans.[120] Its landfill ban prohibits landfill disposal of certain items and materials including recyclables like bottles and cans, compostable materials like lawn clippings and food scraps, and even specialty recyclables like paint, electronics, and batteries.[121] It is also a state with one of the highest overall recycling rates.[122] As simple as it seems to implement this type of policy, though, there are oversight and enforcement costs that come along with it. As with any government regulation, the more thorough the enforcement, the greater the cost and effort involved. This demand on state funds makes recycling policies partisan issues that do not gather universal support.

5. Landfill Costs

Landfill costs, also known as tipping fees, play an important role in incentivizing recycling.[123] Tipping fees are charged per ton of municipal solid waste (“MSW”) disposed of.[124] The structure of funding surrounding tipping fees varies from state to state, but the fee is paid when the waste is disposed of at the landfill. Some municipalities recover these costs from households and businesses by charging a service tax on municipal waste collection fees.[125] Once the tipping fees are collected by the landfill, those fees can be put to different uses based on state policy. Illinois, for example, collected about $20 million in tipping fees in 2005, and required that $2 million go towards the Illinois Hazardous Waste Fund.[126] The remainder went toward the state’s waste management fund.[127] Other states put funds toward recycling, permitting, licensing of solid waste disposal facilities, environmental funds, and more.[128] States with higher landfill disposal costs tend to have higher success with overall recycling rates. Of the top ten recycling states, eight have among the highest tipping fees in the nation.[129] Tipping fees vary greatly based on factors including “population density, availability of remaining airspace or landfill life, competition between multiple landfills in the same area, landfill ownership by private or public entities, and interstate transport of waste.”[130]

These five elements form the foundation for most recycling systems and play the greatest role in indicating overall success of a program. There is great variety within each category and states can create virtually any type of system they desire. There are advantages to this flexibility when a state is motivated to achieve peak performance levels, but there are risks involved as well when states are less committed to success. The next Section will discuss the 50 States of Recycling Report, which took a careful look at each state’s performance to gain a better understanding of which systems work and which do not.

B. 50 States of Recycling Report

The 50 States of Recycling Report is a unique report that compares recycling rates of the same items across different states.[131] This report is significant because this sort of consistent comparison of all states’ recycling systems has not historically been done. The report provides a holistic evaluation of the success of each state’s recycling system. In looking to improve an individual state’s recycling program, a side-by-side comparison is helpful in highlighting what type of overall system has led to the best recycling outcomes. Following the successes of other states may lead to more efficient improvements if the insights gained are followed.

This report compares the actual recycling rates in each state of certain commonly recycled materials. It is important to note that the recycling rate is not the same as the collection rate for recyclable materials.[132] Collection rate includes all the materials that are collected. Not all materials that are collected are useable, though. Contamination by food and liquids, breakage, and non-recyclable materials must be removed from the collected materials. What remains is the recycling rate, which reflects the percentage of materials that make it through the entire recycling system and become new recycled material feedstock. The case studies below highlight how effective some recycling systems have been in the Northeast, where DRS and progressive recycling legislation are commonplace.

C. Case Studies

1. Maine

Maine is the top performing state when it comes to recycling— seventy-four percent of all CCPM in the state is recycled.[133] This success is no accident. Maine’s recycling system is extensive and contains many of the key elements of a successful recycling system.

One of the key elements in Maine’s system is its DRS. Maine has had a DRS in place since 1978 and it is now one of the most extensive systems, collecting the widest range of beverage containers of any DRS in the United States.[134] The materials recycled at the highest rate are those that are collected through the DRS.[135] Eighty-eight percent of all rigid plastic packaging, glass bottles and jars, and steel and aluminum cans are collected through the DRS in Maine.[136]

Maine also has impressive legislation in place addressing recycling. The state implemented the first electronics recycling bill in the nation, in addition to having a plastic bag and expanded polystyrene food container ban.[137] High landfill fees, some of the highest in the United States, likely provide additional incentive to recycle as well.[138]

2. Vermont

Vermont is another high-performing state when it comes to recycling. It currently ranks fourth in the United States, with a recycling rate of sixty-two percent.[139] Vermont has a DRS, like Maine, but it is a slightly less successful system because it does not include as many products. Notably, the Vermont DRS does not accept water bottles or non-carbonated beverages.[140] It is not clear why this is the case. In 2021, in an effort to eliminate this shortcoming in the DRS, the Vermont state legislature introduced H.175, an act relating to the beverage container redemption system.[141] This bill passed the House of Representatives of the Vermont General Assembly but did not pass the Senate.[142] The bill would have extended the DRS to include non-carbonated beverages and wine, except for milk and non-dairy milk products, but its failure means that there is still room for improvement in the Vermont DRS.[143]

Vermont holds a unique position because of its progressive recycling policies. The state has a mandatory facility reporting system, meaning that the data collection in the state surrounding recycling is reliable.[144] The data collected tracks the amount of waste that goes to landfills and the amount recycled, by tonnage.[145] Furthermore, Vermont has incredibly progressive recycling legislation that is now almost a decade old. The legislation is called the Universal Recycling Law.[146] It was originally passed in 2012 and was subsequently amended in 2018 and 2019.[147] The law bans three categories of materials from Vermonters’ trash bins: “blue bin” recyclables, food waste, and leaf and yard debris.[148] Blue bin recyclables are those most collected, like plastic, glass, and metal containers, cardboard, and paper. The Universal Recycling Law was implemented in phases, with more stringent conditions placed farther along in the implementation process.[149]

Overall, Vermont and Maine are both states whose recycling successes can be admired. Maine’s extensive DRS and Vermont’s highly successful recycling law lead the way in recycling. After briefly considering these highly successful states for recycling, this Note now turns to evaluate Colorado’s recycling performance. Colorado’s recycling performance will be considered through the same lens, considering many of the same system elements outlined above.

III. Colorado

A. Current Recycling Performance

Colorado’s current recycling efforts make a big impact. Current levels of recycling in the state save “over 1.9 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year, which is the equivalent of removing over 400,000 passenger cars from the road for one year.”[150] These effects are not insignificant but will be exponentially greater if Colorado can tap into its potential to increase its recycling performance. In a state with an ever-growing population, improvement and progress should be the goal for the future.

Despite having a positive impact, Colorado’s recycling performance is well below average. According to the 50 States of Recycling Report, Colorado ranks thirty-fifth when it comes to recycling performance. [151] While available data sources and the reliability of that data varies from state to state,[152] in Colorado the data used to evaluate current systems was pulled from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (“CDPHE”) and is considered reliable.[153] The reliability of the available diversion rate data is relevant because states with “more comprehensive and current data, along with a state-managed reporting system, achieve higher recycling rates.”[154]

The CDPHE oversees waste management and recycling activities in Colorado,[155] and since 2018 has provided annual reports on disposal and diversion tonnages by detailed category on its website.[156] The information available on the CDPHE website includes diversion numbers for MSW, which includes household waste, and diversion numbers for industrial waste sources.[157] The CDPHE also breaks down diversion numbers by region and identifies diversion trends year over year.[158] The 2016 Colorado Integrated Solid Waste & Materials Management Plan set a statewide diversion target of forty-five percent by 2036.[159] The diversion target means the state hopes to divert forty-five percent of recyclable materials from the landfill or incinerator, increasing the state’s overall recycling rate. Given Colorado’s reliable state-gathered data, it is surprising that Colorado has not yet achieved greater success with increasing its statewide recycling rates. This Note will discuss the factors that are contributing to its low performance, but first discusses the diversion rates reported for Colorado in the report.

1. Findings About Colorado’s Recycling System from the 50 States of Recycling Report

The report compares recycling rates from state to state by looking at diversion rates for CCPM.[160] CCPM includes common rigid plastic packaging, cardboard and boxboard, glass bottles and jars, aluminum cans, and steel cans.[161] Colorado’s recycling rate statewide for CCPM is only thirty-three percent.[162] This rate of thirty-three percent reflects the recycling rate for all types of CCPM in the state. Cardboard and boxboard represent a significant portion of CCPM recycled, though. When you remove cardboard and boxboard from the equation, Colorado recycles only sixteen percent of all other CCPM statewide.[163] This sixteen percent recycling rate is below average for western states.[164] The Front Range, the most populous area of Colorado that includes Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, and Fort Collins, had a goal of diverting thirty-two percent of waste by 2021, but fell far short of it with a diversion rate of only 16.2%.[165] This low rate prevented Colorado from reaching its statewide targets for 2021.[166] According to a 2020 report published by Ecocycle on the state of recycling and composting in Colorado, the Front Range was responsible for eighty-seven percent of the MSW produced in 2019.[167] Meanwhile, communities in the mountain and rural regions of Colorado achieved the 2021 diversion targets set for the state.[168] This distribution of MSW is not surprising, as the bulk of Colorado’s population lives along the Front Range.

On a per-capita basis, each Colorado resident generates about 341 pounds of packaging annually.[169] This amount is about average for an American.[170] Of the 341 pounds, 112 pounds are recycled, and 229 pounds are disposed of as trash, destined for a landfill or incineration.[171] This amount is in line with the average amount of packaging waste for Americans.[172] However, the low recycling rate in Colorado means that more packaging ends up in the trash than in comparably sized states with better recycling rates.[173] The amount of packaging disposed of per capita in Colorado is “among the 20 worst performing states in the nation and more than average for the western states.”[174]

2. Weaknesses in Colorado’s Recycling System

There are multiple factors that contribute to Colorado’s poor recycling performance. First, the disposal costs for landfill usage and disposal by incineration are low, meaning they are not within the top twenty-five percent of disposal fees nationwide.[175] These landfill fees are also below average in Colorado relative to neighboring states.[176] Higher landfill fees would incentivize diversion of materials for recycling. Colorado’s lower fees do not create such an incentive.[177] Recycling incentives exist at many levels throughout society and higher tipping fees would place additional pressure on municipalities to incentivize recycling, since they are often the ones to cover the cost of disposing of MSW at landfills.[178] Seven of the top ten highest performing states for recycling have high landfill disposal costs relative to the rest of the states.[179] Second, Colorado does not currently have a bottle bill or DRS. [180] A DRS would directly incentivize consumers to recycle certain types of packaging like glass bottles or aluminum cans.

Finally, at the time the report was published, Colorado had no legislation that supported high levels of CCPM recycling.[181] Examples of legislation that would support CCPM recycling would include “landfill bans on packaging or universal recycling requirements.”[182] A landfill ban on packaging, for example, would increase recycling by removing landfill or incineration as an option for disposal. Typically, this type of legislation would be accompanied by simultaneous strengthening of a recycling system or increasing access to existing recycling services. Vermont is one state that has implemented this type of legislation with considerable success, as discussed above. In general, this type of legislation remains quite uncommon, but states that do have it tend to have better recycling rates, dependent partially upon the other elements of the recycling systems in place in the state.[183]

3. Additional Explanations for Low Performance

There is no singular theory to explain Colorado’s surprisingly poor recycling performance. But several theories have been proffered to explain why Colorado’s performance continues to fall behind. A 2020 article from Colorado Public Radio noted that cities and towns report several consistent issues that pose significant challenges for them in achieving greater recycling success.[184] These municipalities reported that recycling costs, unpredictable global markets for recyclables, transportation costs, and lack of local and statewide infrastructure to transport recyclables all impede their ability to make progress in improving recycling rates.[185] Colorado also has relatively little manufacturing in the state, so most recyclables have to be shipped out of state to be processed into usable raw material.[186] Shipping materials out of state can be expensive. For recycling to be economically feasible, the amount a municipality receives for its recyclable materials needs to be greater than the cost of shipping them to the recycling facility. Often this equation is imbalanced, and recycling is not profitable for municipalities.[187]

Another recent 2020 report from Ecocycle posits that the lack of universal access to curbside recycling for Colorado residents is one of the biggest shortcomings of the current recycling infrastructure in the state.[188] The need to provide access to this type of service is particularly acute along the Front Range, given the concentration of residents and high volume of waste created in the region.[189] Only four of the ten largest cities in Colorado provide universal curbside recycling to all residents, with access to curbside programs available on a voluntary basis in the remainder.[190] In the entire state of Colorado, only thirty-nine municipalities bundle trash and recycling services.[191] These bundled services consistently provide the highest recycling rates throughout the state.[192] The subscription-based programs are far less successful, with an average of only thirty to forty percent of residents registering for these programs.[193] Low buy-in likely comes from the additional cost and effort the subscription services require of consumers.[194] The efforts seem small, but the additional step of signing up for and paying for recycling separately reduces the buy-in from consumers. Bundling trash and recycling services automatically increases buy-in and would be a relatively easy way for Colorado to improve recycling rates.[195] Three models currently exist for bundling services: “[1] contracting directly with a waste and recycling hauler (e.g., Golden, Minturn); [2] adopting a municipal ordinance to require that all haulers provide both services (e.g., Fort Collins, Vail); or [3] providing both services directly through municipally run waste-management services (e.g., Denver, Durango).”[196]

There is also an equity issue with recycling. Access to recycling services is greater for residents of single-family homes than those of apartment complexes and multiple family dwellings.[197] The location of recycling and waste management facilities also have unequal effects on certain communities.[198] Waste management facilities tend to be located within lower income areas and historically have been situated disproportionally in non-white neighborhoods.[199] Siting of facilities in lower income and non-white areas means that these communities are disproportionately exposed to pollutants from waste processing and disposal.[200] There is a shortage of educational outreach in certain populations as well, primarily in areas of lower socioeconomic status and multi-family housing settings.[201] Lack of education about recycling services decreases participation from communities that may otherwise contribute. These are deeply rooted, systemic issues, the cause of which is beyond the scope of this Note. The environmental justice movement has brought to light these systemic issues and Colorado must address them. Doing so will improve conditions of disadvantaged communities and improve recycling outcomes overall. Colorado will likely achieve its recycling goals more quickly with buy-in from and access to participation for all communities.

In sum, Colorado struggles to achieve a high recycling rate because of how its system is constructed. Low landfill disposal fees, a lack of a DRS, and a lack of effective recycling policies means there are few incentives for Coloradans to recycle. High shipping costs and low commodity prices make recycling uneconomic for municipalities. Lack of universal access to recycling for all Coloradans and lack of education around how to properly recycle add further impediments to achieving higher recycling rates. In an indirect effort to address the plastic pollution that results when Coloradans do not recycle, Colorado recently passed a Plastic Pollution Reduction Act.[202]

B. Colorado’s Legislative and Policy Initiatives

In July of 2021, the General Assembly of the State of Colorado passed House Bill 21-1162, known as the Plastic Pollution Reduction Act (the “Act”).[203] The Act is a significant step for Colorado and sets in place guidelines to eliminate single-use plastic carryout bags and expanded polystyrene products in the coming years.[204] Expanded polystyrene products are often referred to as “styrofoam”, but STYROFOAMTM is actually a registered trademark for a line of extruded polystyrene foam products made exclusively by The Dow Chemical Company.[205] The Act is structured with a phased rollout of the requirements, with some changes taking effect January 1, 2023, and others beginning January 1, 2024.[206]

Importantly, the Act repeals state preemption of local plastic bans.[207] Prior to the Act, Colorado Revised Statute § 25-17-104 prohibited any local government from implementing a ban on plastic or packaging materials.[208] This limitation was significant because it prevented cities such as Denver from taking a more aggressive approach to reducing packaging waste than state law allowed.[209] With the new Act, which brings its own prohibitions on single-use plastics, cities and local governments will have the ability to impose even more stringent laws on a local level if they choose. For more environmentally conscientious municipalities, this grants freedom to implement more progressive policies to reduce plastic pollution. This preemption provision was controversial. Business owners opposed it because they would be largely affected by the bans.[210] Despite this opposition, the provision remained in the final version of the Act and will take effect on January 1, 2024.[211]

The Act makes several specific prohibitions on single-use plastic bags and polystyrene containers. Starting January 1, 2024, stores and retail food establishments are prohibited from providing customers with single-use plastic carryout bags. They can only provide customers with recycled paper carryout bags for a fee of ten cents per bag, or higher if there is a higher local fee in place.[212] Between January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2024, stores may provide either a single-use plastic carryout bag or a recycled paper carryout bag for the ten cent fee.[213] Retail food establishments may not provide customers with expanded polystyrene products after January 1, 2024, for use as ready-to-eat containers.[214]

Multiple exemptions undercut the force of the ban. A store or retail food establishment may provide a single-use plastic carryout bag to customers for the ten-cent fee if it was purchased prior to January 1, 2024, and is used before June 1, 2024.[215] A similar exemption applies for retail food establishments that purchased expanded polystyrene products prior to January 1, 2024; those retail food establishments may use any expanded polystyrene products they have in inventory prior to that date until they are gone.[216] The prohibition on plastic bags does not apply to small stores that operate solely in Colorado, have 3 or fewer locations, and are not part of a franchise, corporation, or partnership that has physical locations outside of Colorado. [217] It also exempts some retail food establishments, as defined in C.R.S. § 25-4-1602, so retail establishments that are not grocery stores or convenience stores and establishments that “[prepare] or serve food in individual portions for immediate on- or off-premises consumption” are not subject to the new restrictions on single-use plastic bags.[218] Nor does the ban apply to bags used by pharmacies to package prescription medications, plastic bags used inside stores for packaging things like produce or bulk foods, or a number of other plastic packaging films.[219] The act also exempts anyone on federal food assistance programs from paying the ten-cent fee that otherwise applies for any carryout bags.[220] The exact volume of plastic bags that will be produced under these exemptions or what proportion of the current overall usage of plastic bags these exemptions constitute is unclear. It is clear these exemptions will slow the overall elimination of plastic bags from Colorado’s economy.

The Act imposes fees for the continued offering of single-use paper bags. The fees collected under the Act are split between the store and the local municipality or county government where the store is located, with sixty percent of the fees collected going to the local government and forty percent being retained by the store.[221] In the context of recycling on a statewide level, these fees may be the most important element of the act. Municipalities can use the fees collected to support recycling, composting, and other waste diversion programs.[222] They may also be used for educational and outreach programs related to waste diversion, recycling, and composting programs.[223] Alternatively, the revenue can be used by local governments to cover the costs of administering and enforcing the Act.[224]

The provisions are enforceable. The Act grants local government the authority to enforce a violation of the Act in “the manner that the local government chooses.”[225] It lists as possible penalties injunctive relief or civil penalties, with some specific amounts allowed depending on the identity of the violating business.[226] While the enforcement powers granted to local governments are a positive, the Act states, “a county that chooses to enforce a violation,” which indicates that the enforcement of violations is discretionary.[227] This could ultimately be very problematic in locations where there is not a cultural value placed on reduction of plastic and polystyrene waste. If enforcement is not pursued by a local government, the Act could have little to no actual effect in some communities. It may ultimately be up to the local governments and their desire to enforce the Act in determining how effective it will be in reducing waste.

C. Likely Impact of HB 21-1162

If HB 21-1162 has success similar to the success of other plastic bag bans, such as that implemented in California, the potential for reducing plastic bag consumption is significant. California’s bag ban reduced plastic bag consumption by 71.5%, even after accounting for the slight increase in plastic garbage bag purchases that accompanied the ban.[228] HB 21-1162 should reduce the number of plastic bags that end up in the environment as litter. It should also reduce the number of plastic bags that end up improperly in the recycling stream and cause problems in the processing facilities.

Overall, Colorado’s current recycling performance is mediocre. The shortcomings in its system, including a lack of DRS, small number of curbside recycling systems, and low landfill fees contribute to this poor performance. The recently passed HB 21-1162 may help to reduce pollution from single-use plastic bags and expanded polystyrene containers as it is implemented over the next few years. However, HB 21-1162 alone will not address the plastic pollution and recycling issues that Colorado faces. It would be beneficial for the state to take steps to improve the recycling system as whole, through the steps outlined below.

IV. Proposal for Colorado

Colorado has elements working in its favor for recycling success, but there is significant room for improvement. Building on the things learned from other states’ successes and considering what Colorado is already doing well, this Note proposes the following: (1) enforce HB 21-1162 as enacted; (2) implement a DRS; (3) implement universal curbside recycling; (4) convert curbside recycling collection bins or bags to carts; and (5) evaluate and increase landfill fees. Most of these recommendations have already been successfully implemented in other states, so if Colorado takes these steps, it is likely to see an overall increase in its recycling rate.

A. Enforce HB 21-1162

HB 21-1162 is a positive next step in addressing plastic waste in Colorado. The large number of exemptions are concerning and cast doubt on whether the bill will have as comprehensive a positive impact across industries as it otherwise might. Ideally, reducing the number of exemptions, or eliminating them entirely will ensure that less plastic bag pollution persists. However, gaining bipartisan support for this type of amendment may be difficult to achieve.

B. Implement a DRS

Looking beyond the issue of plastic bag pollution, the most significant step Colorado can take to improve its recycling rate as a state is to implement a DRS or “bottle bill.” Top recycling states show great success with DRS and nationwide these systems bring in a significant volume of recyclable materials. A DRS system in Colorado would provide many of the benefits previously discussed. It would incentivize individuals to recycle by providing a financial incentive for returning eligible items. A DRS would also be an excellent opportunity to implement extended producer responsibility, shifting some of the cost of improvement of the recycling system in the state to those responsible for creating the waste. As a state with many beverage companies, collection of bottles and cans alone would likely be significant. A DRS would also increase the quality of materials collected, leading to less contamination and more marketable recyclable materials.

C. Implement Universal Bundled Curbside Recycling

As previously noted, Colorado does a poor job of offering universal curbside recycling services. Many services are subscription based or opt-in, rather than bundled automatically with trash collection services. Since curbside recycling plays a relatively significant role in collecting recyclables from single-family households, making this service more universally available would increase collection rates.

D. Convert Curbside Recycling Programs to Cart Systems

As discussed above, curbside recycling programs that use recycling carts instead of recycling bins or bags for collection experience much greater success in the volume of recyclables collected. It is not clear at this point how many curbside recycling programs in Colorado use carts. Collecting this information and making the switch to carts is an easy remedy to increase the volume of recycling collected, even without increasing the number of recycling participants. [229]

E. Evaluate and Increase Landfill Costs

Landfill costs in Colorado are currently low. As a state with a relatively large footprint, space constraints are not a motivating factor to increase landfill fees. However, short of legislation requiring mandatory recycling by all counties and municipalities, financial disincentives to sending waste to the landfill and incentives to recycle may be important in creating a paradigm shift towards recycling. Increasing landfill fees could also provide the state with additional funding to expand its recycling and composting programs, or to pursue other more environmentally friendly waste-management initiatives.

Conclusion

HB 21-1162 is a promising next step for the state of Colorado. Any reduction in plastic pollution is a positive in our current climate. History shows that plastic bag bans have been effective in other states and there is reason to believe that the same will be true in Colorado. Broadening the scope of the plastic bag ban to include expanded polystyrene and other single-use plastic containers creates a greater positive impact.

This new bill alone, though, is not sufficient to address the massive shortcomings in Colorado’s current recycling system. The goal of improving the recycling rate is complex and will require significant coordination efforts by interested parties on all levels. The payoff, though, will be great as well. In addition to lightening the load on landfills, the environment, and human health, recycling also contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and is one more piece that can be put into place to help address the climate change crisis. Recycling is not a new concept, but it is more critical than ever. Colorado has the opportunity to learn from leaders in the field to better play its part in this important movement.

  1. *J.D. Candidate, 2023, University of Colorado Law School. ↑
  2. Eunomia, The 50 States of Recycling (2021). ↑
  3. Id. at 10. ↑
  4. Id. at 11. ↑
  5. Id. at 5. ↑
  6. Id. at 14, 62. ↑
  7. Id. at 60. ↑
  8. Id. at 4. ↑
  9. H.B. 21-1162, 2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2021). ↑
  10. Plastic Waste Reduction and Recycling Research Act, H.R. 2821, 117th Cong. § 2 (2021). ↑
  11. EPA, National Recycling Strategy 5 (2021), https://www.epa.gov/system/ files/documents/2021-11/final-national-recycling-strategy.pdf. ↑
  12. Id. ↑
  13. Id. at 7. ↑
  14. See id. ↑
  15. See id. ↑
  16. Id. at 11. ↑
  17. See RECYCLE Act of 2020, S. 923, 117th Cong. (2021). ↑
  18. Kenneth Rapoza, China Quits Recycling U.S. Trash As Sustainable Start-Up Makes Strides, Forbes (Jan. 10, 2021 5:00 PM EST), https://www.forbes.com/sites/ken rapoza/2021/01/10/china-quits-recycling-us-trash-as-sustainable-start-up-makes-strides/?sh=92e5d0c5a567. ↑
  19. Id. ↑
  20. Id ↑
  21. Id. ↑
  22. Id. ↑
  23. Id. ↑
  24. See id. ↑
  25. See id. ↑
  26. Id. ↑
  27. Lauren Mullen, Recycling’s Most Common Contaminants, Univ. of Colo. Boulder (Apr. 15, 2021), https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/04/15/recyclings-most-common-contaminants#:~:text=Recycling%20facilities%20cannot%20handle%20plastic, so%20common%20and%20so%20damaging. ↑
  28. EPA, supra note 10, at 8. ↑
  29. Id. ↑
  30. See id. at 15. ↑
  31. EPA, 25 Years of RCRA 1 (2002), https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/1000 0MAO.PDF?Dockey=10000MAO.PDF [hereinafter RCRA]. ↑
  32. See id. ↑
  33. Id. ↑
  34. Id. ↑
  35. Id. ↑
  36. Id. ↑
  37. Id. ↑
  38. The Basics of the Regulatory Process, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process (last updated Sept. 12, 2022). ↑
  39. EPA Grants, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/grants (last updated June 30, 2022). ↑
  40. See e.g., RCRA at 10–12. ↑
  41. RCRA, supra note 30, at 1. ↑
  42. Id. ↑
  43. History of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA, https:// www.epa.gov/rcra/history-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act-rcra (last updated June 22, 2022); see also 42 U.S.C. § 6901 (2018). ↑
  44. RCRA, supra note 30, at 1–2. ↑
  45. EPA History: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA, https://www.epa .gov/history/epa-history-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act#:~:text=RCRA%2C%20which%20amended%20the%20Solid,the%20amount%20of%20waste%20generated (last visited Apr. 4, 2022). ↑
  46. RCRA, supra note 30, at 2. ↑
  47. Id. ↑
  48. Id. at 4. ↑
  49. Id. ↑
  50. See id. at 8. ↑
  51. Id. ↑
  52. Id. at 8, 15. ↑
  53. America Recycles Day, EPA, https://www.epa.gov/recyclingstrategy/america-rec ycles-day (last updated Dec. 1, 2021). ↑
  54. Save our Seas 2.0 Act, S. 1982, 116th Cong. (2020). ↑
  55. Portman, Stabenow RECYCLE Act Signed into Law as Part of Bipartisan Infrastructure Legislation, Rob Portman U.S. Senator For Ohio (Nov. 15, 2021), https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-stabenow-recycle-act-signed-law-part-bipartisan-infrastructure. ↑
  56. RECYCLE Act of 2020, S. 923, 117th Cong. (2021). ↑
  57. Plastic Waste Reduction and Recycling Research Act, H.R. 2821, 117th Cong. (2021). ↑
  58. Id. ↑
  59. See id. ↑
  60. H.R. 2821, § 2. ↑
  61. H.R. 2821, § 4. ↑
  62. Id. ↑
  63. Id. ↑
  64. H.R. 2821, § 5. ↑
  65. Id. ↑
  66. Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2021, S. 984, 117th Cong. (2021). ↑
  67. Id.; Summary: S.984 – 117th Congress (2021-2022), Congress.gov, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/984 (last visited Oct. 23, 2022). ↑
  68. S. 984. ↑
  69. Id.; Summary: S.984 – 117th Congress (2021-2022), Congress.gov, https://www. congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/984 (last visited Oct. 23, 2022). ↑
  70. Craig Cookson, For Plastics Recycling to Succeed, We Need National Recycling Standards, Am. Chemistry Council (Feb. 2, 2022), https://www.americanchemistry.com/ chemistry-in-america/news-trends/blog-post/2022/for-plastics-recycling-to-succeed-we-need-national-recycling-standards. ↑
  71. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 4. ↑
  72. Id. at 7. ↑
  73. Margaret Walls, Deposit-Refund Systems in Practice and Theory 1 (2011), https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-DP-11-47.pdf. ↑
  74. Id. at 2. ↑
  75. Id. ↑
  76. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 20. ↑
  77. Walls, supra note 72, at 2. ↑
  78. Id. ↑
  79. Id. ↑
  80. Id. ↑
  81. Id. ↑
  82. Niall McCarthy, Which Countries Have Bottle Deposit Systems?, Statista (Sept. 22, 2022), https://www.statista.com/chart/22963/global-status-of-plastic-bottle-recycling-systems/. ↑
  83. Id. ↑
  84. Id. ↑
  85. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 11. ↑
  86. Id. at 20. ↑
  87. Id. at 21. ↑
  88. See id. at 25. ↑
  89. Scott Mouw et Al., The Recycling P’ship, 2020 State of Curbside Recycling Report 3 (2020), https://recyclingpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2020 /02/2020-State-of-Curbside-Recycling.pdf. ↑
  90. Id. at 3 n.4. ↑
  91. Id. at iii. ↑
  92. Id. at iv. ↑
  93. Id. at 8. ↑
  94. Id. ↑
  95. Id. at 9. ↑
  96. See, e.g., id. at 20. ↑
  97. Id. at 19. ↑
  98. Id. ↑
  99. Id. ↑
  100. Id. at 11. ↑
  101. Id. ↑
  102. Mike Williams, How Many Times Can Something Be Recycled?, SFGATE, https: //homeguides.sfgate.com/many-times-can-something-recycled-79191.html (last visited Apr. 8, 2022). ↑
  103. Id. ↑
  104. See id. ↑
  105. Mouw et Al., supra note 88, at 12. ↑
  106. Id. at 17. ↑
  107. Id. at 18. ↑
  108. Id. ↑
  109. Courtney Lindwall, Do Plastic Bag Bans Work, NRDC (July 09, 2019), https: //www.nrdc.org/stories/do-plastic-bag-bans-work. ↑
  110. Id. ↑
  111. Id. ↑
  112. Id. ↑
  113. John Hite, The Truth About Plastic Bag Bans, Conservation Law Found (June 16, 2020), https://www.clf.org/blog/the-truth-about-plastic-bag-bans/. ↑
  114. Id. ↑
  115. See id. ↑
  116. Id. ↑
  117. Id. ↑
  118. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 30. ↑
  119. Id. ↑
  120. Id. ↑
  121. Id.; Materials Banned from Disposal, Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, https://dec.vermont.gov/content/materials-banned-disposal (last visited Oct. 30, 2022). ↑
  122. Id. at 29. ↑
  123. Id. ↑
  124. Env’t Rsch. & Educ. Found., Analysis of MSW Landfill Tipping Fees: 2020 1 (2021), https://erefdn.org/product/analysis-msw-landfill-tipping-fees-2/. ↑
  125. EPA, State Funding Mechanisms for Solid Waste Disposal and Recycling Programs 1–12 (2014), https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/reg ion_5_state_funding_mechanisms.pdf. ↑
  126. Id. at 1. ↑
  127. Id. ↑
  128. Id. at 4–6. ↑
  129. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 29. ↑
  130. Env’t Rsch. & Educ. Found., supra note 123, at 7. ↑
  131. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 5. ↑
  132. Id. at 24. ↑
  133. Id. at 99. ↑
  134. Id. at 100. ↑
  135. Id. at 101. ↑
  136. Id. ↑
  137. Id. at 100. ↑
  138. Id. at 101. ↑
  139. Id. at 177. ↑
  140. Id. at 35, 179. ↑
  141. H. 175, 2021-2022 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Vt. 2021). ↑
  142. H.175: Detailed Status, Vt. Gen. Assemb., https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/ status/2022/H.175 (last visited Oct. 23, 2022). ↑
  143. H. 175. ↑
  144. See Eunomia, supra note 1, at 179; see also Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, Vt. Agency of Nat. Res., 2018 Diversion and Disposal Report, 2 (2019), https:// dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/documents/2018%20Diversion%20and%20Disposal%20Report.pdf. ↑
  145. Id. ↑
  146. Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law, Agency of Nat. Res. Dep’t of Env’t Conservation, https://dec.vermont.gov/waste-management/solid/universal-recycling (last visited Apr. 2, 2022). ↑
  147. Id. ↑
  148. Id. ↑
  149. Id. ↑
  150. Rachel Setzke et. Al., Eco-Cycle, The State of Recycling & Composting in Colorado 6 (4th ed. 2020), https://ecocycle.org/content/uploads/2020/11/Report_ 2020_State_of_Recycling_and_Composting_in_Colorado_low-res.pdf. ↑
  151. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 14. ↑
  152. See id. at 34. ↑
  153. Id. at 62. ↑
  154. Id. at 32. ↑
  155. Id. at 61. ↑
  156. Id. at 62. ↑
  157. 2021 Colorado recycling totals, Colo. Dep’t of Pub. Health & Env’t, https:// cdphe.colorado.gov/colorado-recycling-totals (last visited Apr. 2, 2022). ↑
  158. Id. ↑
  159. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 61. ↑
  160. Id. at 5. ↑
  161. Id. ↑
  162. Id. at 62. ↑
  163. Id. ↑
  164. Id. ↑
  165. Michael Elizabeth Sakas, Colorado Is Getting Worse At Recycling. Here’s Why, And 2 Ways The State Is Working To Fix It, CPR (Nov. 7, 2020, 1:28 PM), https:// www.cpr.org/2020/11/17/colorado-is-getting-worse-at-recycling-heres-why-and-2-ways-the-state-is-working-to-fix-it/. ↑
  166. Id. ↑
  167. Setzke, supra note 149, 5. ↑
  168. Id. ↑
  169. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 62. ↑
  170. Id. ↑
  171. Id. at 60. ↑
  172. See id. at 62. ↑
  173. See id. ↑
  174. Id. ↑
  175. Id. at 18. ↑
  176. Id. at 62. ↑
  177. Id. ↑
  178. Jo Ann Allen, Colorado’s Bad at Recycling. Here’s How The State’s Trying to Change, CPR News (Sept. 7, 2017, 7:41 PM), https://www.cpr.org/2017/09/07/colorados-bad-at-recycling-heres-how-the-states-trying-to-change/. ↑
  179. Eunomia, supra note 1, at 11. ↑
  180. Id. at 14. ↑
  181. Id. ↑
  182. Id. at 10. ↑
  183. See id. at 12–14. ↑
  184. Sakas, supra note 164. ↑
  185. Id. ↑
  186. Allen, supra note 177. ↑
  187. See id. ↑
  188. Setzke et. al., supra note 149, at 10. ↑
  189. Id. at 5, 10. ↑
  190. Id. at 10. ↑
  191. Sakas, supra note 164. ↑
  192. Id. ↑
  193. Setzke et. al., supra note 149, at 10. ↑
  194. See id. ↑
  195. Id. ↑
  196. Id. ↑
  197. Id. at 12. ↑
  198. Id. ↑
  199. Addressing Environmental Racism: Interview with Robert Bullard, Colum. J. Int’l Aff. [SC] (Feb. 11, 2020) https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/addressing-environmental-racism. ↑
  200. See id. ↑
  201. Setzke, supra note 149, at 12. ↑
  202. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 27-17-502 (2021). ↑
  203. § 27-17-501; H.B. 21-1162, 2021 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2021). ↑
  204. See § 25-17-502. ↑
  205. Adrian Vore, Those containers aren’t ‘Styrofoam,’ Chicago Trib. (Oct. 17, 2015), https://www.chicagotribune.com/sdut-styrofoam-ban-polystyrene-2015oct17-stor y.html. ↑
  206. §§ 25-17-501 to -509; Colo. H.B. 21-1162. ↑
  207. Elaine S. Povich, Colorado to Become First State to Reverse Ban on City Plastic Bag Laws, PEW Charitable Tr. (June 17, 2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/06/17/colorado-to-become-first-state-to-reverse-ban-on-city-plastic-bag-laws(June 17, 2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2021/06/17/colorado-to-become-first-state-to-reverse-ban-on-city-plastic-bag-laws. ↑
  208. See id. ↑
  209. See id. ↑
  210. Id. ↑
  211. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-17-508; Colo. H.B. 21-1162 § 3. ↑
  212. § 25-17-505; Colo. H.B. 21-1162. ↑
  213. Id. ↑
  214. § 25-17-504; Colo. H.B. 21-1162 § 2. ↑
  215. § 25-17-504(2)(a). ↑
  216. Id. ↑
  217. § 25-17-503. ↑
  218. §§ 25-17-503, -504 ↑
  219. Id. ↑
  220. § 27-17-505(1)(b). ↑
  221. § 25-17-505(1)(a)(I). ↑
  222. Id. ↑
  223. Id. ↑
  224. § 25-17-505(1)(a)(I)(A). ↑
  225. § 25-17-507(1)(a). ↑
  226. § 25-17-507(1)(b) ↑
  227. Id. ↑
  228. Hite, supra note 112. ↑
  229. Mouw et Al., supra note 88, at 18. ↑