Reduce, reuse, recycle, -- renew. The concept of the three R's is ancient. Nature recycles endlessly: as in dead trees and leaves enriching the soil and worms digesting decaying organic matter. Humans, too, have always recycled. When humans learned to grow food, they fertilized crops with left over animal wastes. Many farmers and gardeners still do. Even as children, we recycled oatmeal containers and egg cartons into school art projects.

However, with the increase in population technology and wealth in the second half of this century, humans have created a throw-away society. In the U.S. we are using up more and more resources faster and faster. In 1960, Americans threw away 200,000 tons of plastic annually; by 1989, that number had increased to 15 millions tons.

In Oregon alone, we produce more than two million tons of solid waste each year.1 Packaging makes up nearly half of our waste stream and much of it is non-recyclable, unnecessary and expensive.² In 1986, Americans spent $28 billion on food and beverage packaging alone -- more than the total income received by American farmers for that year.³

Statistics translate into everyday problems: roadside litter, mountains of garbage in landfills, increased taxes for garbage disposal costs. As the country's landfill space nears capacity, more people, businesses, schools and other social institutions turn to recycling as a means of reducing waste and of saving money. Not only does recycling preserve valuable open space for more useful purposes than dumping garbage, it also saves natural resources like forests and vast quantities of energy.

For example, every year American throw away nearly 10 millions tons of newspaper.4 If these papers were all recycled, over 150 million trees would be left standing, less than half as much energy would be used, and air pollution from the manufacturing process would be cut by more than 70%.⁵ Recycling creates more jobs than do landfills or incinerators and recycling can be the least expensive waste management for cities and towns. Recycling takes less energy and creates less air and water pollution than making products with virgin materials. Recycling saves landfill space. Landfills across the country are full to overflowing. Recycling can dramatically curtail the need for new landfills.

Production of recycled products

Two types of waste are used to make recycled products. "Secondary" or "post-industrial" waste consists of the scraps or by-products of a manufacturing process.6 "Post-consumer" waste consists of items that have completed their life cycles as consumer items and would otherwise by destined for landfills. It's important to look for products that contain post-consumer waste to ensure the success of recycling programs. If manufacturers don't use post-consumer materials, the items you attempt to recycle at the curb and at work will have no place to go and will eventually end up in a landfill.

Before most states began to think about how to reduce the volumes of refuse headed to landfills, Oregon worked out a solution. The Recycling Opportunity Act, signed into law on August 4, 1983, by former Governor Victor Atiyeh, is generally regarded as the nation's first statewide recycling law. The act encouraged Oregonians to recycle wastes voluntarily, and provided structure and funding at the local government level to support recycling activities.

The Recycling Opportunity Act established priorities for solid wastes management, with recycling being the method of choice. These priorities were: reduce the amount of solid waste generated, reuse materials, recycle materials, recover energy from solid waste that cannot be reused or recycled, and landfill the remaining solid waste that cannot be reused, recycled or converted into energy.

The Recycling Opportunity Act also established the basic elements of a source-separation program. It assured every resident the "opportunity to recycle" but assigned responsibility to local and county government officials. At a minimum, local governments were directed to set up a recycling collection center located at a conveniently located disposal site; cities with more than 4,000 people had to provide weekly curbside collection of recyclables on the same day as garbage pickup; and to provide an education program to explain the program's objectives to the public.

According to the state's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the fact that nearly 75% of Oregonians were already recycling their newspapers (double the national average) helped many communities meet these requirements.7 In addition, the success of the 1971 "bottle bill" law -- the nation's first statewide mandatory beverage container deposit return program -- indicated that Oregonians were willing to take part in recycling programs to protect the environment.

The Oregon Legislature passed the 1991 Recycling Act, which complemented previous solid waste management legislation in Oregon by addressing all elements of the recycling "triangle": collection, remanufacturing and purchasing. This law set a statewide goal of 50% recovery from the solid waste stream by the year 2000.

Public agencies are now required to expand purchases of items made from recycled materials. The 1991 Recycling Act also established a Markets Development Council with representatives of the Northwest glass, paper and plastic industries, environmental groups and local governments. Counties are responsible for collecting data and other information for the DEQ.

This act also placed extensive reporting requirements on the private sector. In addition, the act required bidders on state contracts to specify recycled content of their products. The aim was to reduce the volume of waste generated to reuse materials, to recycle materials that cannot by reused and to reduce the use of toxic substances and the generation of hazardous wastes. The state was also required to promote the use of paper and paper products that have not been bleached with chlorine (this process produces the very toxic chemical dioxin). The act encourags the use of technologies that do not result in the discharge of dioxins into the environment.

According to a report presented to the 1993 Oregon Legislature by the Oregon DEQ, State of Oregon purchases of recycled paper exceeded the 1993 goal of 25% set in the 1991 Recycling Act. Based on contracts in place, anticipated government purchases of recycled products for fiscal year 1993 increased 500% by dollar volume over 1991 purchases. Also, three glass manufacturers surpassed the 50% minimum content requirement set for the year 2000 by the act.

The 1991 legislation also required DEQ to survey the glass and newsprint industries to assess the current level of recycled materials in their products. The DEQ provided local governments with technical assistance to help them deal with new federal and state legislative requirements governing solid waste management (including evaluating uses for compost and environmentally safe sewage sludge in public areas).

The 1991 aggregate consumption for all Oregon newsprint consumers was 177,031 tons.8 Of those, 38,741 tons were recycled newsprint fibers, resulting in a 22% aggregate recycled content rate. To carry out other provisions of the Act, DEQ staff, city and country officials, private businesses and grassroots organizations must continue to work together to strengthen markets and to come up with a shared approach to managing solid waste.

Recycling has recently run into economic problems, arguably a victim of its success. A market-driven economy like ours responds to fluctuations in the availability of raw materials. If there is a lot of raw material available, the material's price is low. If raw materials are scarce, materials are costly. In the 1970s and 1980s, before recycling became more popular, the market price for recycled materials was greater. (In 1985, a ton of baled newspaper was worth $70. By 1993, it fetched just $25.9

The amount of material collected has increased and the markets for many items -- especially container glass, newspaper and cardboard -- have become glutted and the value of these materials is correspondingly low. Even though recycled materials save energy, landfill space, and conserve natural resources, the bottom line is that manufacturers may believe that it's easier and cheaper to use virgin materials. In certain circumstances this might be true because our system of taxes provides subsidies for the use of virgin materials.

Lumber companies, for instance, can receive tax breaks for the depletion of timber when they clearcut a forest -- but not for building a plant that can process recycled paper. Nor are there subsidies for building factories to process paper products made from tree-free paper (such as hemp and kenaf). Additionally, manufacturers of paper weigh the added cost of cleaning up the paper bleaching process as a loss in their profit margin. With no incentive for businesses to increase their use of recycled materials while more is being collected, a glut of materials (especially newsprint) may exist.

It's crucial that markets be found, both in government and the private sector. Apparently, if recycling is to succeed, it must make economic sense. But, recycling isn't just a matter of recovering material; it's a total economic system. Thus, in figuring out the "cost" of materials, the price we pay for depleted forests and increased landfills must be factored in. In promoting the cash purchase of recyclables, public interest and some private companies challenge myths about recycling. According to the Harvard Business Review, the most prevalent misconceptions are that recycled products cost more and are of inferior quality.

However, the cost of recycled paper is often the same, or cheaper compared to virgin paper. With the cost of lumber rising, "eco-pencils", made of recycled cardboard and newsprint, are the same basic price as the equivalent wood pencil. While plastic lumber for picnic tables and benches costs up to four times as much as its wood counterpart, it also doesn't rot or splinter. For recycling to succeed, there needs to be less packaging and less waste.

The use of tree-free paper is growing. In addition to cereal grass, cotton, and straw composites, two plants have been rediscovered for paper production: hemp and kenaf.

Although known mostly as the plant marijuana is derived from, hemp has been used for centuries to make rope, baskets, medicines, and paper. (Strains of hemp grown for drug use are much different than those bred for fiber production and contain virtually no THC, the chemical responsible for the high when marijuana is ingested). Once a staple crop for many farmers in the United States, hemp provided 80% of all paper until the 1880s. One hemp distributor thinks hemp could replace 70% of the wood-pulp-based paper produced in the U.S. within the next 30 years.10

Kenaf, a plant native to Africa, can be harvested up to twice a year. In one study, the United States Department of Agriculture chose kenaf as the most viable fiber plant for U.S. paper production. Kenaf is processed with a minimum of bleach, and hemp paper is bleach-free, so they don't pollute the waterways with toxic bleaches.

Future of the Recycling Industry -- Housing

An average family in the United States uses up to 100 times more of the globe's energy resources (fossil fuels and other forms of energy) than a person from one of the poorest countries. Lifestyles in the U.S. and other industrialized countries are accelerating depletion of all the world's resources. Resources are not affected on just one continent. This pattern of consumption affects all of humanity, all of Earth.

As we collectively strive to achieve ecological sustainability, we should examine our housing practices and our life-styles. Since the 1940s the average house size in the U.S. has doubled, yet the average family size has almost halved. Since housing is the single most costly and resource-intensive product that most of us ever buy or rent, we must ask: "Do we really need this extra space?" and "How toxic are the building materials?" Many of today's building products release toxins into our indoor air for years after construction. And more and more people suffer from multiple chemical sensitivity. Consumers must look closely at what products we buy.

All too often, the construction industry's use of wood has ignored foreseeable limitations in our forest resources. Five hundred year-old trees are clearcut to build houses designed to last only a few decades. In an ecologically sustainable future, many houses might have thick walls of earth, brick, stone or straw bales, making them non-toxic, as well as energy-efficient for both heating and cooling. Construction of ecologically designed commercial buildings can also promote conservation.

Advances in photovoltaic technology already enables homes to generate their own electricity from the sun. Requirements have been put in place in Oregon increasing the efficiency of wood-burning stoves. This has in turn decreased the amount of air pollution form wood burning. Wood remains an economic alternative to fossil fuels for heating.

Currently, more efficient uses of wood are being developed and alternatives to lumber are being explored. Some are already on the market. Stress-skin panel systems made with recycled wood chips and foam cores are being used in walls. Reclaimed lumber and plastic lumber made from milk jugs can be used for decks. Carpets are made from plastic soda bottles. Tiles for flooring can be made from recycled glass and wallboard made from recycled gypsum. Stucco, plant-based finishes and other natural materials produce attractive, less toxic, resource-efficient homes.

A growing array of recycled building products are also becoming available. However, more alternatives need to be marketed widely to become both cost-efficient and readily available.11

Ways you can help:

1) Don't buy overpackaged items. The simpler and smaller the package, the better.

2) Don't buy items packaged with disposable trays, cups or pans. You can microwave food using your own trays and dishes instead of disposable ones.

3) When possible, buy in bulk. Purchase supplies like shampoo and toiletries at a store that allows you to refill the containers. Save your used containers for bulk purchases.

4) Buy recycled or tree-free paper, including stationery, fax paper, paper towels and napkins, and toilet tissue.

5) Bring your own cloth shopping bags to the store (keep them in your car) or reuse paper shopping bags, as well as plastic bags for bulk items and for produce.

6) Buy to recycle. Look for products in a package that you can recycle (for example: paper, glass, aluminum, and tin). Buy items with packaging made of recycled materials.

7) Tell your local merchants and manufacturers that you want reduced and recycled packaging.

8) Use cotton handkerchiefs instead of tissues, cloth diapers for babies instead of disposable plastic diapers.

9) Advocate with co-workers for a "buy recycled" policy in your workplace. (An office recycling packet is available at no charge from Metro Recycling Information [600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, OR 97232 -- (503) 797-1650]. Metro also offers business consultations on workplace recycling and purchasing.)

10) Much of what we throw away is "unwanted postal communication" -- junk mail. Write to Mail Preference Service, Direct Marketing Association, P.O. Box 9008, Farmingdale, New York 11735 and tell them to remove your name from mailing lists.

Good wood to buy:

* If possible, buy recycled wood from old structures -- the BRING warehouse in Eugene has old windows, doors, plumbing fixtures, mostly donated by builders and contractors. Contact: BRING Recycling, 86641 Franklin Blvd., Eugene, OR 97405, (541) 746-3023.

* Support recycling groups like Metro Recycling Information. Get involved with ecological building groups like Northwest Eco-Building Guild, 2542 NW Northrup, Portland, OR 97210, (503) 222-3881.

¹ Joe Moseley, "Talkin' Trash," The Register Guard, May 4, 1997, p. 1. back

² "Pamphlet for Oregon Recycling," published by Consumers for Recycling, no date. back

³ John E. Young, World Watch magazine, July-August 1990, p. 20. back

⁴ drawn from "Setting up a Campus Recycling Program," Earth Day 1990, Stanford, California. back

⁵ Ibid. back

⁶ David Biddle, "Recycling for Profit: The New Green Business Frontier," Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 1993, p. 145. back

⁷ from "Status of Recycling in Oregon," report to the 1993 Oregon Legislature, prepared by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality -- Solid Waste Reduction and Planning Section, p. 8. back

⁸ from "Drowning in Paper, " BRING Recycling's Used News, Winter 1995, p. 3. back

⁹ Tom Harris, "Ex-EPA Chief Says Recycling at Risk," The Sacramento Bee, October 7, 1991. back

¹⁰ from a statement by Paul Stanford of Tree Free Ecopaper, Portland, Oregon. back

¹¹ from an article, "How to Shop for the Environment," by architect Valerie Wedel and Eugene contractor Rob Bolman. back

Copyright (c) 1997-98 OLIFE -- Oregonians for Labor Intensive Forest Economics. All rights reserved.