Recycling as a Nation

AuthorKate Juon
PositionJ.D. Candidate, American University Washington College of Law 2019
Pages16-17
16 Sustainable Development Law & Policy
Recycling as a nation
Kate Juon*
“Reduce, reuse, and recycle” is a slogan that resonates
throughout the world as the quintessential words
that encapsulate the basis for sustainable waste
management.1 Though the “Three Rs” originated in the United
States,2 many other countries have more effectively applied the
principles of the Three Rs within their own waste management
systems.3 Even compared to countries that developed waste
management systems much later,4 the United States continues
to lag behind.5 For example, in South Korea, sustainable waste
management is a top priority and requires all citizens to “reduce
the generation of wastes to the maximum extent possible and [to
treat] generated waste in an environmentally-friendly manner.”6
Under this federal regulation, South Korea has not only created
one set classication of waste and rules for all waste discharge
and treatment, but it standardized responsibility for the national
and local governments.7 South Korea’s Ministry of Environment
plans, frames, supports, and implements this policy for the local
governments.8 Could the United States be falling behind in its
overall goal to reduce the amount of waste generated because
waste management has been and continues to be a state or even
city-mandated responsibility?
In the United States, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) remains the only federal legislation
requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create
guidelines for solid waste disposal and regulations.9 Yet, RCRA
only mentions recycling via a call to increase the federal pur-
chase of products made with recycling content.10 Without any
mention of an enforcement mandate, the responsibility of creat-
ing policy and implementation of these policies are left to state
and local governments like the District of Columbia (DC).11
With the passage of the Sustainable Solid Waste
Management Amendment Act12 in 2014, D.C. has made some
progress in advancing a more sufcient recycling program.
Included in this Act is the implementation of a public list of
recyclable materials and a compost collection program through-
out D.C., and the mandatory source separation of solid waste
into three categories: recyclable materials, compostable materi-
als, and trash.13 Other provisions include the addition of many
items to the recyclables list in January 2018,14 the nickel-a-bag
tax,15 and the ban on the use of polystyrene or foam.16 D.C.’s
Department of Public Works has even set goals to divert 80%
of its waste by 2032.17 With ambitious goals to become the
“healthiest, greenest, and most livable city in the United States”
with a goal to zero waste, 18 D.C. has made improvements but
there are still many challenges that the city faces before it can
truly become “Zero Waste D.C.”
The majority of waste management policy focuses on post-
treatment of waste and less so on the actual generation of waste
prior to disposal.19 Instead of focusing on creating a shared
responsibility between governments and its citizens, D.C., and
generally most cities in the United States, utilize an enforcement
strategy that makes it easier or more desirable for citizens to
recycle.20 For example, D.C. had failed in an attempt to encour-
age more recycling by replacing the thirty-two gallon bins with
ones that are 50% larger.21 With varying lists of recyclable items
across the United States, many residents “experiment” by put-
ting objects into the recycle bins, believing that it “could” be
recycled.22 Since rules and community awareness varies consid-
erably state to state and even city to city, recycling is a confusing
endeavor that many Americans nd inconvenient and time-
consuming.23 Most people do not realize that non-recyclables
actually contaminate recyclables and decreases the value of its
recyclability.24 As a transient city, D.C.’s recyclable list does not
even coincide with the lists of neighboring cities.25 With these
differing lists, mistakes and confusion are more likely to occur
in a city like D.C. where thousands are commuting from neigh-
boring counties like Fairfax and Arlington26 as the rules do not
cross state or even city lines.
In countries like South Korea, however, recycling has
become a habitual part of daily life and even welcomed by
communities.27 The Wastes Control Act was created in 1986 to
extend responsibility beyond local government28 and share the
burden of waste management with all citizens.29 Essentially
a polluter-pay system,30 all citizens are obligated to buy and
strictly use the designated bags for each type of recyclables.31
In addition, since 2013, citizens are now obligated to pay for
food waste.32 This regulation has contributed to a 10% decrease
in overall food waste in South Korea’s capital, Seoul, alone.33
Today, Seoul has ve factories that process food waste and turn
it into animal feed.34 Additionally with biogas, a byproduct of
food recycling, each plant can create enough renewable energy
to meet about 90% of its electricity needs.35 Though a strict and
rather intrusive system, South Korea’s “shared responsibility”
system has enhanced the people’s outlook of waste management
as well as broader environmental issues in the country.36 With
the implementation of the Wastes Control Act, Korea has even
seen the recycling rate increase from under 10% to 80%.37
Could the lack of a federal regulation be the fundamental
reason that the United States is lagging in its ability to increase
the impact of the Three Rs? And if so, would a system similar to
Korea’s waste management system be welcomed in the United
States? With states like Arizona facing resistance to even the
nickel-a-bag tax,38 it is hard to imagine how a polluter-pay sys-
tem could work in a country that has, since its inception, prac-
ticed a more “make-it-easier” approach to recycling.39 However,
what could be a potentially viable rst step is to create a national
*J.D. Candidate, American University Washington College of Law 2019
224813_AU_SDLP_Spg-Sum18.indd 16 10/18/18 1:53 PM
17
Spring/Summer 2018
recyclable list that is adopted by all states. Many Americans do
not make an effort to recycle because of the confusion of recy-
clable and non-recyclable items across state and even city lines as
well as the inaccessibility, inconvenience, and time-consuming
nature of a nonstandard and unstructured system that the United
States continues to attempt to implement.40 With the United
States not likely being receptive to a national ne-based system,
nationwide awareness of what can and cannot be recycled would
positively increase the overall recycling rate.
EndnotEs
1 C. R. C. Mohanty, Reduce, Reuse and Recycle (the 3Rs) and Resource Ef-
ciency as the basis for Sustainable Waste Management, UNCRD, 29, (May 9,
2011), www.un.org/esa/dsd/csd/csd_pdfs/csd-19/learningcentre/presentations/
May%209%20am/1%20-%20Learning_Centre_9May_ppt_Mohanty.pdf.
2
Rachelle Gordon, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” It’s a familiar phrase to
most, but where did it come from?, REcyclE nation (May 11, 2015), https://
recyclenation.com/2015/05/history-of-three-r-s/.
3
See WastE MgMt. REviEW, (July 17, 2015), http://wastemanagementreview.
com.au/south-korea-legislates-towards-a-zero-waste-society/ (nding that with
the introduction of the Waste Management Law in 1986, South Korea’s landll
rates have dropped from over 90% to 10% and its recycling rates have grown
from 10% to 80% by 2015).
4
Id. (“[P]ivotal moment in South Korea’s waste management was the Waste
Management Law, which came into effect in December 1986”); see also Why
No National Recycling Law in the U.S.?, Bus. Ethics (Nov. 21, 2010), http://
business-ethics.com/2010/11/21/why-no-national-recycling-law-in-the-u-s/
(“[In 1976], Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), which remains the cornerstone of federal solid waste and recycling
legislation.”) [hereinafter Bus. Ethics].
5
See Alex Gray, Which Countries Recycle the Most?, WoRld Econ. FoRuM
(Dec. 18, 2017), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/germany-recycles-
more-than-any-other-country/ (nding that South Korea recycles 53.7% of its
municipal waste and is third in the list of top ten recyclers, United States, with
under 35%, is 25th) ; see also Diane Rehm Show: New Challenges to Recycling
in the United States (July 7, 2015), https://dianerehm.org/shows/2015-07-07/
new-challenges-to-recycling-in-the-united-states (nding that recycling rates
overall is 34% but some states are above 50% and others well under 10%)
[hereinafter New Challenges].
6
Wastes Control Act, Act No. 3904, Dec. 31, 1986, amended by Act. No.
14532, Jan. 17, 2017 (S. Kor.).
7
Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region:
Delegation of the Panel on Environmental Affairs, Report on the Duty Visit to
the Republic of Korea to Study its Experience on Waste Management 5 (2013),
http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr13-14/english/hc/papers/hc1129cb1-412-a-e.pdf
[hereinafter lc PaPER].
8
Id. at 6.
9
Bus. Ethics, supra note 4 (distinguishing 1965’s Solid Waste Disposal Act,
America’s very rst federal solid waste law, which did not mention recycling).
10
Id.
11
New Challenges, supra note 5 (explaining how recycling rates differ state-
by-state as some states like California and Oregon have very comprehensive
laws driving up the overall recycling rate of the United States whereas D.C.
increased the size of its blue bins as a way to encourage people to recycle
more); see generally Aaron C. Davis, American recycling is stalling, and
the big blue bin is one reason why, Wash. Post (June 20, 2015), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/american-recycling-is-stalling-
and-the-big-blue-bin-is-one-reason-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-
9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html?utm_term=.a42b04442eb4 (explaining how
consumers are increasing the amount of garbage that is being mixed with recy-
clable material because of the bigger bins thereby contaminating the recycled
goods).
12
Sustainable Solid Waste Management Amendment Act of 2014, D.C. Code
Ann. § 8-1031.01 (2014).
13
Id.; see also Cole Rosengren, How 5 local governments just expanded
their recycling programs, WastE divE (Nov. 7, 2017), https://www.wastedive.
com/news/how-5-local-governments-just-expanded-their-recycling-pro-
grams/510071 (referring to the recent and increased promotion of the Zero
Waste DC initiative and nothing that the compost collection must be in place
but the D.C. government has begun an initiative to begin the compost program
within the next ve years).
14
Rosengren, supra note 13.
15
Skip the Bag, Save the River, dEPt oF EnERgy & Envt, https://doee.
dc.gov/page/bags (last visited Mar. 30, 2018).
16
Food Service Ware, dEPt oF EnERgy & Envt, https://doee.dc.gov/foodser-
viceware (last visited Mar. 30, 2018).
17
Sustainable DC Plan, d.c. Mun. gov. 10 (2011), http://www.sustain-
abledc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SDC_Plan_2016_compressed2.pdf.
18
Id. at 2.
19
See New Challenges, supra note 5 (explaining the trend of states that an
“easier way” is the “better way”); see also Davis, supra note 11 (“Environmen-
tal advocates believed that the only way to increase participation in recycling
programs was to make it easier.”)
20
Id.
21
Aaron C. Davis, D.C. said it was recycling – it wasn’t. Nearly 53 tons of
plastic trash cans sent to landll, Wash. Post (May 20, 2014), https://www.
washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/pictures-show-dc-may-have-dumped-
trash-cans-that-it-said-were-being-recycled/2014/05/20/1f4c2a24-df9a-11e3-
810f-764fe508b82d_story.html?utm_term=.18d83c422eef (explaining how
replacing the old, smaller cans actually congested the streets and while trying
to dump the plastic bins, the city decided to incinerate instead of recycling the
recyclable cans).
22
Davis, supra note 11 (explaining how this phenomena is likely caused by
the fact that information is not property dispersed throughout the communities).
23
Drew Desilver, Perceptions and realities of recy-
cling vary widely from place to place, Pew Res. Ctr. (Oct. 7,
2016), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/07/
perceptions-and-realities-of-recycling-vary-widely-from-place-to-place/.
24
Davis, supra note 11.
25
Compare District Recycling Fact Sheet, ZERo WastE dc (Jan. 1, 2018),
https://dpw.dc.gov/sites/default/les/dc/sites/dpw/page_content/attachments/
DC%20Recycling%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf (allowing paper cups and contain-
ers whereas Arlington and Alexandria do not allow disposable cups), with
Recycling at Home, City of Alexandria, Va. (last updated Oct. 26, 2017 12:40
PM), https://www.alexandriava.gov/RecyclingAtHome#acceptable (specifying
no “take-out containers” unlike D.C. and Arlington), and What to Recycle in
Arlington, aRlington cty. govt, https://recycling.arlingtonva.us/residential/
trash-recycling/ (allowing shredded paper into its recycling bins whereas
Arlington specically does not allow shredded paper).
26
Nick Iannelli, Report reveals habits of D.C. commuters, Washingtons
toP nEWs (Aug. 14, 2015, 8:16 AM), https://wtop.com/dc-transit/2015/08/
report-reveals-habits-of-dc-commuters/slide/1/ (nding that in 2015, there were
95,323 commuters from Fairfax County per day and 48,944 from Arlington
County).
27
Karim Chrobog, In South Korea, An Innovative Push to Cut Back on
Food Waste, yalE Envt 360 (May 20, 2015), https://e360.yale.edu/features/
in_south_korea_an_innovative_push_to_cut_back_on_food_waste (describing
how many Korean residents have embraced the “highly intrusive” measures for
the common good).
28
lc PaPER, supra note 7, at 5.
29
Id.
30
Id. at 7.
31
Id. at 7-8.
32
Id. at 10-11; see also Mori Rothman, These policies helped
South Korea’s capital decrease food waste, PBs nEWs houR
(Mar. 19, 2017, 3:40 PM), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/
continued on page 42
224813_AU_SDLP_Spg-Sum18.indd 17 10/18/18 1:53 PM

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT