1

League Study Pages:

REDUCE – REUSE – RECYCLE – Is it Time to Rethink Recycling?

INTRODUCTION: If you live in the Cincinnati area, you most likely practice curbside recycling as a way of reducing the household waste going into the landfill. You carefully sort out the recyclable materials – plastic bottles & jugs, rinsed glass

jars & bottles, beverage cans, cardboard, paper, clean pizza boxes – from the non-recyclables – single-use plastic bags, Styrofoam, electronics, paints, clothing, and you take difficult-to-recycle items to local outlet centers. As a conscious consumer, you assume that your choices are helping the local economy and protecting the global environment. But are they? The science of recycling is changing every year. New studies tell us that our current recycling practices may not provide the most sustainable solution in the long run. As we continue practicing the 3 “R’s” we must remind ourselves that Recycle is not the first “R” on the list. The other “R’s” may deserve more attention: Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Reclaim, Refurbish, Redesign, Refuse... and Rethink! These pages provide an update on the changing costs and benefits of recycling in America.

STUDY QUESTIONS: In preparing these study pages, the Natural Resources Committee would like to invite our members to join us in thinking more broadly about “recycling” as it is currently practiced and to add your own thoughts. Here are some study questions for reflection as you prepare for discussion:

1. This past year of COVID has changed the ways many of us are living our lives. Are there any lessons you have learned that can be applied to reducing waste in our society? (Cooking, Gardening, Sewing, Crafts, Purchasing?)

2. What shopping choices might you change as a consumer to reduce waste even if it means changing your lifestyle? (Buy less; Reuse or sell what you no longer use; Use your purchasing power as consumers to reduce the market for recycled materials.)

3. We all know that earth is drowning in excess consumer products – plastic, clothing, electronics, paper. Why do you think this problem seems so difficult to solve? What incentives do manufacturers need to make them more accountable for the costs of waste disposal, such as including these costs in the price their products? Is that desirable?

4. What part can the government play in incentivizing better use of our resources? (Legislation, Taxes, Regulatory Agencies.)

5. If you were to make legislative changes, what would you prioritize? (Change campaign financing so that corporations are not influencing legislators; Lobby against pre-emptive legislation at the State level; Lobby against corporate bribery of legislators.) 6. What solutions would you propose to make recycling viable, both economically and environmentally? (Move the costs of waste disposal from municipalities to the consumer; move the costs of recycling from the consumer to the manufacturer; Share the costs among all entities involved in the throw-away economy – municipalities, consumers, and manufacturers; Move toward a zero-waste circular economy).

REFUSE

REDUCE REUSE/ REPAIR RECYCLE – In That Order

2

STUDY PAGES: We have tried to cover the topic in a fully comprehensive way: from the history of recycling in America and current practices in our region to a reconsideration of the economic and environmental benefits of recycling and products being designed for a more sustainable future. There are two ways to cover the material: For a quick overview, scan the following introductory summaries. For more details on each topic, click the link that most interests you. (For further study, follow the links provided in the list of resources.)

History of Household Recycling in America. How did we manage our waste before we entered the age of mass marketing and consumer culture? In the last hundred years, Americans have become hooked on disposability, the lure of convenience, a taste for novelty, constant technological change and planned obsolescence. Recycling practices expanded in the 70s, but so has consumer trash! Sorting trash for recycling – which people used to do for money – has become a moral act, a symbol of care for the environment. But recycling and reuse have limited impact on long-term solutions to environmental health. Can we recycle our way out of this crisis?

Curbside Recycling in Cincinnati: This section focuses on municipal recycling and composting programs and how they are currently managed in our area. What can we do as consumers to make our household recycling more economically and environmentally viable, at least in the short run? Can we create a culture of reuse though education using the reusable bag as an entry point toward additional waste reduction in the household? Or are these practices sustainable in the long run considering the growing concerns about the 12,000 chemicals used in plastic packaging, many of which migrate into our food and become hazardous to human and environmental health? But now the plastics industry seems to have convinced federal and state regulators to roll back laws that reduce single-use plastic. Preemption laws like HB 242 infringe upon municipal Home Rule giving localities limited rights concerning the protection of health, safety, and the power to regulate waste. Taxpayers must pick up the tab for cleanup of escalating single-use plastic pollution.

Recycling in Hamilton County: What role does Rumpke and other disposal centers play in our recycling practices? How much waste can it accept in the landfill? How much waste is actually recycled? Should the costs to the environment and to human health be distributed among municipalities, consumers, and manufacturers? Must our local governments mandate the repurposing of recycled plastic? Or does this just mandate more plastic

production! Is it time to add a new “R” to the three Rs: REFUSE? Can consumers empower our retail businesses, restaurants, cafés, and venues to break free from plastic packaging, especially if plastic containers are cheaper than more sustainable alternatives?

The Circular Economy: This section discusses innovative ideas for a larger system change so we can build a stronger, more sustainable future together. In a circular economy, waste becomes a renewable resource in a reiterating cycle. Can we reimagine a future with food delivery systems built on clean, sanitized reusable containers? How much less waste would be generated if we had this in place already! But it is not clear that such a circular economy is feasible in this globalized world where economies depend on continual growth for survival. Currently, the emerging circular economy is not replacing the linear economy; it's merely running parallel to it!

Imagine a Future with Less Plastic: Innovative Solutions on the Market. This section reports new package-free household products currently being sold that can wean us away from our wasteful lifestyles. Profiting from the lessons of our frugal past such as the reusable milk bottle, we can create new systems that provide clean, sanitized reusable containers for bulk purchasing on deposit. Not only is sustainable consumption essential for the future of our oceans, climate, and communities; ultimately, it is better for business. Retailers stand to gain and retain customers, reduce costs, and increase profitability, whilst customers can enjoy better service, collect rewards, and tailor grocery shopping to their individual needs.

Resource Materials

3

Household Recycling in America 1850 – 2020

1850 –1950: Before the twentieth century, trash was nearly nonexistent . There were no blue recycling

bins, no sorting, no recycling trucks rumbling down the alley. Recycling collection as we know it did not

exist. But, if creative reuse counts as “recycling,” people were much better at it then. With goods and

money scarce, almost everything was reused. Creative recycling was a part of everyday resource

management. Food scraps went into the soup; worn fabric was made into new clothes, quilts, or rag rugs. If a dress

went out of style, you added new buttons or sent it back to the dressmaker to fashion a trendier frock .

Product quality was valued because it ensured durability. The closest 19th-century equivalent to

modern-day recycling was the ragman, who went from house to house to buy old cloth for an

international trade in rags to make into paper. Leftover beef bones could make ferti l izer; organic scraps

were fed to the animals. Pigs roaming the streets cleaned up the rest. During World War II, people

recycled nylons, tin cans, old rubber, wastepaper, cooking fats and even the tin in toothpaste tubes for

the war effort. The “salvage efforts” of WWII in the US peaked in 1944 with an estimated 40% recycling

rate!

1950 – 1970: What happened in the 50s, 60s and 70s wasn’t that recycling was invented, but the reasons for it changed. Rather

than recycle to get the most out of materials, the post-war period gave rise to a consumer culture and a throw-away economy.

Single-use items were the norm and thought to be a necessary part of modern life; new was better than old; cheap disposable items

were more convenient; quick profits benefitted the consumer economy more than the creation of durable quality goods. Many assume that the first

curbside recycling programs were linked to the environmental movement in the 70s, a decade inspired by Rachel Carson’s science

of ecology, Lyndon Johnson’s new environmental legislation, the creation of the EPA and the first Earth Day. But most Americans

didn’t think about reducing waste until the landfil ls started fi ll ing up in the latter half of the 20 t h century.

1980 – 2020: Recycling municipal garbage grew in popularity over the last quarter of the 20th century, and over time, the methods of collection

became more refined. Over the past four decades, garbage pickup, one of the core responsibilities of major American cities, was augmented by the

collection of recyclables—typically paper, glass, metals, and plastic. Cities arranged to collect paper, metals, glass, and plastic in a “single stream” as a

way to encourage residents to participate. Items would then be separated by municipal employees or a private contractor or facility. The concept of

Zero Waste took hold in the new millennium, challenging people to produce less waste by considering the front end of the

problem—the disposable products people use – instead of just the back end. Producing goods that leave a small environmental

footprint is extremely challenging and requires a complete culture shift. In some cases, the 19th century lessons have even

become trendy. (Reused materials were recrafted and sold as vintage products. Rag paper is a popular choice for wedding

invitations.)

2021: Household recycling programs have been sold to taxpayers as a win-win, financially and environmentally. Cities expected to reap budget

savings through the sale of recyclable materials, and conscientious taxpayers expected to reduce ecological destruction. Materials would be

reprocessed and used as newsprint, bottles, or cans, while the markets for such materials would make it possible to cover the costs of collection and

reprocessing. Instead, the painful reality for enthusiastic recyclers is that most recycling programs don’t make much environmental sense. Often, they

don’t make economic sense, either. These facts became more dramatically clear when in 2018 China suddenly changed its policy of accepting

“foreign trash,” partly because much of the material was not recyclable or it was contaminated. The chief buyers of American recyclable

goods had been Asian countries, chiefly China, where wages were low enough to justify labor-intensive recycling operations. Reduced demand sent

prices tumbling and the market for recyclables collapsed. It remains true that recyclable materials such as paper, cloth, glass, and metal can profitably be

recycled—but there is no assurance that this is happening in the case of plastics.

American municipalities over the past three decades have devised their own models for best recycling practices. In San Jose, for example, they pay by the size

of the container for both trash and for recycling, so anything they throw away costs them, a program called Pay-as-You-Throw. It made them more

conscious about what they throw away and what they buy in the first place. More than 5,000 cities in the US have adopted this pricing model. It’s

questionable whether cities should bear the brunt of trash disposal and recycling costs. Producers, retailers, and users should perhaps all have a stake

in the cost of end-of-life costs of their products. Mechanisms that require consumers to pay a redeemable deposit at purchase can be applied as a way

to incentivize stores, restaurants, and consumers to find more sustainable alternatives. These programs are called Extended Producer Responsibility

programs and are very popular in Canada. But when washing dishes becomes more expensive than purchasing disposable dishes, or when it becomes

cheaper to replace items rather than to repair them, we must question the sustainability of our practices and our susceptibility to the “tyranny of

convenience.” Although the manufacture of new products from repurposed stock does reduce resource extraction and avoids emissions associated with

landfilling and incineration, industrial recycling has its own environmental drawbacks such as the burning of fossil fuels in the processing and

transportation of recyclables. Many western recyclables have ended up polluting the seas, because these materials were sent to Asian, Latin American,

and African waste-processing facilities that allowed plastics to leak into rivers—a phenomenon that is responsible for virtually all the consumer plastics

that wind up in the oceans. However, adding recyclables to the trash stream is not the answer, because more fossil fuels are burned in the collection of

trash, the burying process at landfills, and the methane and CO2 emissions from the landfills. Programs of the 21st century must address reductions in

fossil fuel usage, in landfilling and disposal dependance, and in single-use product dependance. Programs need to first looks toward product design for

longevity and recyclability/ reuse or compostability. All industrial and consumer products need to be structured in a circular economy where the products

can be reutilized at the end of its useful life. We need to stop planning for disposal and start working toward a circularity of product streams.

.

4

Curbside Recycling in Cincinnati 1998–2021

Ever since its inception in 1998, the City’s curbside recycling has been one of the more popular

services that the City provides. People “feel good” when they are being environmentally

responsible. A contract was signed in 2004 with Rumpke renewable annually. The Environmental

Advisory Council to the City’s Office of Environment and Sustainability reported in 2007 that recycling

also provided economic benefits that offset the costs to the City to recycle. But due to declines in its

collection of recycled materials, there was a need to develop a recycling promotion plan to increase the

waste tonnage from 9.19 % to 15% in 4 years . To make recycling economically viable, EAC proposed a final goal be

set at 25%. Residents were provided recycling bins, and the three R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) became the mantra for

addressing the challenge of consumer waste and limiting the stream of materials headed for the landfills and the incinerators.

Local businesses are encouraged to maximize the purchase of products that used recycled material or to create new products that

use recycled materials.

Styrofoam (EPS – expanded polystyrene) is a widely used plastics resin around the world. It cannot be recycled curbside and it lasts forever in the

landfill. Because of negative its environmental and economic impacts, it is often banned by municipalities. Since it has properties that make it difficult to

recycle at traditional recycling facilities, it has to be taken to the right location. Eco Development LLC, based in Mason Ohio, now accepts Styrofoam for

recycling.

In many cities there is a growing concern that recycling single-use consumer plastic yields neither environmental nor economic benefits. In fact, it leads

to appreciable costs to our environment and to our health. Of the billions of metric tons of plastic waste that are produced on the planet, only 9% is

recycled, 12% is incinerated, 79% is discarded into landfills and the natural environment – ultimately into our oceans, our food chains, and our bodies.

Consider the fact that all plastics are originally made from fossil-fuels. As consumers, we drive the “need” for more production of plastics, thus driving the

production of fossil-fuel processing facilities and the development of new ethane "cracker" facilities.

The process of recycling plastic is not as simple as recycling paper, glass and metals, because the greater number of steps involved for extracting dyes,

fillers and other additives that can be found in “virgin” plastic. First step in their recycling is sorting by the type of resin that is in their structure (seven

basic types) and in some cases additionally sorted by color. After that, plastic is chopped into small pieces, cleaned to remove debris and small residue,

melted down and compressed into pellets called “nurdles.” These small pellets are then transported to plastic processing plants where they are

introduced into manufacturing process. The very process of recycling plastic into new product yields an increase in carbon emissions. These nurdles are

now found polluting our rivers and streams with microplastic and toxic contaminants.

Past Plastic Cincinnati: A grassroots campaign to ban single-use plastics Spearheaded 12 years ago by two UC students and sponsored by the Sierra Club, the campaign grew into a coalition of

sixteen non-profits including the League of Women Voters. Our work involves engaging community groups and educating

the public about the harms of runaway plastic consumption and the hidden costs to human and ecological health. Among

our actions: a community screening of the documentary Bag It! at the Esquire with Denise Driehaus; distributing hand-

made T-shirt reusable bags; producing a short film and a PowerPoint presentation to educate the community and the city

council on the dangers of plastic to life on the planet; distributing reusable bags at fresh markets with a grant from Make

Cincinnati Beautiful; Earth Day presentations at Blue Ash fair, GE, Union Terminal; working with Kroger to ban plastic

bags in grocery stores; community screenings and discussions of the documentaries The Story of Plastic and Plastic

Wars.

Past Plastic Cincinnati successfully lobbied City Council to pass legislation banning single-use plastic bags in Cincinnati in 2020. The ban is currently on

hold due to the passage of Ohio House Bill 242, which prohibits such bans on plastic containers in municipalities such as Cincinnati. This kind of

preemptive state legislation is in fact a violation of home rule. We know that such legislation is being pushed by entities associated with the gas and oil

industry and is related to “cracker plants” (which transform the ethane in natural gas into ethylene, the feedstock for plastic production.)

Past Plastic Cincinnati is now rethinking its battle lines: We back the efforts of Ohio River Guardians and

the Sierra Club of Ohio who are taking the fight to its source by leveraging consumer buying power to

reduce the market for plastic. We are sharing our road map with other Ohio towns who seek to craft their

own bans and join in facilitating a statewide movement. We strongly oppose the “Appalachian

Petrochemical Hub” that plans to manufacture more plastic and pollute air and water with toxic

chemicals, including dangerous PFAS (“forever chemicals”) and microplastics. Is plastic the new coal in

Appalachia? Industrial facilities called “cracker plants,” being installed on the banks of the Ohio River,

manufacture the feedstock for plastic production. We support the Break Free from Plastic Act, legislation

that stops plastic pollution at its source and boosts investments in our domestic recycling and composting infrastructure. As consumers, we must call out

the world’s top polluters and make them – their markets and their consumers – answerable for the true cost to the planet.

Finally, Past Plastic Cincinnati is exploring innovative alternatives to plastic packaging, bottles, straws, and Styrofoam, and considering current models

for zero-waste shopping in a circular economy. What did we do before plastic? (See more on the “Circular Economy” LINK 5 below.)

Recycling in Hamilton County 2021:

5

Forty-eight different political jurisdictions fall within the Hamilton County Recycling and Solid Waste District and almost all provide some form of recycling

for their residents. For material that is not picked up by waste hauler, this is a link where to take electronics, hazardous waste, and recycling events. It

will tell you outlets that accept paint. It lists the three Hamilton County spots for yard waste recycling, construction and demolition debris, food and other

home waste. A map on the site shows all the neighborhood recycling, disposal and yard waste sites across Hamilton County. Every neighborhood has a

close, convenient disposal site if you have access to a car. Residents - Recycling and Solid Waste (hamiltoncountyrecycles.org) The table below shows

the top ten Hamilton County community's diversion rates for 2019:

Rumpke is the largest landfill to natural gas plant in world. For nearly a century, the Rumpke Family has operated one of the nation’s

largest waste and recycling companies providing residential and commercial trash, yard-waste pickup. and recycling services to Ohio,

Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia. They can heat 25,000 homes and run 12 of their trucks on the gas they capture and process from

the landfill methane. The facility is equipped to take in 600 tons of trash a day. There is 25 more years of space at the Colerain

Township site for garbage. It accepts trash from four states: Ohio Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia. Glass makes up 15%-20% of

the recycling material. Glass is shipped to Dayton Glass Recovery Facility. Rumpke has never exported recycled materials to China

and only accepts post-consumer material that has a proven, long-term end market. Yet costs to landfills, recycling facilities, and sewer

maintenance is heavy. 1.5 trillion reusable plastic bags are produced yearly and only 1% are recycled. ODOT spent $40 M in the last 10

years to pick up litter. Costs to the environment, in terms of carbon footprint and contamination of our drinking water, are incalculable.

Starting January 1, 2021, Rumpke accepts PolyPropylene plastics (PP) for recycling (#5 yogurt, milk, shampoo, detergent containers).

They ship these to Troy, AL. Rumpke now advertises they collect #1, #2, and #5. Although they collect #1-#7, they don’t accept mixed

plastics (#3,4,6,7) since there is no end market for them. These are also shipped along with the PP to the Brightmark plant in Indiana.

They have plans to build 20 more plants in the next 10 years. Much of the material comes from manufacturing waste and that it is itself

a non-toxic process. For the latest guide to household recycling, here is a link: The Puzzle of Plastics Recycling, By the Numbers |

Cohen Recycling (cohenusa.com). See Flyer for recycling #5 plastic at end of these pages.

A new recycling service, PureCycle Technologies, broke ground in 2021 on a plant near Hanging Rock in Ironton, Ohio in 2021.

PureCycle Technologies sees plastic waste as a renewable resource that can be used infinitely. This recycling service converts waste

plastic into virgin-like plastic fully closing the loop on the reuse of recycled plastics while making recycled polypropylene more

accessible at scale to companies desiring to use a sustainable, recycled resin. Processed recyclables are all marketed within a 300-

mile radius of Cincinnati. Upon completion, PureCycle’s first plant is expected to produce over 105 million pounds of ultra-pure recycled

polypropylene (UPRP) per year, which will be used in consumer goods packaging, home furnishings, and other applications that

currently have very limited options for recycled PP today. It has a patent on cleaning all plastic making even old toothbrushes

recyclable. P&G currently makes the plastics into nurdles and sells the clear plastic to make medical devices. These nurdles, they

claim, are shipped to materials recovery facilities (MRF’s) and are not disposed into the Ohio River.

Ranking Community Diversion Rate

1 Blue Ash 67.40%

2 Amberley 61.08%

3 Mariemont 56.07%

4 Wyoming 50.57%

5 Terrace Park 43.88%

6 Montgomery 38.70%

7 Indian Hill 33.08%

8 Woodlawn 32.03%

9 Madeira 29.94%

10 Glendale 27.77%

6

Building a Resilient Future: The Circular Economy

The idea of a modern society built around nature's circular systems first

emerged in economist Kenneth Boulding's 1966 essay "The Economics

of the Coming Spaceship Earth." In it, Boulding described the urgent

need to transition away from an "open economy" of careless resource

extraction, production, and consumption to a "closed Earth"—a cyclical

economic system that preserves and maintains resources by creating

products that never wear out. Recycling is just one piece of the

integrated strategy needed: swapping virgin materials with recycled

ones, making more efficient use of materials, and extending product life

through good design and solid construction. "If humans are truly going to

prosper," says William McDonough (often called the father of the circular

economy), "we will have to learn to imitate nature's highly effective

cradle-to-cradle system (C2C design) of nutrient flow and metabolism, in

which the very concept of waste does not exist." (Example: waste=food.

Organic waste becomes food for bugs who decompose it to make soil

which is used indirectly for making our food. Or a disposable cup made

of biological materials. After use, the cup can be cleaned and reused for

a refund, or returned to natural environment, saving costs of disposal in

landfill or recycling.)

A circular economy, by definition, is regenerative by design, aiming to keep resources and product circulating at high value via supply

chains for as long as possible. The simplest way to depict a circular economy is to contrast it with a linear economy. In a linear economy,

materials flow in a straight line from resource extraction through manufacturing, to landfill (Take – Make – Waste). A linear economy is

characterized by two unsustainable processes: resource scarcity and excessive pollution load. Both cause ecosystem degradation,

wealth concentrations, and social inequities. A circular economy aims to overcome these nested problems through intelligent design

inspired by nature’s genius, which reuses and redevelops resources already operating within the production cycle by renewable means.

In this way, Industrial systems function more like ecosystems. Waste becomes a renewable resource in a reiterating cycle. Extended

producer responsibility (EPR) is an increasingly popular policy approach that makes companies responsible not just for creating goods

but for managing them post-use.

The United Nations identifies circularity as a key pillar of its Sustainable Development Goals. Like other utopian environmental theories

before it, the circular economy promises to decouple economic growth from our endless consumption of stuff, but are its proponents

really offering a planet-saving paradigm shift, or just another version of something we've tried and failed at for decades?

But despite decades of enthusiasm about the circular economy, today's world is much

further away from being sustainable than in 2002 when Cradle to Cradle was written.

Most big businesses that are exploring circularity aren't doing so at the expense of their

main revenue streams. The circular economy may not be replacing the linear economy;

may simply be running parallel to it! In other words, circularity is being positioned as a

way to drive new growth, not necessarily as a way to cut down on the use of raw

materials. Because the total consumption of resources is growing by about 3 percent

every year, it's difficult to make every new thing out of old things, which means recycled

material will always be in competition with virgin material. The whole point, the only point,

of reusing and recycling is so we make less new stuff. And that may not be happening!

So will the Circular Economy save the world? No, says Elizabeth Cline, author of an article in Sierra Magazine that poses the question.

The circular economy is not going to save the world. But it's still a useful framework for pushing for change, she says. It's the thing

that's going to help us get through the next few decades to change behaviors and make us realize that we have a problem and that we

also have the ability to do something about it.

Innovative Solutions for a Life without Plastic

7

Can you imagine a supermarket with no plastic? This is not a pie-in-the-sky notion. The concept is being launched in countries around

the world. We are now awake to the impact of single-use plastics and packaging on the environment and communities especially in

highly affected countries. Yet without decisive action, plastic production is set to quadruple by 2050.

Break-Free-From-Plastic communities around the world are taking steps to accelerate a systematic shift away from single-use plastics

and towards reuse systems. They are championing smart packaging solutions that can be returned, refilled, and reused. While the task

is substantial, viable solutions are already available. In Europe, the Smart Supermarket has become the new standard in modern retail.

Ohio’s first bulk food, zero-waste, and refill stores are opening their doors in Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, and ToledBut if this growing

movement is to put a stop to the plastic pollution crisis, major retailers and consumer goods companies must listen to what people are

already demanding. Not only is sustainable consumption essential for the future of our oceans, climate, and communities; ultimately, it

is better for business. Retailers stand to gain and retain customers, reduce costs, and increase profitability, whilst customers can enjoy

better service, collect rewards, and tailor grocery shopping to their individual needs.

Zero-Waste Shopping in Reusable Containers with Return Schemes

“Food in the Nude” – No Plastic Packaging for Fresh Produce

8

Five Tips to Recycle Less – from David Susuki

Tip one: Shop smarter. Beware of excess packaging from all consumer goods — food, personal care products and electronics, even organic,

local, non-toxic and GMO-free stuff. Substitute: Make toothpaste with baking soda, coconut oil and a few drops of peppermint essential oil or try brands packaged in glass (reusable) containers instead of a plastic tube in a paper box.

Tip two: Never recycle another glass jar! They’re easy to wash (dishwasher-friendly), have an air-tight seal, freeze well and don’t

leach toxics like Bisphenol-A (BPA). Substitute: Store leftovers and dry goods (instead of buying containers) or pack your lunch in glass jars. Note: Depending on the distance of your work commute, you might choose stainless steel lunch containers because glass is heavy.

Tip three: Reduce is the first “R”. It’s time for a plastic diet! Buy fewer prepared foods, buy in bulk and pack waste-free lunches.

Substitute: Eat a lot of yogurt from plastic tubs? Maybe it’s time to invest in a yogurt maker!

Tip four: Make your own cleaners. Stop recycling plastic tubs, jugs and spray bottles from household cleaners. Substitute: To a seven-

liter pail of hot water, add one cup of baking soda, 1/3-cup of salt and one cup of liquid castile soap. Use a ½-cup per load of laundry.

Tip five: Fix it. Thanks to planned obsolescence most consumer goods are designed to fail. And household items have become cheaper to

replace than to repair. Although most state have recycling programs for large and small appliances, try fixing things first. Substitute: Some places have public workshops or host repair cafés. Check and see if there’s one near you.

Dissolving Laundry Sheets

2 - in -1 Shampoo & Conditioner Bar

Bamboo Toothbrushes

Bamboo Toilet Paper

Zero Waste Laundry Powder

No Toilet Paper! Bidet Toilet Seats

Innovative Products and Bio-based Packaging

9

Resource Materials:

1. A Brief History of Recycling, a timeline: https://nerc.org/news-and-updates/blog/nerc-blog/2019/11/19/a-brief-history-of-recycling?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIq5SR6YqV7gIVSkpyCh115gnYEAAYAyAAEgJFZfD_BwE 2. “The Tyranny of Convenience” NYTimes article by Tim Wu (2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-convenience.html 3. The Reign of Recycling (2015) https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/opinion/sunday/the -reign-of-recycling.html

4. “The Newest “R” – Refuse!” (2019) https://www.madesafe.org/reduce-reuse-recycle-and-the-newest-r-refuse/ 5. The Declining Case for Municipal Recycling, MI June 2020: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/recycling-cost-benefit-analysis 6. As City Budgets Shrink, It’s Time to Rethink Recycling Programs, MI Sept. 2020

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/as-city-budgets-shrink-its-time-to-rethink-recycling-programs?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIo-f5pN6U7gIVEobICh0BeQVsEAAYASAAEgIMKPD_BwE 7. “Will the Circular Economy Save the Planet? The Vision of Industry In Harmony with Nature Catches on With Capitalists” ( 2021) https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-1-january-february/feature/will-circular-economy-save-planet

8. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, William McDonough & Michael Braungart, North Point Press, 2002 9. Cradle-to-Cradle Concept, a TED TALK by McDonough: https://www.ted.com/talks/william_mcdonough_cradle_to_cradle_design?language=en

10. City of Cincinnati Recyclable Items. https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/cityofcincinnati/government/

11. America’s Zero Carbon Action Plan (ZCAP) to be presented to the new Biden Administration. https://www.unsdsn.org/Zero-Carbon-Action-Plan See Section 5.6 Accelerating Sustainable Materials Management in the U.S. 12. The Puzzle of Plastics Recycling, By the Numbers | Cohen Recycling (cohenusa.com) 13. Where Can I Take Things that Cohen Does Not Recycle? | Cohen Recycling (cohenusa.com) 14. TERRA (jointerra.org) Electronics recycling 15. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed To Reverse Global Warming. Ed. Paul Hawkin 16. Documentaries on Plastic Pollution: “The Story of Plastic”; “Bag It!”; “Plastic Wars”; “Plastic Ocean”; “A Plastic Ocean”; “Plastic is Forever” 17. Waste and Want: A Social History of Trash, 1999 by Susan Strasser 18. Story of Stuff Project. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM