Why I’m Against a Packaging TaxWhy I’m Against a Packaging Tax

I’m not sold on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs as a solution to our world’s garbage and climate crises.

Such programs aim to reduce waste and promote packaging circularity by shifting the financial and operational responsibility of waste management from municipalities to the producers of goods. They do this by charging product manufacturers fees based on the type of packaging they use — essentially, a packaging tax — and using that money to fund recycling and other environmentally positive actions.

It seems like the US is on an inescapable path to EPR. Before we mindlessly push ahead, we need to weigh all the costs of EPR against our likelihood of success.

Before I get into the flaws I see with EPR, let me say I applaud the efforts of EPR advocates in trying to get Americans into a wasteless circular economy. It makes sense to me to use and reuse materials if they still have value. I guess I learned well from my grandparents, who lived through the Great Depression and were masters of reuse. I still have baby-food jars in my shed that my grandfather filled with screws and other hardware items. They used scraps of wood to build a house, for cripes sake! I know this because my husband and I are renovating their cottage and can see how they pieced together walls from whatever lumber was handy.

Related:Introducing The Food and Beverage Carton Alliance

But I also realize “reuse” is not a mindset most Americans today share. Why should they? We live in a time when you can buy anything online, have it delivered in a day, use it for a while, then toss it in the garbage, and have it disappear into the ether. Over and over, day after day.

The concepts of consumerism and a linear make-use-toss economy do so well because they let people enjoy the benefits of getting a product — without any responsibility for its end of life.

Problem is, these concepts aren’t sustainable. They’re detrimental in the long run, both economically and ecologically.

We need other systems, plural. Because, while much of the conversation around circularity in the US today is around recycling, recycling isn’t the only end-of-life option for packaging. And we need to look at everything to solve our massive climate and waste problems.

Problems with EPR as the circular solution

Many people think EPR programs — or schemes, as they’re often called — will solve our waste crisis and lower humanity’s impact on the planet.

Here’s why I don’t think they will.

Related:Sessions Tackle Sustainability Shifts and New Trends

EPR laws don’t include incentives for consumers to recycle.

To reduce waste and promote packaging circularity, consumers must actively participate by collecting their empty packages and getting them to a recycling center. This is a dealbreaker because that’s where the material is. Consumers are the ones who have the empty packages and make the decision to collect them for recycling or throw them in the trash.

But EPR programs, which manage producers of products, don’t directly involve the consumer.

“The laws create new recycling opportunities, but not obligations, for consumers,” says a spokesperson from Circular Action Alliance. CAA is the first and so far only packaging-related Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), which is a nonprofit that will manage an EPR program for a state or municipality.

EPR programs will ask citizens to recycle, mostly by funding consumer education campaigns. But we’ve been asking consumers to recycle for decades and still our recycling rates are woefully low.

It’s true that EPR has successfully boosted recycling rates in Europe and Canada, but Americans are different from Europeans or Canadians. Our individualistic culture makes us less inclined to do things for the greater good. We’re more likely to ask, “What’s in it for me?”

Related:FFRA’s New Plastic Film Recycling Directory Gains FPA Support

Sure, states with bottle-deposit laws have higher recycling rates but only for packages that require deposits. In other words, people are recycling those bottles because they’re financially incentivized. They are charged a deposit on each bottle, and they only get that money back if they return the empty bottle to a recycling center. That takes effort on their part, which not all consumers in bottle-deposit states do, opting instead to pay the deposit fee but never recover the material.

Even when it costs them money, some Americans don’t recycle because it’s too much effort.

The easiest way for consumers to recycle is through curbside recycling. So, we should make that super easy for any consumer, even those living in rural areas where curbside collection is spotty or not offered.

Or we need to take consumers out of the equation entirely. How do we do that? We would need to collect all consumer waste curbside and sort out the recyclable materials automatically — and economically.

New packaging and recycling technologies are getting us closer to this, but we’re not there yet. Right now, recycling facilities can automatically sort different recyclable materials that are pre-sorted by consumers and collected together in a single stream: paperboard cartons, aluminum cans, plastic bottles. The incoming stream today — of just recyclable materials — is cleaner than sorting through all garbage.

But we still need to incentivize consumers to recycle, if we can afford to. Is there enough profit in recycling to do so? That’s debatable. It depends on the packaging material, its resale value, and its volume.

EPR laws don’t fully address the end market for collected and recycled materials.

Once packages are collected and recycled, what will we do with that material? We’ve got to be able to sell it and reuse it.

Some of the recycled materials can be reused in new packaging … that is, if that recyclate is affordable and of sufficient quality to be reused in new packaging.

Yes, many brand owners have voluntary goals for incorporating recycled content into new packages for their products. And EPR programs will set goals for recycled content. That will help fuel the market for the recycled material. But, for safety, some products — like foods, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices — can’t or shouldn’t have recycled content contact anywhere near them, even when buried in packaging layers.

So, what do we do with the unsold recycled materials?

According to an EPR primer by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, “Many new bills and positions extend cost coverage to include outreach and education, infrastructure improvements, and end-market development for recycled materials.” (I added italics for emphasis.)

What does “end-market development” mean? It sounds like subsidies. If so, how long will those last?

If there is a viable end-market for a material, it will be recycled whether there’s an EPR program or not because there’s a profit for someone to make.

The financials don’t add up.

One of the benefits municipalities tout for starting an EPR program is that it is supposed to shift the cost of recycling or waste management from consumers, who currently pay in sanitation service fees or taxes, to the manufacturer. But we know the consumer will still pay — in higher product prices — as makers pass along any fees rather than lose out on profits.

Will taxes or waste management costs go down for citizens living in areas that have EPR programs? I haven’t heard anyone mentioning this. If not, that’s double-dipping. If producers are paying, consumers shouldn’t have to as well.

Also, the fees collected from the producers are supposed to fund recycling and fuel a circular economy. How much money will be left to do that after the staff of the Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), the nonprofit that manages the EPR program, is paid? Their salaries come out of the producer fees collected.

Who, truly, will control where and how the EPR money is spent? Technically, it’s the PRO, with input from the producers who pay into the system. How is that not a conflict of interest?

PROs will have governmental oversight, I know. But it seems like this is a recipe for corruption.

The endgame isn’t clear.

When my husband partnered with a friend on a small business years ago, the lawyer setting up the S-corp told them to decide upfront how the company would dissolve — while they were still talking to each other. Most small enterprises fail, and it’s tricky to maintain a friendly relationship when businesses struggle.

It’s good advice when starting any initiative to think it through as far down the line as possible.

So, the logical question is: When will we no longer need the EPR program? How do we define success? When can we stick a fork in it, say “Done!” and disband?

Or will producers have to pay — or, rather, pass along the fees to consumers — ad infinitum?

For a program that focuses on the end, I see no end in sight once EPR is established. To me, this sounds like another government program that will eventually exist more to give people jobs than to do what it was set up to do: reduce waste and foster a circular economy.

What works? Reward & punishment

If not EPR, then what should we do to solve the climate crisis and waste management calamity?

I’ve always been a fan of closed-loop systems that have clear financial benefits. An example of this would be a soft-drink company — Coca-Cola, for instance — that ensures a steady and clean flow of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) for new containers by collecting and recycling (via a partner) its own and others’ empty PET bottles. The brand can leverage its use of recycled content with consumers by touting its circularity. A “green” halo today is marketing gold.

In November 2024, Coca-Cola announced it was using 100% rPET bottles nationwide now for its trademark Coke beverages.

Or, if a material has value, make it worth the consumers’ effort to recycle it: Pay them.

Or penalize consumers who don’t recycle. This could be through a bottle bill or a pay-as-you-throw program.

These aren’t the only ideas out there. My point is there are other options that could work better than EPR if fully realized.

I’m usually careful to refer to EPR as a program instead of a scheme because I feel “scheme” has a negative connotation to it. But maybe the people calling it that are right. Maybe EPR is a scheme, a ruse, a ploy.

What do you think?

Helpful EPR reads: