Trash Bottle Capstone LBattle

Trash
Bottles

A
Practical
Approach
To
Postconsumer
Plastic
Waste

Management

Lars
Battle

Submitted
as
part
of
the
Requirements
for

Masters
of
Natural
Resources

From

Virginia
Tech

July
2012

ABSTRACT

As
the
severity
of
the
global
waste
problem
deepens,
society
must
respond

commensurately
by
rethinking
our
linear
cradle-‐to-‐grave
system
of

production,
consumption,
and
final
disposal.
The
vision
of
a
future
where

our
waste
can
enhance
the
environment
rather
than
compromise
it
may

seem
unattainable
to
contemporary
society
even
though
it
is
wholly

necessary
if
our
goal
is
to
preserve
the
biosphere
as
we
know
it
for
future

generations.
Incremental
steps
are
needed
to
drive
this
change.
In
the
era

of
commercial
globalization,
plastic
bottles
and
product
packaging
are

ubiquitous.
As
such,
simple
household
management
solutions
for
this
waste

stream
can
be
globally
replicable.
Until
the
uncontrolled
spread
of
single-‐
use
plastics
can
be
reduced
to
a
socially
tolerable
scale
or
altogether

eliminated,
the
safe
storage
of
plastic
packaging
film
in
empty,
disposable

plastic
bottles
can
help
to
educate
populations,
decontaminate
the

environment,
and
give
value
to
waste
through
its
productive
reuse
in

constructive
applications.
A
trash
bottle
is
any
plastic
bottle
manually
filled

to
capacity
with
clean,
dry,
plastic
trash.
Improved
treatment
of
plastic

waste
can
turn
this
societal
burden
into
a
resource
of
value.

i

TABLE
OF
CONTENTS

Preface
.....................................................................................................................................................
ii

Introduction
...........................................................................................................................................
1

Waste
........................................................................................................................................................
5

The
Municipal
Solid
Waste
Stream
...........................................................................................................
7

Plastics
...............................................................................................................................................................
8

Ecological
Impacts
of
Plastic
............................................................................................................
9

Market
Trends
.....................................................................................................................................
10

Bioplastics
.......................................................................................................................................................
13

Global
Implications
...........................................................................................................................
14

Policies
...................................................................................................................................................
17

Agenda
21
........................................................................................................................................................
18

The
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
of
the
United
States
............................................
19

Subtitle
D
approach
.....................................................................................................................................................
19

Market-‐based
Waste
Management
Strategies
....................................................................................
20

Upstream
Policy
Choices
...........................................................................................................................................
21

Downstream
Policy
Choices
....................................................................................................................................
21

MSW
Management
.............................................................................................................................
25

Traditional
Approaches
..............................................................................................................................
25

Recycling
..........................................................................................................................................................................
26

Incineration
....................................................................................................................................................................
28

Landfill
Disposal
...........................................................................................................................................................
29

Alternative
Management
............................................................................................................................
29

Reuse
and
Repurposing
..............................................................................................................................
30

The
Trash
Bottle
Program
Concept
......................................................................................................................
31

Trash
Bottles
in
Practice
...........................................................................................................................................
33

Long
Way
Home
............................................................................................................................................................
34

Hug
It
Forward
..............................................................................................................................................................
36

Challenges
.......................................................................................................................................................................
36

Recommendations
.............................................................................................................................
37

Conclusion
............................................................................................................................................
38

References
............................................................................................................................................
39

ii

PREFACE

Based
on
the
research
conducted
for
this
report,
there
appears
to
be
no
literature
that

elaborates
on
the
idea
of
filling
plastic
bottles
with
compacted
trash
as
an
approach
to

mitigating
the
impacts
of
post-‐consumer
plastic
waste.
There
are,
however,
numerous

efforts
around
the
globe
that
promote
and
implement
this
methodology
with
success.

Additionally,
websites
and
instructional
videos
online
advertise
the
idea
and
extoll
the

myriad
benefits.
Nevertheless,
the
concept
is
relatively
unknown.

To
me,
the
trash
bottle
approach
is
an
obvious
temporary
fix
for
capturing
loose
plastic
in

the
absence
of
proactive
waste
management
controls.
The
following
report
seeks
to

introduce
the
problem
and
present
the
trash
bottle
strategy
as
one
promising
component

in
what
must
be
an
integrated
waste
management
approach.
Together
with
the
resources

available
online,
I
hope
this
document
can
be
used
as
a
foundation
upon
which
to
build

pilot
programs
that
will
test
and
evaluate
the
viability
of
the
trash
bottle
methodology.

This
paper
is
intended
for
a
variety
of
audiences
including
but
not
limited
to

parties/organizations
that
support
decision-‐makers;
consultants
working
on
urban

services,
recycling
or
waste
management;
representatives
of
local
stakeholders
including

community
groups,
NGOs
and
the
private
sector;
entrepreneurs
seeking
to
expand
their

solid
waste
portfolios;
academicians
and
scholars
involved
in
environmental
management;

donors
interested
in
supporting
waste
management
activities;
and
local
experts
interested

in
program
implementation.

To
provide
a
brief
background
on
the
author,
my
interest
in
this
concept
emerged
from

personal
experience
working
in
community
development
in
Guatemala
between
2007
and

the
present.
I
was
inspired
by
the
potential
of
this
simple
idea
after
observing
the

community
response
to
a
small
financial
incentive
that
encouraged
residents
to
manage

their
waste
in
this
way.
Given
this
positive
experience,
I
am
invested
in
the
idea
and
I

practice
and
promote
it
in
my
daily
life.

1

INTRODUCTION

Today,
the
world’s
cultures
are
as
diverse
as
its
landscapes
are
unique.
As
economic

globalization
permeates
even
the
most
isolated
populations,
however,
society
at

large
faces
a
common
threat
from
the
accumulation
of
foreign
waste
materials.

Plastic
waste
in
particular
threatens
public
health
and
the
integrity
of
ecosystems,

causing
hazardous
changes
in
concentrations
of
toxic
substances
in
biogeochemical

cycles,
in
biodiversity
and
in
climate.
Each
year
the
production
and
consumption
of

plastics
grow,
as
does
the
concern
of
informed
individuals
about
the
environmental

consequences.

The
question
highlighted
in
this
paper
concerns
the
management
of
postconsumer

plastics:
Why
not
stem
the
flow
of
this
waste
stream
into
landfills
and
across

landscapes
by
packing
the
loose
plastic
into
plastic
bottle
containers?
It
is
herein

argued
that
this
is
not
only
universally
applicable,
but
the
end
result
is
a
packed

block
that
carries
a
marginal
exchange
value
given
its
reuse
potential
in
productive

applications.

Industrialized
nations
rely
on
complex
systems
and
extensive
networks
to
collect,

process
and
dispose
of
waste.
Yet
even
these
reactive
efforts
are
arguably
an

insufficient
damage
control.
Recycling
is
touted
as
a
solution,
yet
with
regard
to

plastics
it
is
a
failed
approach
in
its
current
form.
A
common
misconception
is
that

when
sent
to
the
curb
for
recycling,
plastic
containers,
like
aluminum
and
glass,
are

literally
reprocessed
into
an
identical
product.
The
truth
is
that
in
many
cases
none

of
the
recovered
plastic
is
recycled
back
into
its
former
use
but
rather
‘downcycled’

into
secondary
products
such
as
textiles,
parking
lot
bumpers
or
plastic
lumber
…all

unrecyclable
products
(Berkeley
Plastics
Task
Force,
1996).
After
one
trip
to
the

recycling
plant,
the
material
is
used
one
final
time
before
its
ultimate
disposal.

Furthermore,
voluntary
recycling
strategies
have
not
been
effective
in
encouraging

the
practice.
In
2010
for
example,
the
United
States
recovered
and
recycled
only
8%

2

of
its
postconsumer
plastics
(EPA,
2010).
Only
5%
of
the
1
trillion
plastic
bags

produced
annually
in
the
U.S.
are
being
recovered
(Sivan,
2011).

Less-‐industrialized
countries
have
a
considerably
weaker
ability
to
address
the

waste
management
challenge
due
to
a
lack
of
institutional
capacity,
infrastructure,

regulation
and
public
guidance
on
appropriate
disposal
options.
Consequently,

improved
solutions
are
needed
to
alleviate
the
worldwide
management
burdens
of

plastic
waste,
particularly
in
ill-‐equipped
regions.
Borrowing
language
from
a
2012

United
Nations
Environment
Program
report
entitled
“Converting
Plastics
Waste

into
a
Resource,”
emerging
economies
have
a
“latecomer’s
advantage”
in
that
they

can
learn
from
the
experimentation
in
industrialized
nations
and
avoid
unsuccessful

policies.
This
may
be
particularly
relevant
with
respect
to
the
recycling
of
plastics

(UNEP,
2009).

Admittedly,
the
trash
bottle
methodology
focuses
on
a
symptom
of
the
waste

problem
rather
than
targeting
the
root
causes.
Nevertheless,
in
the
absence
of

radical
change
that
addresses
the
fundamental
drivers
of
waste
generation,
namely

our
current
brand
of
economic
development
and
population
size
and
growth,

incremental
changes
from
the
ground
up
can
support
a
necessary
cultural
response

to
our
evolving
ecological
context.
Ultimately,
the
solution
to
the
waste
issue
resides

upstream,
with
a
paradigm
shift
in
product
design
and
industrial
processes
that
will

eliminate
harmful
waste
from
commerce.
McDonough
and
Braungart
(2002)

express
this
vision
succinctly
by
promoting
a
“waste
equals
food”
paradigm
where

the
economic
system
mimics
the
closed
material
loops
occurring
within
and
among

ecosystems.
To
a
small
degree,
this
shift
is
taking
root
with
advances
in
the

development
of
bioplastics
that
decompose
naturally.
This
news
is
promising,
but
in

its
present
form
it
does
nothing
to
mitigate
the
immediate
problem
of
plastic
waste

accumulation.
Until
industry
can
stop
the
bleeding
from
upstream,
new

management
strategies
that
collect
and
consolidate
plastics
downstream
at
the

postconsumer
end
are
vital.

3

The
goal
of
the
trash
bottle
methodology
is
to
capture
and
repurpose
plastic
waste.

The
intended
benefits
are
environmental
decontamination,
improved
human
health,

increased
public
engagement
and
poverty
alleviation.
Additionally,
the
cultural

impact
of
assigning
value,
whether
it
is
a
positive
value
in
the
form
of
the
trash

bottle
or
a
negative
value
as
loose
waste,
can
have
far-‐reaching
implications
for
the

future
of
waste
management.
By
giving
a
tangible,
monetary
value
to
waste

materials,
society
can
rationally
assess
the
costs
of
the
waste
problem.
The
trash

bottle
methodology
is
regarded
here
as
a
sensible
and
practical
solution
to
be

implemented
until
ecologically
appropriate
substitutes
for
single-‐use
plastics

emerge.
The
strategy
buys
extra
time
to
transition
to
a
sustainable
economic
model

that
does
not
achieve
progress
at
the
expense
of
the
environment.

There
are
various
policy
instruments
that
can
be
applied
to
encourage
this
waste

management
behavior.
For
example,
one
scenario
uses
a
refund
incentive
funded
by

a
tax
on
all
retail
items
that
contain
single-‐use
plastics.
The
tax
would
raise
revenue

to
cover
program
costs,
including
a
public
awareness
campaign,
and
a
redemption

value
per
trash
bottle
that
is
high
enough,
depending
on
the
local
context,
to
achieve

Also
referred
to
as
“bottle
bricks”
or
“ecobricks,”
trash
bottles
are
transformed
into

solid
bricks
when
filled
to
capacity.
The
20
oz.
trash
bottle
holds
roughly
one
lb.
of

plastic
waste.
A
one
half-‐gallon
container
can
sequester
up
to
100
grocery
bags.

Image
source:
Temple
and
Rose,
2011

4

public
buy-‐in.
While
the
tax
would
compel
producers
to
limit
or
eliminate
the
use
of

plastic
packaging,
the
refund
would
encourage
environmental
stewardship.
The

approach
requires
minimal
infrastructure
and
can
yield
significant
ecological,
social

and
economic
benefits.

An
example
to
be
revisited
later
elaborates
on
the
work
of
the
community

development
organization
Long
Way
Home
(LWH),
which
has
been
charging
an

admission
fee
of
one
trash
bottle
per
visitor
at
a
popular
five-‐acre
recreational
park

it
has
built
in
the
central
highlands
of
Guatemala.
In
offering
a
small
incentive
to

produce
trash
bottles,
a
liability
has
been
transformed
into
a
product
with
practical

use-‐value.
The
trash
bottle
campaign
has
achieved
a
vastly
cleaner
landscape,

exposed
local
families
to
a
new
waste
management
solution
and
has
simultaneously

created
a
stream
of
building
materials
for
Long
Way
Home’s
construction
projects.

The
social
and
environmental
benefits
of
collecting
and
building
with
waste
have

visibly
impacted
the
community.
Environmental
decontamination
is
helping
to

restore
ecosystem
integrity.
Ridding
the
landscape
of
litter
has
led
to
an
enhanced

cultural
value
for
the
predominantly
indigenous
population.
The
educational
value

of
community
exposure
to
improved
waste
management
has
empowered
the

community
and
fostered
environmental
stewardship.
The
LWH
experience
and

another
example
from
Central
America
are
regarded
as
a
first
iteration
of
a
trash

bottle
program
that
can
be
expanded
and
modified
to
satisfy
site-‐specific
dynamics.

This
paper
will
begin
by
developing
a
contextual
understanding
of
the
problem

including
an
overview
of
the
waste
challenge
in
general,
an
assessment
of
plastics
in

particular,
a
quantification
and
characterization
of
the
municipal
solid
waste
stream,

scale,
impacts,
targeted
legislation
and
management
approaches.
Taken
together,

this
information
is
intended
to
establish
the
fact
that
current
measures
are

insufficient
to
address
this
challenge.
This
information
is
followed
by
a
presentation

of
the
trash
bottle
concept,
repurposing
opportunities
and
policies
that
can

separately
encourage
bottle
packing
behavior
and
repurposing.
Finally,
basic

program
design
recommendations
are
offered
to
target
audiences.

5

WASTE

Historically,
waste
generation,
distribution
and
composition
has
been
inextricably

linked
to
economic
expansion
and
the
demographic
trends
of
our
growing

population.
Until
the
unbridled
growth
in
these
areas
is
drawn
back
to
a
sustainable

scale,
a
sustainable
future
is
not
possible.
Resource
overconsumption
and
the

resulting
accumulation
of
waste
are
among
the
most
important
issues
presently

facing
the
global
community.
Without
a
course-‐correction,
the
trend
threatens
to

compromise
the
lives
of
generations
to
come.
Sustainable
development,
a
concept

that
is
value
laden
and
can
be
quite
arbitrary,
is
defined
here
using
the
definition

provided
by
the
Brundtland
Report
from
1987:
"Sustainable
development
is

development
that
meets
the
needs
of
the
present
without
compromising
the
ability

of
future
generations
to
meet
their
own
needs.”
(Brundtland
Commission,
1987)

With
this
definition
in
mind,
the
widespread
notion
that
pro-‐growth
policies
are
the

answer
to
global
economic
challenges
must
first
be
exposed
as
a
self-‐destructive

approach
to
progress.
Staying
the
course
while
seeking
to
maximize
efficiency
and

relying
on
the
promise
of
technological
innovation
to
resolve
future
resource
issues

is
not
a
realistic
solution
in
a
world
with
finite
resources.
Rather,
a
focal
point
for

achieving
sustainability
should
be
the
issue
of
sustainable
scale.

The
size
of
an

economy
should
be
directly
informed
by
the
regenerative
and
absorptive
capacities

of
the
ecosystems
that
sustain
it.
In
other
words,
resource
use
should
be
constrained

by
the
ecosystem’s
renewability
rates
while
the
economy’s
waste
output
volume

should
respect
the
ecosystem’s
capacity
to
metabolize
the
waste
stream.
This
calls

for
a
steady-‐state
economy
that
strives
for
qualitative
improvements
in
the

provision
of
goods
and
services
without
the
quantitative
increase
in
material

throughput
passing
in
and
out
of
the
system
(O’Neill,
Dietz
&
Jones,
2010).

As
previously
mentioned,
unlike
the
material
cycle
in
nature
where
one
system’s

material
output
is
a
corresponding
system’s
input,
our
economic
output
generally
is

6

not
fed
back
into
any
kind
of
useful
circulation.
Martin
Pawley,
the
author
of

Garbage
Housing
(1975),
explains
this
inefficiency
well:

“We
in
the
West
have
come
to
identify
the
termination
of
one
use
with
the

termination
of
all
usefulness,
and
we
carry
this
simple
idea
through

ruthlessly,
in
our
own
treatment
of
the
old
as
much
as
our
treatment
of

waste
products
our
society
generates
in
such
profusion…
While
waste

remains
valueless
it
will
be
wasted:
and
this
valuelessness
is
a
consequence

of
the
tunnel
vision
from
which
we
in
the
West
all
suffer.”

This
“simple
idea,”
as
Pawley
puts
it,
originates
from
a
conceptual
oversimplification

of
the
economy
according
to
the
neoclassical
model,
our
prevailing
school
of

economic
thought.
The
neoclassical
philosophy
views
the
economic
dimension
as
a

closed
system
with
waste
outputs
‘external’
or
inconsequential
to
its
proper

functioning.
‘Externalities,’
the
misnomer
by
which
this
class
of
economic
actors
are

known,
can
be
positive
or
negative.
What
all
externalities
share
is
the
fact
that
they

are
nonmarket
goods
or
services
without
an
assigned
monetary
value.
Examples

include
the
intangible
benefits
of
an
ecosystem’s
waste
assimilation
capacity
or
the

costs
of
waste
emissions.
Without
an
economic
value
or
sufficient
regulatory

controls,
externalities
represent
a
market
failure
and
have
not
received
adequate

attention
in
spite
of
their
relative
importance.

As
the
waste
problem
becomes
increasingly
burdensome,
the
conceptualization
of

the
economy
as
a
closed
system
is
no
longer
appropriate.
The
feedback
relationship

of
accumulating
waste
in
the
environment
is
a
story
of
growing
stressors
that

adversely
affect
the
economy.
To
paraphrase
McDonough
and
Braungart,
the

authors
of
Cradle
to
Cradle,
we
are
all
downstream
from
the
wastes
we
produce.

Internalizing
the
solid
waste
externality
can
be
accomplished
through
its

incorporation
into
the
monetized
economy.
Assigning
an
economic
value
to
waste

materials
will
facilitate
rational
decision-‐making
by
revealing
costs
associated
with

7

waste
and
wasteful
behavior.
A
trash
bottle
program
that
can
effectively
impart
an

exchange
value
on
each
unit
can
demonstrate
this
idea.
Items
that
carry
an
exchange

value
function
as
a
form
of
currency
and
as
such
can
change
the
way
they
are

viewed
by
society.

THE
MUNICIPAL
SOLID
WASTE
STREAM

The
waste
materials
that
make
up
the
trash
bottle
are
found
in
the
Municipal
Solid

Waste
(MSW)
stream.
The
MSW
stream
comprises
only
7%
of
overall
waste
output

in
the
U.S.
compared
to
the
larger
waste
categories
including
industrial
and

commercial
(20%),
agricultural
(17%),
mining
(19%),
and
demolition
and

construction
(22%).
Nevertheless,
MSW
management
is
the
most
visible

demonstration
of
current
efforts
to
address
the
waste
challenge
and
therefore
has
a

high
potential
to
guide
public
awareness
and
affect
positive
change.
This
category
of

waste
is
particularly
challenging
to
manage
due
to
its
broad
spatial
distribution
and

diverse
composition.
The
stream
primarily
includes
durable
goods,
nondurable

goods,
containers,
packaging,
food
and
yard
waste.
Within
the
U.S.
MSW
stream,

plastics
account
for
12.4%
of
its
total,
with
an
annual
average
volume
of
roughly
14

million
tons
(EPA,
2010).

A
rapid
increase
in
the
cost
of
waste
disposal
services
in
the
U.S.
is
attributed
to

increasing
waste
volume,
evolving
government
regulations
and
limited
space.
The

U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
estimates
the
cost
of
MSW
disposal
at
$100

per
ton,
with
costs
growing
at
$1.64
per
ton
each
year.

The
annual
cost
of
MSW

management
in
the
U.S.
could
therefore
be
as
much
as
$23.8
billion
(Letcher
and

Valero,
2011).
This
figure
does
not
include
the
‘external
costs’
to
society
such
as
the

impacts
on
atmospheric
CO2
concentration,
public
health
and
habitat
degradation.
In

less-‐industrialized
nations,
external
costs
are
often
more
visible
given
the
higher

incidence
of
illegal
dumping
and
open
burning
of
waste.

8

PLASTICS

The
term
‘plastics’
refers
to
biomass
and
petroleum-‐based
materials
that
at
some

stage
in
the
production
process
reach
a
viscous
state
that
allows
them
to
be
molded,

cast,
spun
or
applied
as
a
coating
(Thompson
et
al,
2009).
Polymers
are
typically

produced
by
polymerization
of
oil
or
gas
monomers,
incorporating
various
chemical

additives
in
the
process
such
as
antioxidants,
stabilizers,
softeners,
flame-‐retardants

and
pigments
in
order
to
give
the
product
different
aesthetic
and
performance

attributes
(UNEP,
2009).
Plastics
are
versatile
and
lightweight
materials
with

properties
that
yield
innumerable
social
benefits
(Andrady
&
Neal
2009).

The
history
of
plastics
began
in
1868
when
John
W.
Hyatt
invented
celluloid

(Freinkel,
2011).
Celluloid
is
made
from
wood
pulp,
plant
fibers
(cellulose)
or
cotton

fibers
treated
with
nitrogen
and
camphor.
By
treating
cellulose
with
acids
and

solvents,
cellophane
and
rayon
were
invented.
This
class
of
plant-‐based
plastics
is

referred
to
as
bioplastics.
In
1907,
when
Leo
Bakeland
developed
the
first

petroleum-‐based
plastics,
the
attention
on
bioplastics
development
essentially

halted.
The
versatility
of
plastics
originating
from
crude
oil
or
natural
gas
was
clear.

The
material
is
relatively
inexpensive,
lightweight,
strong,
durable,
and
corrosion-‐
resistant
and
has
high
thermal
and
electrical
insulation
properties.
With

degradation
periods
ranging
from
hundreds
to
thousands
of
years,
there
simply
has

not
been
time
to
understand
the
long-‐term
impacts.
Only
recently,
as
the

repercussions
of
petroleum-‐based
plastics
become
more
apparent,
has
the
industry

returned
to
the
research
and
development
of
bioplastics.

While
plastics
are
primarily
comprised
of
organic
material,
they
typically
degrade

by
exposure
to
light,
heat,
moisture
and
pollutants
rather
than
through
biological

processes
(Moore,
2011).
Though
only
8%
of
all
petroleum
use
is
directed
towards

plastics
manufacturing,
the
source
is
a
concern,
as
is
the
fact
that
the
product
is

neither
compostable
nor
biodegradable.
In
the
past
70
years,
the
plastic
industry

has
seen
a
dramatic
increase
in
the
production
of
synthetic
polymers,
or
plastics

9

produced
with
additives
to
modify
their
structural
properties.
These
plastics
include

two
categories
known
as
thermoplastics
and
thermosets.
Thermoplastics
can
be

softened
and
melted
when
reheated
and
then
formed
into
new
shapes
when
cooled,

while
thermosets
cannot.
Thermoplastics
constitute
80%
of
global
plastics

production
and
are
the
focus
of
the
trash
bottle
methodology.
This
category
includes

polyethylene
(PE),
polypropylene
(PP),
polystyrene
(PS),
polyethylene
terephthalate

(PET),
and
polyvinyl
chloride
(PVC)
(UNEP,
2009).

ECOLOGICAL
IMPACTS
OF
PLASTIC

Traditional
polymers
such
as
PE
use
fossil
feedstocks
with
carbon
fixation
rates
in

the
millions
of
years.
Once
processed,
their
carbon
release
rate
into
the
environment

is
1-‐10
years.
This
increases
atmospheric
CO2.

In
contrast,
plant-‐based
polymers

use
renewable
feedstocks,
and
their
release
of
CO2
can
be
neutralized
the
following

season
simply
by
replanting
the
feedstock
(Bastioli,
2005).

When
plastic
debris
is
exposed
to
UV
irradiation
from
sunlight
it
undergoes
photo

oxidation.
It
deteriorates
by
losing
its
tensile
strength
and
crumbling
into

progressively
smaller
fragments
known
as
microplastics.
A
loss
of
molecular
weight

occurs
during
plastic
fragmentation
through
the
departure
or
‘leaching’
of
chemical

compounds,
outgassing
of
petrochemicals
as
well
as
the
attraction
of
nearby
toxins

(Moore
et
al.,
2001).

Plastics
that
contain
various
synthetic
additives
are
a
concern
for
human
and
animal

health.
Styrene,
for
instance,
is
a
known
carcinogen.
The
petrochemical
BPA,

currently
applied
as
a
hardening
agent,
was
first
used
as
a
synthetic
estrogen.
BPA
is

a
known
endocrine
system
disruptor
(Yang
et
al.,
2011).
In
spite
of
growing

awareness
about
the
public
health
implications,
the
demand
for
plastics
steadily

grows.

The
spatial
distribution
of
plastic
waste
is
astounding.
Terrestrial
landscapes,

particularly
in
countries,
are
often
blanketed
with
windblown

10

debris.
Wind
and
rains
flush
much
of
this
waste
into
rivers
and
streams
that
in
turn

transport
it
to
the
oceans.
Ocean
currents
carry
plastic
indiscriminately
to

seashores,
seafloors
and
throughout
the
surface.
It
is
an
impermeable
material,

preventing
the
passage
of
water
or
air,
presenting
a
hazard
to
plants
and
animals

alike.

The
most
dramatic
example
of
marine
debris
is
the
North
Pacific
Gyre,
also
known

as
the
Great
Pacific
Garbage
Patch.
This
is
an
immense
cluster
of
marine
debris
that

highlights
plastics’
uncontrolled
spread.
According
to
the
National
Oceanic
and

Atmospheric
Administration,
it
is
not
possible
to
accurately
provide
the
exact

location,
size
or
volume
of
trash
here,
but
estimates
are
as
high
as
4
million
tons

spread
out
over
an
area
one
or
two
times
the
size
of
Texas.
Plastic
bags
and
PET

bottles
are
the
most
pervasive
type
of
marine
litter
around
the
world,
accounting
for

more
than
80%
of
all
rubbish
collected
in
a
regional
seas
assessment
(UNEP,
2009).

Plastics
damage
coral
reefs,
ensnare
animals
and
can
be
misidentified
as
food
and

ingested.
Plastic
debris
accumulating
in
the
food
chain
is
exerting
multiple
hazards

on
wildlife
and
ultimately
on
humans
with
repercussions
that
are
poorly

understood,
but
certain
nonetheless
(Sivan,
2011).
Ingesting
plastic
can
cause

internal
injury,
blockage
of
the
digestive
tract
and
starvation.
The
United
Nations

Environment
Program
estimates
that
more
than
1
million
seabirds
and
100,000

non-‐avian
marine
animals
die
every
year
from
ingesting
plastics
(UNEP,
2005).

MARKET
TRENDS

Plastics
are
now
used
in
most
aspects
of
everyday
life.
Over
the
past
12
years,
more

plastics
have
been
produced
than
in
the
entire
20th
century
(Freinkel,
2011).
From

1990
to
2007,
production
of
all
types
of
plastics
more
than
tripled
from
80
million
to

260
million
tons,
now
accounting
for
approximately
8%
of
world
oil
production

(Letcher
and
Valero,
2011).
It
is
estimated
that
production
of
plastics
worldwide
is

growing
at
a
rate
of
approximately
5%
per
year
(Letcher
and
Valero,
2011).

This

growth
far
exceeds
global
recycling
and
reuse
rates.

11

Data Source: http://cipet.gov.in/plastics_statics.html

Any
type
of
plastic
that
can
fit
into
the
trash
bottle
via
the
bottleneck
is
appropriate.

Polyethylene
is
the
most
consumed
synthetic
polymer
with
a
current
global

production
of
roughly
140
million
tons
per
year
(Sivan,
2011).

The
content
of
trash

bottles
generally
falls
into
two
of
the
three
categories
of
PE
that
exist.
The
first

category
is
LDPE
or
low-‐density
polyethylene,
manufactured
through
a
high-‐
pressure
method
that
achieves
soft,
ductile
and
flexible
properties.
LDPE
accounts

for
1/3
of
household
trash
in
the
United
States
in
the
form
of
packaging
film
and

bags.
Roughly
67%
of
global
LDPE
demand
corresponds
to
these
uses.
The
second

category,
with
similar
properties
to
LDPE
is
LLDPE
or
linear
low-‐density

polyethylene,
which
is
used
in
agricultural
films,
stretch
wrap
for
covering
food
and

bubble
wrap.
Packaging
consisting
of
PE
represents
a
key
growth
segment
(Figure

2.)
accounting
for
over
35%
of
the
global
consumption
(CIPET,
2012).
Once
again,

this
is
the
primary
material
targeted
for
safe
storage
by
the
trash
bottle

methodology.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

PS
PVC
PE
PP
PET

%
Average

Annual

Growth
Rate

Figure
1.
Global
Growth
Rates
(2004
-‐

2010)

12

Data Source: http://cipet.gov.in/plastics_statics.html

The
container
element
of
the
trash
bottle
is
typically
made
from
polyethylene

terephthalate
or
PET
used
in
carbonated
and
non-‐carbonated
beverages,
but
high-‐
density
polyethylene
or
HDPE
used
in
milk
and
detergent
bottles
is
equally
suitable.

In
the
U.S.
market,
95%
of
all
plastic
bottles
are
either
PET
or
HDPE
(Headwaters

Cooperative
Recycling,
2012).
The
bottle
industry
continues
to
experience
annual

growth,
with
the
greatest
demand
coming
from
the
United
States,
China
and
Mexico.

Corporate
social
and
environmental
responsibility
is
becoming
increasingly

important
in
the
global
marketplace.
According
to
a
2010
Accenture
report
titled

The
New
Era
of
Sustainability,
93%
of
CEOs
affirm
that
pursuing
a
sustainable

business
model
is
critical
to
success.
At
present,
however,
there
is
no
single
business

enterprise
that
has
achieved
carbon
neutrality.
Nevertheless,
studies
have
shown

that
companies
adapting
to
the
evolving
social
and
environmental
context
with

innovative
solutions
tend
to
demonstrate
above
average
financial
performance

(Lacy
et
al.,
2010).
Rather
than
eliminate
adverse
impacts
from
industry,
however,

most
companies
strive
to
maximize
the
efficiency
of
existing
processes.
Efficiency
in

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012

thousand
tons
per
year

Figure
2.
Global
Polyethylene
(PE)

Demand
Growth

HDPE

LLDPE

LDPE

13

this
context
implies
doing
less
harm,
which
is
fundamentally
different
from
a

sustainable
approach
that
calls
for
corrective
actions
at
the
root
of
the
problem.

Take
as
an
example
the
three
largest
suppliers
of
bottled
beverages:
Coca-‐Cola,

Pepsi
and
Nestlé.
These
companies
are
touting
their
efforts
of
minimizing
their

packaging
footprint
but
the
focus
on
biodegradable
and
compostable
bioplastics

does
not
appear
to
be
a
priority.
For
instance,
blasted
as
greenwashing
by

environmentalists,
Coke’s
recently
released
“PlantBottle”
is
still
mostly
petroleum-‐
based
(Loepp,
2011).
Instead,
the
companies
are
setting
ambitious
recycling
goals

and
minimizing
packaging
volume
while
essentially
using
the
same
materials
(Pepsi,

2010;
Coca-‐Cola,
2011;
Nestlé,
2011).
Each
company
has
outlined
efforts
to
reduce

bottle
weight
(light-‐weighting)
while
increasing
the
amount
of
recycled
PET.
Coca-‐
Cola’s
2010/2011
Sustainability
Review
explains
the
rationale:
“Capturing
the

embodied
energy
and
raw
materials
in
beverage
bottles
for
reuse
through
recycling,

we
believe,
is
a
better
option
for
our
business
and
for
the
environment
than
a

biodegradable
packaging
when
considered
over
the
package
lifecycle.”
While

demand
grows
for
their
products
as
the
global
economy
expands,
this
approach
is

not
sustainable.

BIOPLASTICS

Bioplastics
fall
into
one
or
both
of
two
general
categories:
biomass-‐based
plastics

and
biodegradable
plastics.
Biomass-‐based
plastics
can
be
either
biodegradable
or

non-‐biodegradable
just
as
biodegradable
polymers
can
also
be
petroleum-‐based

(Mugdal
et
al.,
2011).
Bioplastics
in
general
have
shown
growth
over
the
past
two

years,
in
spite
of
the
global
economic
downturn,
but
their
production
base
remains

quite
small
compared
to
the
petroleum-‐based
plastics
market.
Greater
awareness

about
environmental
concerns
and
government
initiatives
are
cited
as
drivers

behind
this
growth
(Killam,
2010).

The
sources
of
bioplastics
are
diverse,
but
the
benefits
are
similar.
Biomass-‐derived

plastics
require
less
energy
to
produce
than
conventional
plastics
and
they
are
made

14

with
renewable
biomass.
Conventional
plastics
accumulate
in
landfills
and
take

thousands
of
years
to
disintegrate
while
biodegradable
plastics
can
be
‘upcycled’
as

compost
to
nourish
soil.
The
result
is
less
landfill
usage,
less
pollution
and
a
smaller

carbon
footprint.

Cornstarch-‐based
bioplastics
have
been
in
existence
for
20
years
and
claim
a

majority
market
share
of
biodegradable
plastics
(Center
for
American
Progress,

2011).
Other
bioplastics
under
development
include
those
using
sources
such
as

potatoes,
sugar
cane
and
mushrooms.
The
mycelium
in
a
mushroom’s
root
structure

is
a
particularly
promising
discovery
for
bioplastics.
Entrepreneurs
Gavin
McIntyre

and
Eben
Bayer
use
mycelium
as
an
all-‐natural
and
self-‐assembling
styrene

substitute.
It
is
a
green
packaging
alternative
that
requires
98%
less
energy
to

produce
than
conventional
packaging
materials.
In
essence,
agricultural
crop
waste

is
ground
up,
infused
with
mycelium
and
placed
into
a
mold
for
five
days.
During

this
period,
the
mycelium
grows
and
binds
the
material.
The
postconsumer
product

is
fully
compostable
(Bayer,
2010).

There
are
a
number
of
biodegradable
plastic
products
currently
available
to

consumers.
These
products
range
from
water
bottles
to
garbage
bags
to
amenities

and
are
made
in
traditional
plastics-‐processing
plants.

Indications
of
the
emergence

of
mainstream
bioplastics
are
promising,
but
the
growth
of
synthetic
polymers

remains
largely
unaffected.

GLOBAL
IMPLICATIONS

Over
half
of
the
global
population
now
lives
in
urban
areas
(Macdonald,
2008).
The

UN
Population
Division
estimates
an
additional
1.7
billion
new
urban
residents
to

arrive
in
the
next
25
years
(UNPD,
2008).
This
demographic
shift
may
help
to

alleviate
pressure
on
rural
ecology
even
though
most
of
the
urban
growth
observed

is
occurring
in
countries
where
poor
waste
management
can

exacerbate
public
health
risks.
Mike
Davis
(2005)
describes
the
magnitude
of
the

problem:

15

“…of
all
the
dangerous
ecological
symptoms
of
runaway
urban
poverty,

none
poses
a
bigger
threat
than
overflowing
waste.
The
chronic
shortfalls

between
the
rates
of
trash
generation
and
disposal
in
third
world
cities
are

often
staggering:
the
average
collection
rate
in
Dar
el
Salaam
is
barely
25

percent;
in
Karachi,
40
percent;
in
Jakarta,
60
percent.
The
city-‐planning

director
in
Kabul
complained
to
the
Washington
Post
that
his
city
is

becoming
one
big
reservoir
of
solid
waste…
Every
24
hours,
2
million

people
produce
800
cubic
meters
of
solid
waste.
If
all
40
of
our
trucks
make

three
trips
a
day,
they
can
still
transport
only
200
to
300
cubic
meters.”

Whereas
the
pioneer
industrialized
cities
of
the
world
have
confronted

environmental
challenges
in
a
sequential
order
corresponding
with
their
gradual

infrastructural
growth,
rapidly
urbanizing
cities
in
countries
are

undergoing
a
“time-‐space
compression”
in
that
they
must
grapple
simultaneously

with
compounded
environmental
impacts
(Marcotullio
et
al.,
2003,
p
220;
Harvey,

1989).
These
sets
of
environmental
challenges,
(e.g.
localized
solid
waste

management,
regionalized
water
contamination
and
global
air
pollution)
have
been

faced
concurrently
by
the
emerging
actors
in
the
global
marketplace
whose
capacity

to
effectively
address
them
is
limited.
As
of
2007,
the
Western
European
and
North

American
markets
accounted
for
44%
of
global
demand
for
synthetic
polymers

(Mudgal
et
al.,
2011).
Emerging
economies
in
Eastern
Europe,
Russia,
the
Asian

Pacific
and
the
Middle
East
are
increasingly
expanding
their
market
share.

Industrialized
countries
have
by
no
means
‘solved’
the
waste
issue
either.
Rather,

they
have
merely
managed
to
mitigate
short-‐term
public
health
risks
by
displacing

pollution
to
landfills,
to
downstream
ecosystems,
into
the
atmosphere
or
by

exporting
the
polluting
activities
of
industry
abroad.
To
the
public,
what
is
out
of

sight
is
also
out
of
mind,
suggesting
that
hiding
the
problem
from
view
impedes
the

type
of
cultural
adaptation
that
responds
to
changes
in
the
environment.
The

challenge
for
any
urban
area
now
is
how
to
reduce
resource
consumption
and
waste

generation
for
the
benefit
of
long-‐term
human
and
environmental
health.

16

Disempowered
social
groups
with
perspectives
valuable
to
resource
management

have
been
forced
into
a
cycle
of
unstable
dependency
as
profit-‐driven
power

structures
focus
on
the
process
of
global
integration.
As
a
consequence,

globalization
has
hindered
the
social
capacity
to
combat
environmental
injustice.
In

terms
of
managing
urban
solid
waste,
adopting
capital-‐intensive
technologies
may

fail
to
recognize
the
value
of
existing
informal
sector
recycling
systems.
Scavenging

for
waste
materials
with
reuse
value
at
dumping
sites
may
be
an
underappreciated

activity
practiced
by
the
urban
poor.
It
is
reported
that
as
much
as
2%
of
the
urban

population
in
Asia
and
Latin
America
depends
on
waste
picking
for
their
livelihood

(Medina,
2000).
An
important
lesson
for
policymakers
rests
in
the
experience
of

waste
scavenging
communities
in
global
cities.
Countless
examples
demonstrate

how
informal
networks
can
explore
flexible
opportunities
for
resolving
resource

issues.
As
urban
growth
continues,
these
informal
sector
groups
also
grow.
Current

patterns
can
serve
as
models
for
how
the
urban
poor,
given
the
chance,
can
develop

strong
livelihoods
within
a
formalized
waste-‐picking
sector,
with
trash
bottles
as
a

component
in
the
strategy.

Materials
recovery
strategies
using
the
refund
formula
carry
significant
social

benefits
in
terms
of
public
health,
livelihoods
development
and
environmental

education.
It
is
firmly
believed
that
the
trash
bottle
methodology
can
generate
these

benefits
for
the
global
community.
A
reduction
in
landfill
waste
volumes
reduces

collection
costs
and
the
amount
of
land
dedicated
to
waste
disposal,
which
saves

money
for
the
city
(and
for
taxpayers).
Participants
earn
money
when
their
bottles

are
delivered
to
redemption
centers.

Psychologically,
it
is
empowering
for
a
community
to
seize
control
of
its
waste

problem.
Communities
across
the
globe
have
no
answer
to
the
problem
of
plastic

waste
and
traditional
cultural
knowledge
is
of
no
use
with
respect
to
foreign,
non-‐
biodegradable
waste
materials.
Litter
has
degraded
landscapes
that
have

considerable
cultural
value,
but
community
wellbeing
can
improve
if
the
tools
to

combat
the
waste
problem
are
available.

17

POLICIES

Regulations
generally
do
not
target
plastic
waste
specifically
but
rather
group
it

under
the
broad
umbrella
of
solid
waste
(Mudgal
et
al.,
2011).
This
failure
to

compartmentalize
the
waste
streams
hinders
our
ability
to
respond
with
flexibility

to
evolving
trends
in
production,
consumption
and
disposal.
Instead,
policies

governing
aspects
of
plastics
management,
which
range
from
local
to
international,

target
distinctive
stages
in
the
material
life
cycle.
From
an
administrative

standpoint,
the
geographical
management
boundary
for
post-‐consumer
waste
is

typically
the
municipality.
Nevertheless,
the
global
nature
of
the
plastic
problem

demands
that
targeted
strategies
be
coordinated
with
broader
waste
policy.

At
the
international
level,
legally
non-‐binding
standards
include
the
Brundtland

Report
and
Agenda
21.
These
documents
define
objectives
and
goals
for
a

sustainable
future.
The
Brundtland
Commission
produced
the
first
major

international
mandate
with
its
1987
report
entitled
“Our
Common
Future.”
The

report
appealed
to
the
international
community
to
work
towards
reconciling

development
goals
with
environmental
protection
and
social
equality.
Since
its

release,
it
has
framed
the
sustainability
dialogue
across
disciplines.
Agenda
21,

detailed
below,
expands
upon
this
idea
with
comprehensive
guidelines.

Legally
binding
policies
from
the
national
level
down
to
the
local
level
employ

regulatory
and
economic
instruments.
These
approaches
function
differently
and

combine
to
achieve
an
integrated
management
strategy.
Regulatory
instruments,

also
known
as
‘command
and
control’
policies,
such
as
Hawaii’s
recent
ban
on
the

plastic
shopping
bag,
set
legal
limits
and
standards.
Economic
instruments,
also

known
as
market-‐based
instruments,
offer
financial
incentives
and
disincentives
to

affect
changes
in
behavior.
Daly
and
Farley
contend
that
when
designing
policy
for

complex
problems,
each
independent
policy
goal
requires
an
independent
policy

instrument
(Daly
and
Farley,
2011).
This
section
will
review
relevant
policies
at

various
scales.

18

AGENDA
21

Perhaps
the
most
influential
report
guiding
improved
management
of
waste
at
the

international
level
is
Agenda
21.
This
is
a
comprehensive
sustainable
development

blueprint
with
solid
waste
management
identified
as
one
of
many
priorities.
The

Agenda
was
drafted
between
1989
and
1992
and
was
adopted
by
178
countries
at

the
United
Nations
Conference
on
Environment
and
Development
in
Rio
de
Janeiro,

Brazil.

The
consensus
reflects
an
interest
in
sustainable
development
goals
and

environmental
cooperation
(United
Nations,
2009).

Chapter
21
of
the
Agenda
describes
the
priorities
of
solid
waste
management.
The

four
sections
in
the
chapter
are:
(a)
minimizing
waste,
(b)
maximizing

environmentally
sound
waste
reuse
and
recycling,
(c)
promoting
environmentally

sound
waste
disposal
and
treatment
and
(d)
extending
waste
service
coverage.

Section
B
encourages
the
pursuit
of
best
management
practices
and
highlights
the

need
for
governments,
based
on
their
capacity
and
available
resources,
to
explore

new
approaches.
Of
particular
relevance
to
the
trash
bottle
methodology
are
the

following
objectives:

a) Providing
technical
assistance
to
informal
waste
reuse
and
recycling

operations;

b) Providing
legal
and
economic
conditions
conducive
to
investments
in
waste

reuse
and
recycling;

c) Implementing
specific
mechanisms
such
as
deposit/refund
systems
as

incentives
for
reuse
and
recycling;

d) Providing
incentives
to
improve
the
marketability
of
technically
recyclable

waste;

e) Encouraging
non-‐governmental
organizations,
community-‐based

organizations
and
women's,
youth
and
public
interest
group
programs,
in

collaboration
with
local
municipal
authorities,
to
mobilize
community
support

for
waste
reuse
and
recycling
through
focused
community-‐level
campaigns;

f) Applying
economic
and
regulatory
instruments,
including
tax
incentives,
to

support
the
principle
that
generators
of
wastes
pay
for
their
disposal;

g) Facilitating
the
transfer
of
waste
reuse
and
recycling
technology;

h) Offering
incentives
to
local
and
municipal
authorities
that
recycle
the

maximum
proportion
of
their
wastes.

19

Chapter
21
highlights
the
importance
of
governments
and
civil
society
launching

pilot
programs,
in
conjunction
with
public
education,
to
expand
waste
management

initiatives.
As
a
part
of
this
effort,
technical
assistance
and
capacity
building
is

encouraged
across
regional
and
national
boundaries.

THE
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION
AND
RECOVERY
ACT
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES

The
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(RCRA)
is
an
amendment
to
the
Solid

Waste
Disposal
Act
of
1965
and
is
designed
to
enforce
management
standards
for

solid
and
hazardous
waste
disposal
at
the
national
level.
Following
its
passage

through
Congress
and
across
President
Ford’s
desk
in
1976,
the
provisions
of
RCRA

were
further
strengthened
by
three
subsequent
amendments,
namely
the

Hazardous
and
Solid
Waste
Amendments
(1984),
the
Federal
Facilities
Compliance

Act
(1992),
and
the
Land
Disposal
Program
Flexibility
Act
(1996).

The
goals
of
RCRA
are:
(1)
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
from
the

potential
hazards
of
waste
disposal;
(2)
to
conserve
energy
and
natural
resources;

(3)
to
reduce
the
amount
of
waste
generated;
and,
(4)
to
ensure
that
wastes
are

managed
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.
Regulations
are
developed
by
the

EPA
and
communicated
to
the
public
through
guidance
documents
and
policy

statements.
While
the
EPA
Administrator
has
enforcement
authority
over
RCRA

regulations,
48
states
have
been
empowered
to
administer
their
solid
waste

programs.
Authorized
states
must
meet
federal
standards
(EPA,
2010).
Solid
waste

falls
into
two
broad
categories
referred
to
under
RCRA
as
Subtitle
C,
or
hazardous

solid
wastes
and
Subtitle
D,
or
nonhazardous
solid
wastes
(EPA,
2008).
While
the

“nonhazardous”
classification
is
viewed
as
a
misnomer
with
respect
to
plastics,

RCRA
considers
the
material
relatively
innocuous
compared
to
classes
of
waste
that

carry
elevated
concentrations
of
toxic
material.

Subtitle
D
approach

As
a
general
rule,
the
RCRA
section
governing
management
of
nonhazardous
waste

gives
state
and
local
governments
responsibility
over
managing
wastes
such
as

20

household
garbage
and
industrial
nonhazardous
refuse.
Within
this
waste

classification,
the
EPA
provides
guidance
to
agencies
working
at
different
scales
that

are
tasked
with
design
and
implementation
of
waste
programs.
Guidance
and

facilitation
responsibilities
include
helping
states
and
counties
increase
efficiency
by

promoting
new
strategies
for
source
reduction
and
recycling,
as
well
as
requiring

improvements
or
closures
of
substandard
disposal
facilities
(EPA,
2008).

MARKET-‐BASED
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES

Waste
collection
and
disposal
services
at
the
scale
of
the
municipality
are

traditionally
funded
by
households
via
property
taxes
or
by
paying
a
fixed
rate.

Such
payment
schemes
may
not
be
as
effective
as
targeted
incentives
to
reduce

waste
volume,
sort
materials
or
recover
reusable
items.
The
trash
bottle

methodology
requires
strong
incentives
to
encourage
the
behavior
as
it
asks

consumers
to
go
well
beyond
basic
separation
of
materials
and
towards
actively

packing
waste
away
for
long-‐term
storage.
In
order
to
achieve
the
proper
buy-‐in

result,
the
incentive
must
be
sufficiently
appealing.

With
improved
awareness
and
guidance,
MSW
composition
is
being
sorted
into

recyclable
and
non-‐recyclable
categories
and
where
programs
exist,
compostable

waste.
In
most
cases,
however,
separation
of
the
waste
stream
is
entirely
voluntary.

Environmental
stewardship
must
be
rewarded
if
it
is
to
be
encouraged. Viable

solutions
are
those
that
appeal
to
the
economic
self-‐interest
of
business
and
people.

With
the
right
incentives,
the
response
is
automatic.
For
instance,
since
Ireland

placed
a
tax
on
each
plastic
bag
in
2002,
bag
use
has
dropped
by
75%
(Convery
et

al.,
2007).
Coherent
policy
rewards
good
behavior
with
incentives
and
penalizes

irresponsible
behavior
with
disincentives.

A
holistic
solid
waste
portfolio
combines
upstream
and
downstream
policies
to

drive
change.
Below
are
examples
of
policy
instruments
designed
to
influence

upstream
and
downstream
behavior,
respectively.

21

Upstream
Policy
Choices

Policies
that
target
waste
management
prior
to
commercial
distribution
of
goods

and
services
focus
on
the
upstream
dimension
of
the
waste
issue.
Although
the
trash

bottle
methodology
is
a
downstream
management
approach,
it
is
important
to

highlight
the
upstream
interventions
that
can
be
combined
with
downstream

strategies
for
an
integrated
scheme.

Extended
Producer
Responsibility
(EPR)
encourages
product
design
innovations
by

placing
a
part
of
the
waste
management
burden
on
the
producer.
Compliance
in
an

EPR
system
requires
that
producers
meet
a
take-‐back
percentage
of
the
post-‐
consumer
waste
from
their
commercial
product.
Producers
and
manufacturers
held

physically
and
ﬁnancially
responsible
for
their
end-‐of-‐life
products
are
compelled
to

innovate.
In
markets
where
EPR
may
impose
an
excessive
financial
burden
on
the

individual
producer,
a
collective
producer
responsibility
system
can
be
used
to

improve
safeguard
the
proﬁtability
of
manufacturers
(Plambeck
and
Wang,
2009;

Fleckinger
and
Glachant,
2009).

Advance
Disposal
Fee
(ADF)
is
a
fee
collected
from
consumers
or
producers
for

disposal
costs
associated
with
the
purchased
or
sold
product.
Consumers
pay
this
at

the
time
of
purchase
or
the
producers
are
charged
on
product
sales.
Generally,
in
an

ADF
system
producers
or
consumers
are
charged
per
product
or
unit
weight
sold.

With
an
ADF,
production
and
consumption
are
expected
to
decrease
and
thus,
less

virgin
material
would
be
used
(Walls,
2006).
If
an
ADF
is
charged
per
unit
weight
of

the
product,
then
product
design
can
be
improved
as
producers
try
to
reduce
the

size
and
the
weight
of
their
products.

Downstream
Policy
Choices

The
goal
for
resolving
the
plastics
issue
should
be
to
replace
all
the
non-‐
biodegradable
varieties.
Change
comes
from
the
bottom
up,
however,
and
therefore

awareness
about
socially
and
ecologically
responsible
consumer
behavior
is
of

paramount
importance.
Downstream
policies
can
drive
this
change.

22

Pigouvian
Tax
-‐-‐
Given
our
limited
understanding
of
the
temporal
and
spatial

dimensions
of
the
waste
problem,
quantification
of
the
marginal
external
costs
of

waste
disposal
has
been
problematic
and
thus
more
easily
set
aside.
In
economics,
a

“Pigouvian
tax”
is
a
corrective
tax
designed
to
resolve
the
externality
issue.
The
tax

amount
is
roughly
equal
to
the
marginal
external
cost
of
the
polluting
activity
or

product.
This
can
only
be
an
estimate
by
virtue
of
the
nonmarket
characteristics
of

externalities.
Nevertheless,
this
economic
instrument
is
a
noninvasive
tool
designed

to
remedy
a
market
failure
and
raise
revenue
for
corrective
action
(Mankiw,
2009).

In
the
case
of
solid
waste,
a
per
unit
tax
might
be
imposed
on
a
good,
based
on
its

disposal
costs,
and
paid
for
by
either
the
producer
or
directly
by
the
consumer.
As

such,
the
Pigouvian
tax
can
internalize
the
waste
externality
by
revealing
hidden

costs
to
producers
and
consumers.
Correspondingly,
a
Pigouvian
subsidy
achieves
a

similar
end
by
rewarding
good
behavior
that
offsets
an
externality.

Deposit
–
Refund
is
a
system
that
can
be
used
to
control
pollution
in
much
the
same

way
as
a
Pigouvian
tax
and
subsidy.
In
a
deposit-‐refund
system,
a
tax
on
production

or
consumption
is
associated
with
a
subsidy
proportional
to
product
recyclability.
A

recycling
subsidy,
when
combined
with
an
advanced
disposal
fee,
is
an
example
of

such
a
system.
Walls
explains
how
theoretical
models
have
shown
that
alternative

policies
for
correcting
waste
disposal
behavior
such
as
recycled
content
standards

and
virgin
materials
taxes
are
inferior
to
a
deposit-‐refund
because
they
are
less

tangible
to
the
average
consumer.

Relative
to
trash
bottles,
an
ADF
may
be
assigned
to
all
products
that
contain
single-‐
use
plastics
such
as
LDPE
film,
and
HDPE
and
PET
bottles.
The
ADF
would
be

calculated
based
on
the
volume
of
the
taxable
material
in
each
unit.
Collectors
of

materials
would
receive
a
refund
for
delivery
of
trash
bottles
to
a
redemption

center.
The
product
tax
would
benefit
upstream
processes
by
encouraging

producers
to
improve
product
design
and
material
composition.
By
giving
a

redemption
value
to
the
trash
bottle
using
a
refund,
a
currency
for
this
particular

23

waste
product
is
created
when
managed
in
this
simple
way.
Until
waste
holds
an

exchange
value,
it
will
continue
to
be
wasted.

The
deposit-‐refund
system
is
most
commonly
associated
with
beverage
containers.

This
strategy
is
being
implemented
in
ten
U.S.
States
and
eight
Canadian
Provinces.

The
approach
is
also
used
for
other
products
including
lead-‐acid
batteries,
tires,

motor
oil,
and
electronics
(Walls,
2011).
The
programs
have
successfully

transformed
nonrecyclers
into
diligent
recyclers
according
to
Viscusi
et
al.
(2011),

who
explain
that
87%
of
their
survey
respondents
reported
recycling
80%
of
their

plastic
bottles
whereas
non
deposit-‐refund
states
recycle
an
average
of
only
53%.

Oregon
was
the
first
state
in
the
United
States
to
introduce
a
‘bottle
bill’
in
1971.
The

most
common
implementation
method
of
the
bottle
bill
uses
the
retailer
as
the

primary
agent
who
charges
the
deposit
fee
for
beverage
containers,
transferring
the

deposit
expense
to
the
consumer,
and
finally
reimburses
the
consumer
upon
receipt

of
the
returned
bottle.
Retailers
agree
to
provide
this
service
because
they
keep

deposits,
usually
five
or
ten
cents,
on
containers
that
go
unreturned
(Oregon
DEQ,

2012).

Hawaii
and
California
employ
a
slightly
different
approach
where
retailers’
only

responsibility
is
the
collection
of
deposits
that
are
then
turned
over
to
the
state
via

the
beverage
distributors.
Consumers
return
the
containers
to
a
variety
of

redemption
locations
and
uncollected
deposits
remain
with
the
state.
This
version

of
the
deposit-‐refund
system
may
be
more
appropriate
for
a
trash
bottle
program

given
the
added
value
of
the
bottle’s
contents.
A
funding
strategy
could
place
an
ADF

on
all
plastic
packaging
material.
The
redemption
value
for
a
trash
bottle
would
be

significantly
greater
than
an
empty
bottle
given
the
extra
effort
required.
The
value

might
be
based
on
bottle
size
or
weight
as
well
as
local
socioeconomic
factors.

The
efficiency
of
the
deposit-‐refund
system
has
been
tested
against
alternative

policies
that
seek
to
reduce
disposal
such
as
recycled
content
standards,
recycling

subsidies,
product
taxes,
take-‐back
mandates,
waste
disposal
fees
and
virgin

24

materials
taxes
(Walls,
2011).
Walls
(2011)
asserts
that
the
deposit-‐refund
system

provides
incentives
for
both
source
reduction
and
recycling
whereas
upstream
taxes

such
as
virgin
material
taxes
or
downstream
recycling
subsidies
alone
will
not

generate
a
socially
optimum
balance.
She
goes
on
to
say
that
recycling
subsidies

make
secondary
materials
cheaper
in
the
production
of
new
products
thereby

increasing
volume,
while
taxes
on
virgin
materials
does
nothing
to
incentivize

recycling.

Pay-‐As-‐You-‐Throw
(PAYT)
is
a
program
that
uses
a
unit-‐based
pricing
strategy
to

minimize
curbside
waste.
A
per-‐bag
fee
for
collection
and
landfill
disposal
actively

encourages
better
household
waste
management.
In
the
absence
of
illegal
disposal

opportunities,
this
policy
successfully
reduces
household
solid
waste
volume

(Jenkins,
1993).
According
to
the
EPA,
PAYT
communities
generate
49%
less
trash

than
those
who
pay
indirectly
for
waste
collection
services
through
property
taxes

or
with
a
fixed
fee.
Communities
that
implement
PAYT
have
observed
residents

rethinking
their
personal
waste
management
activities
(paytnow.org).
With
new

disincentives,
recycling
is
increasing,
food
waste
and
yard
trimmings
are
being

composted,
and
reusable
items
are
being
donated
or
resold.
Currently
there
are

over
7,000
U.S.-‐based
PAYT
communities.
Program
beneficiaries
average
467

pounds
per
capita
in
waste
disposal
compared
to
918
pounds
per
capita
in
the
non-‐
PAYT
municipalities.
Recycling
rates
in
the
first
year
of
PAYT
increase
between
25%

and
69%
(paytnow.org).

An
alternative
scheme
known
as
the
Recycling
Rewards
Program
incentivizes

recycling
by
rewarding
individuals
with
coupons
that
can
be
used
at
local
retail

stores
according
to
the
amount
of
waste
they
have
recycled.
Based
on
results
from

the
pilot
program
in
Miami,
Florida,
although
there
was
a
resulting
increase
in

recycling,
the
‘carrot’
approach
of
recycling
incentives
was
determined
to
be
less

effective
than
the
‘stick’
approach
of
PAYT
(Letcher
and
Valero,
2011).
Relating
this

back
to
trash
bottles,
while
a
cash
refund
may
be
more
effective,
a
modified

Recycling
Rewards
Program
is
another
option
for
the
toolbox.

25

MSW
MANAGEMENT

The
MSW
stream
occupies
a
key
position
in
waste
management
discussions
since
it

is
the
most
public
representation
of
current
efforts
(Letcher
and
Valero,
2011).
Its

management
can
be
quite
complex
as
nuanced
local
and
regional
approaches
are

influenced
by
socioeconomic
and
political
factors.
MSW
policy
guides
collective

behavior
and
can
educate
the
public
about
the
material
‘throughputs’
in
our

economy,
product
lifecycles,
and
the
importance
of
social
and
environmental

responsibility
from
extraction
of
resource
to
ultimate
disposal.

As
the
trends
in
the
plastics
market
demonstrate,
production
is
accelerating
in
spite

of
advances
in
the
development
of
bioplastics.
Without
an
anticipated
shift
in

production
practices
on
the
horizon,
management
of
postconsumer
plastic
waste
is

exceedingly
important.

TRADITIONAL
APPROACHES

In
the
industrialized
world,
the
traditional
municipal
waste
management
approach

includes
collection,
recycling,
pretreatment,
treatment,
and
disposal
(Letcher
and

Valero,
2011).
In
cities
where
the
landfills
border
marginalized
communities,
“rag

pickers”
perform
a
recovery
service.
Figure
3
tracks
the
material
loop
of
plastics.

26

Source:
United
Nations
Environment
Program,
2009

Recycling

Recycling
is
a
useful
process
not
only
in
extending
material
life
spans,
saving
energy

and
reducing
demand
on
virgin
materials,
but
also
in
building
public
awareness

about
the
importance
of
waste
separation.
Unfortunately,
the
infrastructure,
energy

and
institutional
requirements
are
out
of
reach
for
most
municipalities.
As
of
2010,

approximately
9,000
curbside
recycling
programs
existed
in
the
United
States,

providing
coverage
to
three
quarters
of
the
total
population
(EPA,
2010).
In
spite
of

the
widespread
availability
of
recycling
services
in
the
U.S.,
only
8%
of
all
plastics

are
recovered
while
the
remainder
is
sent
to
landfills
(EPA,
2010).
Yet
when
PET

bottles,
for
example,
are
given
a
redemption
value
they
have
a
38%
recovery
rate

(EPA,
2008).
As
such,
the
plastic
pollution
challenge
will
not
be
resolved
simply
by

encouraging
voluntary
recycling,
especially
in
a
global
context.
Furthermore,

perpetuating
the
myth
of
plastic
recycling
as
a
solution
is
delaying
the
adoption
of

Figure
3.
Waste
Plastics
Pathways

27

effective
and
sustainable
strategies
such
as
biodegradable
alternatives.
In
its
current

form,
plastics
recycling
should
be
regarded
as
a
last
line
of
defense
in
order
to
keep

items
out
of
the
landfill
and
slow
the
pace
of
natural
resource
consumption.

The
recycling
process
involves
five
basic
steps:
1)
collection,
2)
manual
sorting,
3)

chipping,
4)
washing,
and
5)
pelleting.
Plastics
collection
occurs
at
both
the
post-‐
industrial
and
post-‐consumer
end.
The
manual
sorting
process
depends
on
the

sophistication
of
the
system.
For
example,
a
less
sophisticated
system
might
only

separate
plastics
into
PET,
HDPE
and
“other.”

Only
1/10th
of
the
energy
required
to
create
plastic
from
its
petrochemical
raw

materials
is
needed
to
recycle
plastics
(Kazmeyer,
2009).
However,
as
a
result
of

changes
in
the
chemical
structure
during
the
recycling
process,
most
plastics

become
products
of
a
lesser
quality
once
recycled,
for
which
reason
many
refer
to

the
process
as
“downcycling”
(McDonough
&
Braungart,
2002).
Once
used,
a
PET

bottle
or
HDPE
container
can
be
downcycled
only
once,
into
polypropylene,
before

ultimate
disposal.
This
is
not
sustainable.
Despite
the
reduced
energy
expenditure,
it

still
costs
more
to
recycle
PET
than
to
produce
new
plastics
from
virgin
materials

(Kuruppalil,
2011).

LDPE
film
is
typically
not
accepted
for
comingled
recycling
where
curbside

programs
exist
because
it
tends
to
clog
processing
machines
(American
Chemistry

Council,
2010).
It
has
a
relatively
high
value
as
scrap,
but
like
any
lightweight

material
it
is
difficult
to
consolidate
enough
of
it
to
justify
the
shipping
costs.
Plastic

bag
and
film
recovery
has
increased
in
the
US
to
nearly
50%
since
2005
to
an

estimated
971.8
million
pounds,
or
12%
of
the
total
amount
generated
(American

Chemistry
Council,
2010).

Recovery
options
for
LDPE
film
are
limited
for
consumers
and
consist
mostly
of
the

voluntary
delivery
to
big
box
stores
such
as
supermarkets
that
go
on
to
sell
large

volumes
for
scrap.
Increasing
numbers
of
businesses
are
recovering
their
internally

generated
scrap
film,
and
recyclers
and
haulers
are
more
willing
to
handle
film

Trash Bottle Capstone LBattle

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Trash Bottle Capstone LBattle

Similar to Trash Bottle Capstone LBattle (20)

Trash Bottle Capstone LBattle