[Senate Hearing 117-102]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-102
THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY AS A CONCEPT FOR CREATING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-184 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
OPENING STATEMENTS
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 3
WITNESSES
Biser, Hon. Elizabeth, Secretary, North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality.......................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 28
Elias, Roberta, Director, Policy and Government Affairs, World
Wildlife Fund.................................................. 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........ 42
Hawkinson, Brian, Executive Director, Recovered Fiber, American
Forest and Paper Association................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 51
Johnson, William ``Billy,'' Chief Lobbyist, Institute of Scrap
Recycling Industries........................................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
The Need to Examine the Life Cycles of All Energy Sources: A
Closer Look at Renewable-Energy Disposal, The Heritage
Foundation, September 20, 2021................................. 7
Letter to:
Senator Carper from the Association of Plastic Recyclers,
October 5, 2021............................................ 126
Senators Carper and Capito from The RealReal, October 18,
2021....................................................... 129
Senators Carper and Capito from the Solid Waste Association
of North America, September 27, 2021....................... 133
Senators Carper and Capito from the Can Manufacturers
Institute, October 14, 2021................................ 136
Senators Carper and Capito from the Paper Recycling
Coalition, September 22, 2021.............................. 138
Statement for the Record, the American Chemistry Council,
September 22, 2021............................................. 146
THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY AS A CONCEPT FOR CREATING A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Merkley, Stabenow, Inhofe, Lummis, and Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. I am about to call this hearing to order.
In fact, I will call this hearing to order, and I am going to
invite our guests, our witnesses, as appropriate, to join us at
the table with your nameplate.
I would like to start this morning by thanking this
distinguished panel of witnesses for their willingness to join
us today as we discuss an issue, and I think, an opportunity,
of great importance: That is the transition to a circular
economy. A warm welcome to Elizabeth Biser, Roberta Elias,
Brian Hawkinson, and Billy Johnson. We look forward to hearing
from each of you this morning.
I have to confess I love the idea of a circular economy. I
studied a little economics at Ohio State as a Navy ROTC
midshipman, not very much, but enough to get through and on to
the Navy. But I love the idea of a circular economy. I love
trying to figure out how to use market forces to get things
done. I like the idea of considering the things and the
materials that help constitute and make a circular economy
possible, materials that can be reused over and over again
instead of ending up in a landfill somewhere.
As an avid recycler and composter, I have always believed
in environmental stewardship since my days growing up as a Boy
Scout in Danville, Virginia, where we moved from Beckley, West
Virginia. Over the years, I have come to feel even more
strongly that it is our moral duty to leave behind a cleaner,
healthier planet for our children and for the generations that
follow.
Let me make one thing clear: Driving toward a circular
economy is not just doing something about the disdain or
disgust we feel in seeing the trash that litters too many of
our highways and our streams. It is an essential part of the
solution to a series of crises facing our Nation and our globe
today: Escalating climate change, overflowing landfills, and
oceans that are choked with a mass of plastic greater than the
weight of all the fish in the sea.
The actions that put us in this mess are not the fault of
any one person. That is why it is up to all of us to work
together on finding solutions. This is what we call in the Navy
an all hands on deck moment.
Over the past few weeks, several of our Senate colleagues
and I, including Senator Capito, Senator Boozman, Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Merkley, and others have joined us in
engaging with a host of stakeholders in a series of roundtable
discussions on the concept of a circular economy, and what that
concept looks like in practice across a multitude of industries
and levels of government. What we heard was, in part, sobering,
but also, I am happy to report, it was encouraging.
We heard from solid waste workers about the challenges they
face with contaminated recycling streams and the impact of
China's National Sword Policy on their ability to effectively
manage domestic waste, especially plastic.
We heard about the need for better product design and
infrastructure upgrades so that companies can have their
products returned to them in good condition to be reused.
And we heard about the devastating impact of the fashion
industry on our environment. Did you know that every second,
almost a dump truck's worth of textiles goes into our
landfills, every second, and that the fashion industry is
responsible for something like 10 percent of global emissions,
more that the aviation sector and the maritime shipping sector
combined? I didn't know those things. My guess is that most of
our colleagues and their staff, our staffs, didn't know them,
either.
Fortunately, we also discovered that with awareness and
motivation, we can do a great deal to address the obvious need
and change that these damaging behaviors provide.
One of those products that stood out for me was aluminum.
Few of us realize, for example, that 75 percent of aluminum
ever mined is still in use today. I am going to say that again:
75 percent of aluminum ever mined is still in use today. That
is important because aluminum products made from recycled
materials use 95 percent less energy than it would take to
create them from first use materials, 95 percent less energy.
Indeed, in most cases, recycled products are more energy
efficient, which translates directly into reducing greenhouse
gas emissions, something we all know we need to do.
That is the power of a circular economy.
The roundtables also taught us more about the potential we
have to recapture and recycle the critical minerals found in
lithium-ion batteries. Of course, that capacity helps our
Nation in many ways, driving us and our transportation fleet to
a carbon neutral future and relieving us from uncertain and
oftentimes hostile foreign sources for those critical minerals.
Finally, we also heard great success stories from
industries that have stepped up to take more responsibility for
the full life cycle of their products. I am glad to see Mr.
Hawkinson from the paper industry here today.
Welcome, especially.
With a national recycling rate for all products, I believe
it is right around 35 percent across the country, the paper
industry's recycling rate of over 60 percent, almost twice the
national rate, really does stand out. The paper industry shows
how companies can and should help the cause by ensuring that
their products can live on by being recycled into new products.
Thank you for that example. I can say we lead by our
example.
Companies must step up and take greater responsibility for
reducing, reusing, and recycling their products. While we can't
make industry successful in this effort, we can help make it
possible for industries to succeed. We know that if industry,
along with environmental advocates, and all levels of
government join forces to reach these inspiring and essential
goals, the return on our investment will be exponential.
And that is our challenge to our witnesses before us today,
and frankly, to all of us. Please tell us what our Government
needs to do to better ensure that you succeed in your efforts
to establish a circular economy, one that helps bring our solid
waste problems under control, reins in unsustainable greenhouse
gas emissions, reduces our overall consumption, and meets this
critical moment in our Nation's history.
Someday, I expect to be asked in the future by our three
sons and their children this question: ``What did you do to
stop climate change and help save our planet when you had the
chance? What did you do, Dad?'' And I want to be able to look
them in the eye and tell them that we did everything we could,
everything we could. To me, today's hearing is an important
step in enabling this country of ours to do just that.
Let us seize the opportunity. Let us convey a strong sense
of urgency and embrace the chance to create a circular economy
that allows us to be our better selves, respecting our planet,
taking care of each other, and not wasting the precious
resources that our creator has bestowed upon us.
Each of you as witnesses here today bear a larger than
average share of the responsibility to get us to that better
place. You have the knowledge, you have the skill, and I
believe the will to do so. With apologies to the late Jim
Morrison, I believe you have the will to do so, to help us
today to light your fire so that together, we can prevent many
of the wildfires that have been engulfing large swaths of our
country throughout much of this year and last.
With that, I have said enough. I turn it over to Senator
Capito, our Ranking Member, for any comments that she might
like to make.
Senator Capito, great to be with you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting
reference to Jim Morrison.
Senator Carper. You just never know when he will pop up.
Senator Capito. He has a West Virginia connection, too.
Senator Carper. I am anxious to hear about it later.
Senator Capito. Thank you for calling today's hearing
today.
Senator Carper. Would that connection be wild and
wonderful?
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. Probably.
Both Chairman Carper and I are members of the Senate
Recycling Caucus, as are a few of our other EPW colleagues. We
see recycling as a win-win solution that presents significant
environmental and economic benefits.
Recycling can reduce waste going to landfills and the
incinerators, conserve natural resources like timber and water,
and save energy. In fact, many recent developments in waste
management are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
contributing to an all of the above strategy to address climate
change.
Hand in hand with those environmental benefits, recycling
creates domestic jobs and supports American manufacturing. We
have seen significant bipartisan progress on this issue in
recent years when we passed our Save Our Seas Act and Save Our
Seas Act 2.0, which help improve our ability to clean up waste
and combat marine debris.
But marine debris is only one piece of the puzzle. There is
also significant funding in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act that the Senate passed last month, and we hope the
House passes as well, for recycling infrastructure and
education to reduce contamination in the recycling stream.
While these investments will help us to reach EPA's
ambitious National Recycling Goal of recycling 50 percent of
waste by 2030, other challenges do remain. I want to highlight
two of the challenges today. One is the need to expand
materials processing and manufacturing here in our own country,
and No. 2 is a lack of demand for recycled materials.
The issues with China taking, or more recently, not taking
our recycling materials and the issues with supply lines laid
bare by the pandemic made clear we need to do more of the
material processing and manufacturing right here in America.
The investments in our Nation's roads and bridges that are
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would help expand
American manufacturing. Reliable infrastructure is critical for
economic development and creating job opportunities.
When China stopped importing our trash, the economies of
municipal recycling changed dramatically. Cities must incur
significant costs to collect recyclables, and in some
instances, the cost of paying businesses to accept those
recyclables if they can no longer be profitably sold.
Some municipal systems have taken on the costs and burden
of storing bales of recyclables waiting for an improvement to
the market. This is all due to a lack of domestic demand for
our recycled materials.
Market demand for these materials can create the incentives
to invest in the recycling system and expand access to
recycling across the country, especially in rural areas like my
State of West Virginia.
While some of my colleagues in Congress have proposed
various policies, regulations, and mandates, they don't create
effective long term markets. Falsely inflating that market for
recycled goods with Federal dollars doesn't help, either. It
simply prolongs the unviability of the sector, which could end
up right back where we are today when the funding is gone.
The best way to address the depressed demand for recycled
materials is to develop new innovative markets and
technologies. Today, we will learn about one example from Mr.
Hawkinson--and he was on our roundtable, we appreciate that--
which is Georgia-Pacific's new Juno Technology that is rescuing
recyclable materials from trash.
Last week, Chairman Carper and I hosted a roundtable that
the Chairman talked about, where we had the opportunity to
learn about some of the technological advances in the recycling
sector. For example, one company has successfully recycled over
2 million pounds of post-use polystyrene at their facility in
Oregon through chemical recycling. Developing and deploying
this technology could not have come at a better time, as this
material was used in the COVID-19 vaccine production for
everything from testing kits to the cooler shipment boxes that
kept the vaccine at the needed temperature during delivery and
storage.
Now, what would otherwise have been considered trash can be
safely recycled into new products like medical grade and food
grade plastic, while reducing waste that ends up in our
landfills. The supply chain challenges that emerged and are
still with us were among the most significant realizations that
struck us, I think, during COVID-19, especially our reliance on
other countries to produce essential products. I hope these
realities won't quickly be forgotten and that we can use those
experiences as motivation to retain and bring back
manufacturing jobs in this country.
One way we can accomplish this is fostering innovation and
not stifling it. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today on the best way to accomplish that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks for a wonderful
statement, and thanks even more for your leadership on this
issue. We are working on a lot of issues together, and I am
delighted this is one of them. It is certainly an important
one.
I just want to give a shout out to Senator John Boozman,
who is the co-chair of the Senate Recycling Caucus, and his
team for all of the work that they do.
I think Taylor Meredith deserves a special shout out from
your team, Senator Capito, and from Senator Boozman's office, I
want to mention Andrew Kelly and Joe Brown with a special
thanks.
We have on our own team here on the majority side of the
Committee, in addition, Annie, who is sitting over my left
shoulder; Mary Frances Repko, who is our staff director; John
Kane, and Trevor Malone. I am grateful to all of you and more,
all of you and more.
One of my favorite sayings is from the King Sisters from
Kent County, Delaware, Dover, members of my team have been
forever, teamwork makes the dream work, and we have got some
pretty good teamwork on this Committee, and we are going to try
to get some dreams accomplished as a result.
Thanks again, Senator Capito, for your statement and for
everyone who has worked to help make today possible.
I want to briefly introduce our witnesses, starting with
Elizabeth Biser. She is the Secretary of the Department of
Environmental Quality for the State of North Carolina, my
wife's native State.
She sends her best to you today.
Secretary Biser oversees the State agency, whose mission is
to protect North Carolina's environment and natural resources.
I understand that you live not far from where my wife's two
sisters live, in the Greater Raleigh area. We thank you for
joining us today.
We are also joined by Roberta Elias, the Director of Policy
and Government Affairs at the World Wildlife Fund.
Welcome, Ms. Elias. Great to see you.
Brian Hawkinson, again, of the American Forest and Paper
Association, will be testifying today. Mr. Hawkinson is the
Executive Director for Recovered Fiber at the AF&PA, and we
want to thank you for joining us today.
Good to see you, Mr. Hawkinson.
Our final witness, no stranger to these parts, Billy
Johnson, Chief Lobbyist of the Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries, where he works with industry to advance recycling
policies.
Great to see you, Billy. Welcome today.
Why don't we start with Secretary Biser?
You may begin when you are ready.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, please.
Senator Carper. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized for
unanimous consent request in that, this may go longer than I
anticipated it would. I do ask unanimous consent that the
article I referred to earlier by Andrew Wheeler be made a part
of the record of today's deliberations, particularly during the
deliberations of Mr. Johnson.
Senator Carper. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. OK, with that, I think we are ready for our
first witness, Ms. Biser.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH BISER, SECRETARY, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Biser. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you today about North Carolina's approach to
creating a circular economy.
The term circular economy means transitioning from a make-
take-waste society to one in which we treat end of life
materials as commodities that can be put to good economic use,
creating jobs and economic investment in our communities.
North Carolina has long been on the path of creating a
circular economy. In sharing our lessons learned with you, I am
going to harken back to how we all learned about environmental
stewardship, the three Rs of reduce, reuse, and recycle.
I will begin with reduce. One of the best ways to reduce
waste is to prevent it from happening in the first place.
Nineteen years ago, my agency launched a program called the
Environmental Stewardship Initiative. This free and voluntary
program is open to any entity in North Carolina that wants to
go above and beyond the minimum regulatory requirements for
their management of waste, air, water, and energy.
In the past 15 years, our partners have saved over $95
million and have experienced similarly impressive environmental
results. For example, they have reduced their collective
CO2 emissions by over 32 million metric tons, which
is the equivalent to the CO2 from the energy used by
3.8 million homes for a year. The Environmental Stewardship
Initiative shows the power of public-private partnerships in
creating a more circular economy.
Next, let us talk reuse. Traditionally, reuse is seen in
programs such as the refillable glass milk containers that my
family gets at the grocery store. Nationwide, this is a policy
that is still developing.
For today's purposes, I want to examine the ways we
prioritize keeping materials within the circular economy by
recruiting industries to our State who can use the end of life
materials as manufacturing feedstock. In North Carolina,
companies like Owens-Illinois and Ardagh use recycled glass to
create new bottles. Within 30 days, the bottle that you are
holding today can be back on the shelf with a new life.
This is a great example of a circular economy, and I am
proud to say that the entire process from the resident placing
their bottle in the recycling bin to the sortation at the
material recovery facility to the glass processor to the bottle
manufacturer all takes place within the State of North
Carolina.
To have material to feed these businesses, though, we need
to look at the last R: Recycle. Recycling alone isn't a
circular economy, but a circular economy can't exist without
recycling. Having a strong State recycling program, one that
supports local recycling programs and coordinates regional and
statewide solutions, is a key component for success.
In the early 2000s, a combination of policy changes led to
significant improvements in our recycling rates. The State
established a disposal surcharge, a portion of which supported
grant dollars for recycling infrastructure. North Carolina also
enacted a number of landfill disposal bans for readily
recyclable materials, such as aluminum cans and plastic
bottles, recognizing that these materials are not waste, but
commodities that were needed as vital feedstock by North
Carolina manufacturers.
To complement these policy changes, North Carolina led a
robust economic development effort to recruit industry and
strengthen market demand for recycled materials. Now, more than
15,000 North Carolinians are directly employed by the recycling
sector, with a total payroll of $759 million.
While North Carolina is making great progress, like every
State, we have a way to go before we have a truly circular
economy. We have a lot of work to do to decrease the amount of
wasted food ending up in our landfills. According to the EPA,
wasted food is the largest segment of our waste stream. The
USDA estimates that 30 percent to 40 percent of our Nation's
food supply is wasted each year. This waste occurs even as 13.8
million households are experiencing food insecurity. It is not
just a waste problem. It is also a climate problem.
Approximately 15 percent of total U.S. methane emissions come
from landfills.
While our work is not done, I appreciate the opportunity
today to share North Carolina's journey with you. With programs
that encourage a source reduction of waste, a robust economic
development effort to support infrastructure and businesses
that reuse materials, and a strong State recycling program, we
can make real progress toward creating a truly circular
economy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Biser follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
Ms. Elias.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA ELIAS, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
Ms. Elias. Thanks.
Again, my name is Roberta Elias, and I am the Director of
Policy and Government Affairs at World Wildlife Fund. Thank you
for the invitation to join today.
Fast moving consumer goods and packaging have become a
fixture in all of our lives. Unfortunately, as the quantity of
non-durable items has grown, so have production impacts and the
presence of waste. Governance needs to catch up with changing
realities.
The Nation's solid waste management laws were enacted
before disposable items became so prevalent and before we fully
understood the potential of recycling. Currently, 20,000
different municipalities govern the Nation's recycling
programs, all with different requirements and outcomes. This
creates too much uncertainty for industry and confusion for the
public.
In fact, the No. 1 thing we have heard in conversations
with industry is they want clear and consistent rules of the
road. They also want assurances that there will be sufficient
high quality recycled content to deliver on promises already
made to consumers. The No. 1 thing we have heard in talking to
the public, including conversations with many of you, is that
the Nation's recycling system is inaccessible and way too
confusing.
There are important challenges associated with production
and disposal of all materials; however, I will focus the
remainder of my framing remarks on plastics. This is because
plastics constitute the newest and fastest growing material
type. They have also so clearly captured the attention of the
American public across demographics and party affiliations and
of government leaders.
Mass production of plastics began in many of our lifetimes,
only about 60 years ago. In that time, 8.3 billion metric tons
of plastics have been generated. The vast majority of that 8.3
billion, or 75 percent, has become waste, and if we have a big
challenge now, we will have a much bigger one very soon.
Global plastic production is expected to more than triple
by 2050. This growth will account for a full 20 percent of all
oil consumption or 10 percent to 13 percent of the entire
carbon budget. The current recycling system, which is, again,
disjointed across 20,000 municipalities, functions without
clear goal posts at an economic disadvantage to landfills. It
simply cannot process the sheer volume of stuff.
In the United States, only 34 percent of all municipal
solid waste is recycled, and only 13 percent of plastic
packaging. Only 2 percent of plastic packaging eschews
circularity, where an old product becomes a new one again. The
remaining 87 percent of all plastic packaging, our drinks, our
snacks, the wrapping around the items shipped to our homes, is
either landfilled, incinerated, or leaked into nature. Our
favorite brands litter America's iconic landscapes. Eleven
million metric tons of plastic enter the ocean each year, or
about one dump truck per minute, 24/7, all year long.
Fortunately, there is real reason for hope. We have seen
increasing information about the dramatic gains in efficiency
and to conservation and health outcomes that can be achieved by
shifting in use from virgin materials to recycled content.
Reduction and circularity are also good for business. The
Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that the comparative cost of
plastic leakage to the global economy between a business as
usual scenario and a systems change scenario is over $2
trillion. They also concluded that if implemented
appropriately, extended producer responsibility could generate
over $12 million and save government $70 billion.
We commend both chambers, and particularly Senators
Whitehouse, Menendez, and Sullivan, for the strong action
already taken. It is time for the next step.
WWF and the American Beverage Association have drafted
joint principles, submitted for the record, which outline key
Federal policy priorities. Related concepts are also supported
by our OneSource Coalition, including ABA and the beverages,
plus Danone, Mars, Unilever, Closed Loop Partners, the National
Recycling Coalition, and many others. Almost 900,000 WWF
supporters have echoed this call for change.
The WWF and ABA principles reflect the very same concepts
that you, Chairman Carper, and others have elevated many times
in comments both to the EPA and at previous EPW hearings. The
key concepts of the system, known as Extended Producer
Responsibility, are phase outs of truly unnecessary and
problematic materials, public-private funding mechanisms,
accountability, and oversight tied to circular economy
objectives, and provisions to achieve public health and
environmental justice goals. We also hope a national deposit
return system will be included in that system.
The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act introduced by
Senator Merkley--thank you, Senator Merkley--is the high water
mark for EPR as articulated above. WWF, ABA, and many others
support Break Free concepts. We hope that stand alone EPR
legislation will ultimately pass.
We also hope that this chamber will make the most of moving
vehicles, including to secure public-private investments in
infrastructure, a national deposit return system, and a virgin
plastic fee, such as that articulated in Senator Whitehouse's
REDUCE Act.
Thank you for your leadership in moving this conversation
forward. We are happy to assist in any way that we can as the
dialogue continues.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Elias follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you for your testimony. Thanks very
much for your efforts and those of those you represent here
today.
Next, we are going to hear from Brian Hawkinson.
Brian, please proceed. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN HAWKINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RECOVERED
FIBER, AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hawkinson. Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito,
distinguished members of the Committee, thank you very much for
the opportunity to talk with you about this important issue
today.
I am pleased to share some thoughts on the pulp paper and
paper packaging industry's commitment to sustainable practices
and share an example of an innovative technology that is
increasing the use of recovered paper in manufacturing new
products.
To provide some context for my remarks, I would like to
tell you a little bit about the U.S. paper pulp and wood
products industry. In the U.S., the industry employs
approximately 950,000 men and women, operates 335 paper and
paper board mills, more than 4,000 converting facilities, more
than a hundred recycling facilities, manufactures nearly $300
billion in products annually, and represents approximately 4
percent of the total U.S. GDP.
We have long been responsible stewards of our planet's
resources. AF&PA's sustainability initiative, Better Practices,
Better Planet 2030, comprises one of the most extensive,
quantifiable sets of sustainability goals for a U.S.
manufacturing industry, and is the latest example of our
members' proactive commitment to the long term success of our
industry, our communities, and the environment.
Sustainable practices and innovative technologies are in
the industry's DNA. Chairman Carper, I appreciate your
recognition that about two-thirds of all the paper used in the
U.S. is recycled annually. That turned out to be about 47
million tons in 2020. That is recycled to make new, sustainable
paper and paper based packaging products people use every day.
The industry aims to advance a circular value chain and
continue to improve the sustainability of our products to meet
evolving customer needs. This includes innovating manufacturing
processes, products, and packaging and increasing utilization
of recovered fiber and wood residuals in manufacturing across
the industry to 50 percent by 2030.
The industry has announced approximately $500 billion in
manufacturing infrastructure investments by 2023 to continue
the best use of recovered fiber in manufacturing products. That
is about $2.5 million per day, and those investments are going
to enable the industry to use approximately 8 million
additional tons of recovered fiber in manufacturing throughout
that period and going forward.
This morning, I would like to share an example of an
innovative technology. Ranking Member Capito, thanks for
pointing that out. It is called Juno, from one of our members,
Georgia-Pacific, and it enables them to recover paper that
would otherwise go to landfills and use it to manufacture new
products.
More than 10 years ago, a team at GP considered the paper
that ends up in U.S. landfills and started looking for a way to
capture more of that for use. The initial focus was on paper
cups, which have traditionally been harder to recycle because
of the poly lining that keeps the contents from leaking. The
team was able to successfully recover paper fiber from those
cups but realized there are some supply chain challenges to
collecting only paper cups.
So, they expanded the scope of the project to collect more
paper based waste from fast food restaurants and amusement
parks, other facilities, things like cups, napkins, food
wrappers, et cetera. A pilot plant was built in Savannah,
Georgia, in 2013. That plant has successfully processed waste
generated in all those facilities: Fast food restaurants,
airports, et cetera.
From there, the team designed and engineered a commercial
skill unit and secured permits to build the first processing
unit in Toledo, Oregon. The Toledo facility began startup
operations this past May and is currently processing waste from
the region.
The Juno technology process starts with collecting waste
from those kinds of commercial resources that typically have
the highest concentration of paper based material. It is
important to note that the material collected for this doesn't
pull recycling away from other streams. This is waste that
would otherwise be destined to a landfill or an incinerator.
The material is baled and transported and fed into the Juno
processing unit. The unit is an autoclave that uses steam and
pressure to sanitize the material. It is essentially the same
kind of technology that is commonly used in the medical
industry. The proprietary Juno process sanitizes the waste and
separates the paper fiber.
The fiber recovered through the Juno process is currently
being used to make paper for corrugated boxes in GP's Toledo
containerboard mill and has also been made to use napkins and
paper towels in other company facilities. Other recyclable
materials processed are able to go back into their respective
recycling markets. Anything that cannot be recycled then goes
to the landfill. Based on the work so far, GP expects about 90
percent of what is processed can be diverted from landfills.
As you would expect with a new technology, the team has
planned a slow start to allow for adjustments from operating a
small pilot plant to a large commercial unit that will process
about 100,000 tons per year. Early in the phased start up, the
diversion rate, and this is from July this year, for locally
sourced waste tripled from about 18 percent to 54 percent.
These results are early estimates. They are going to be
audited, but it gives you a sense for the ability for this to
scale up and perform better.
This first commercial scale unit in Toledo is expected to
be fully operational by the end of the year. Conversations are
underway for licensing other units in the U.S. and globally.
Georgia-Pacific and the industry are excited about the new
technology's ability to recover more paper from the waste
stream and use it in manufacturing new paper and paper based
products.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to the discussion.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkinson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for a very encouraging
presentation. Thank you.
Next, we are going to hear from Mr. Billy Johnson.
Billy, you are recognized, please.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BILLY'' JOHNSON, CHIEF LOBBYIST,
INSTITUTE OF SCRAP RECYCLING INDUSTRIES
Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito and
members of the Committee.
My name is Billy Johnson, and I am the Chief Lobbyist for
the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, or ISRI, as we are
better known around Washington.
It is an honor to be before you today to discuss the
important role of recycling, since recycling is an essential
solution to supply our domestic and global supply chains with
sustainable raw material feedstocks that help combat climate
change, conserve our natural resources, and save energy, while
employing hundreds of thousands of American workers.
ISRI is the voice of the recycling industry. We promote
safe, economically sustainable, and environmentally responsible
recycling, with over 1,300 members domestically as well as
internationally, with over 4,000 facilities in the United
States. We are referred to sometimes, we could be thought of as
we are the ants at the picnic. We are everywhere.
Recycling in the United States is an important economic
engine and job creator. The recycling industry directly employs
more than 164,000 Americans while generating over $110 billion
in economic activity. These numbers tell the story of a strong
U.S. recycling industry, but not one without challenges in key
segments. To understand these challenges, it is important to
first understand what makes for successful recycling.
First, successful recycling requires market demand. If
there is no end market to utilize recyclable materials that are
collected, they will not be recycled and used again in
manufacturing, regardless of the volume of material collected.
Collection without market consumption is just not recycling.
Second, successful recycling requires minimal
contamination, as recyclables are products sold by
specification grade with a corresponding value and
marketability directly related to quality.
Recycling in the U.S. involves far more than what is placed
in the blue bin or cart at the end of the driveway. The
recycling infrastructure in the U.S. touches almost every part
of our economy, from retail stores, office complexes,
residential neighborhoods, schools, factories, and even
military bases.
The vast majority of the recycled material that flows
through the recycling infrastructure does so without any
problems and is transformed by recyclers into clean, high
quality, commodity grade product used throughout the world as a
substitute for virgin materials.
Specifically, what makes the residential stream so
different is that while it is subject to the same demand driven
end markets, it is saddled with an ever changing mix of
materials on the supply side, and that material flows into the
stream, whether there is a market for it or not. This sets the
residential recycling infrastructure apart from commercial and
industrial recycling in the U.S., and that is why it demands a
unique approach.
Because of the visibility of the challenges being
experienced in the residential recycling infrastructure, we
have seen a growing loss of confidence in recycling on the part
of the general public, which is of great concern to all of us
in the recycling and manufacturing industries. I think everyone
here would agree.
So, in any given year, our country's recycling
infrastructure processes more than 130 million metric tons of
recyclables; however, residential recycling represents only
about 20 percent of the material that works its way through
that infrastructure. The other 80 percent comes from recycling
of commercial and industrial materials, that tends to be
cleaner.
Second, there is no one, singular solution to the
challenges we are experiencing in the residential recycling
infrastructure. The residential recycling chain and associated
infrastructure in the U.S. is a complex system, which is driven
by market demand, but saddled with a supply chain that is
generally not linked to the current market conditions.
We think of it as four major pressure points in the current
residential recycling infrastructure, and the first one is
right before the material enters the recycling stream, when the
decision is made whether to put the item in the bin and in what
condition to do so. That is where education efforts can play an
important role, like the RECYCLE Act.
The second pressure point is between the municipality and
the materials recovery facility or MRF, where there is a need
for contracting policies and procedures that provide
flexibility for market fluctuations.
The third pressure point is processing, where, despite
investments that are already being made, there is a need for
additional upgrading of equipment and facilities.
The fourth pressure point is the point following the
processing, when the recyclables enter the end market. That is
where market development is needed.
At ISRI, we believe that all stakeholders must come
together to develop a common understanding of the weaknesses
affecting the residential recycling stream and then work
together to develop a menu of solutions that need to be put
into place.
Thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the
complexities of the recycling systems, and I look forward to
taking some of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. We look forward to asking those questions.
Thank you for that statement.
Senator Inhofe has another obligation that requires his
attention. He has asked to go first. I am happy to do that. He
will be followed by Senator Whitehouse, and then I think
Senator Capito, and then onto Senator Merkley and Senator
Stabenow. I will go late in the game.
Senator Inhofe, thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Carper and Senator
Capito, for your courtesy.
My first question references the article I have already
made part of the record by Andrew Wheeler, and it goes to Mr.
Johnson.
Mr. Johnson, I continue to be concerned about the
challenges associated with recycling renewable technologies
like solar panels and wind turbines. I am reminded of a
Bloomberg article from last year titled Wind Turbine Blades
Can't Be Recycled, So They're Piling Up in Landfills. Mr.
Johnson, are you aware of any technologies that exist today
that can reliably recycle solar panels or wind turbines,
particularly the wind turbine blades?
Mr. Johnson. Well, first let me compliment Andy Wheeler,
who was a phenomenal spokesperson for the recycling industry.
He spoke at our meetings, as well as many of our friends'
meetings. What a terrific advocate for that, as well as his
public service announcements for getting the cardboard back
during the COVID crisis. He deserves a lot of credit.
Senator Inhofe. And he endured working for me for 14 years.
Mr. Johnson. I was going to get to that, but not quite the
same way.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Johnson. But to your question, at this point, those are
terrific challenges. Right now, we are not able to recycle
those materials.
Senator Inhofe. What is out there? How optimistic are you
that something is going to work?
Mr. Johnson. Well, as I mentioned, market demand. If there
is a market demand, my members figure out how to do it. We are
businesspeople, and if there is a way, we will figure it out.
Right now, we haven't quite figured it out. Let us just say
that.
Senator Inhofe. OK. The second question is also for Mr.
Johnson. The electric vehicle batteries face similar recycling
challenges. While conventional lead acid car batteries are
highly recyclable, lithium-ion batteries used for EVs are very
difficult to recycle.
Mr. Johnson, are you concerned that if we don't adequately
plan for and prepare for the disposal of spent electric vehicle
batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, that we are
potentially creating a new Superfund site? Could you
characterize it that way?
Mr. Johnson. The definition of Superfund site I might
quibble with you, but yes, there is a very large concern with
recycling electric vehicle batteries. I would first start with
the safety issues. Even while fully discharged, they can be
quite dangerous and harm, if not kill, the people trying to
remove them from the cars.
After that, there is a number of problems with the fact
that the electric vehicle batteries right now, there are four,
five, six different chemistries that are not compatible with
one another. So it is sort of a VHS-Betamax situation, where we
are waiting for the standard of one of those to sort of win
out.
In the meantime, for actually processing or recycling the
batteries themselves, there is a lot of investment going into
it right now to try to take care of what is coming in at this
point. Cars usually last around 12 years on average, so we are
starting to see some of these electric vehicles come into our
facilities now. So we are trying to respond to that.
There is a lot of investment going into it, but right now,
I do not believe that we have the capacity to handle it, and it
is going to have to ramp up very quickly, especially with the
projections from the Administration to try to get many more
electrical vehicles on the road.
Senator Inhofe. OK, Mr. Johnson. I appreciate that very
much. You might separately send me a document as to where we
quibble, OK?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much to the Chairman and the
Ranking Member for giving me this time.
Senator Capito [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairwoman.
Ms. Elias, I would like to talk about plastic waste
recycling and where we are on that. We have put considerable
effort into plastic waste recycling. A great many Americans
have a blue bin that they fill with recyclables to take out
there. There is a lot of noise and talk about recycling, and
the industry loves to talk up recycling, I think, to help
create the general apprehension or the general appearance that
plastic gets recycled.
But the information that I have is that on the input side,
when, particularly single use plastics are being manufactured,
98 percent or 99 percent of the input is virgin plastic,
leaving less than 2 percent, maybe only 1 percent, one in a
hundred, to be sourced as recycled plastic. I mean, that rounds
basically to zero.
So, when the plastics industry is manufacturing plastics
products, and in this case, particularly single use plastics,
the disposable stuff, it is basically entirely new plastic
going in. There is essentially no meaningful recycled
contribution. So, to me, that is kind of a significant
measurement.
Now, if you go to the take up side, the so called recycling
side, the statistics I have are that less than 10 percent of
what actually goes into that blue bin ever gets recycled. It
may not be recyclable in the first place because there is not a
very clear marking as to what plastics are and are not
recyclable. It may very well just end up in a landfill, or end
up on a container ship, smashed together and packed off to some
place in Asia, where it ends up in a landfill there, and maybe
after time, washed down creeks and into rivers, and ultimately
into the sea.
And at the same time that we have essentially zero
recycling input into plastics manufacturing and less than 10
percent of real recycling and what we consider to be our
recycling stream, we are dumping, as a world, so much plastic
into the ocean that we are headed for, as the Chairman
suggested, if things don't change, there is going to be more
waste plastic floating around in the ocean than there are fish
swimming around in the ocean, by mass.
And that is just a rotten thing to do to the planet, and it
is a horrible legacy for our grandchildren. It is kind of on us
to do something about that, I would think.
So I would like your comment on whether you think, first of
all, my facts are right, that we are essentially zero on input,
that we are under 10 percent on real recycling and the rest of
it is kind of performance art to stand up a relatively fake
narrative that recycling is real, and at the end of the day,
most of this stuff ends up in regular waste streams, and some
of that is very irresponsibly done in foreign countries and
ends up in oceans.
Pretty fair description, and what should we do about it?
Ms. Elias. Yes, that is absolutely a fair description, and
very much----
Senator Whitehouse. Are you mic'd?
Ms. Elias. Am I mic'd now?
Senator Whitehouse. There we go, yes. You are good to go.
Ms. Elias. Is that good?
Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
Ms. Elias. Thank you. Technology is not my strong suit.
But your facts are absolutely right, and very much
consistent with what we have heard in the past in conversations
with various experts.
Again, to reiterate, thank you so much, you and Senator
Sullivan, in so many ways, started this conversation in the
Senate with Save Our Seas and Save Our Seas 2.0. Your staff has
been absolutely amazing.
I think we are at a point now where we need to take that
next step because of the performance art that you discussed. I
think we really need a system like extended producer
responsibility, as proposed in Senator Merkley's Break Free
From Plastic Pollution Act.
You are right, there is so much stuff now coming into our
homes, and the vast majority of it, 87 percent of our plastic
packaging is either being landfilled, burned, or leaked into
nature. And because of the artificially low prices on virgin
plastic materials, we are just going back to the earth to
create that next set of materials, and instead of having a
circle, the life span is actually a line: Taking petrochemicals
from the earth, turning it into some product, using it, and
disposing of it.
While any number of these materials are absolutely
essential, I think about our masks, I think about our medical
equipment, I think about all of the important food grade
plastics that address some of our food insecurity and food
waste issues that Secretary Biser brought up, a lot of it is
stuff that we don't want and we don't need, and that is being
seen as a growth industry for some of our friends in the
plastics industry.
We actually commissioned public opinion polling by a great
firm, Corona Insights. What they heard in their conversations
with people around the world, it was something like 86 percent
of the public feel like there is just too much stuff coming
into their lives, and it has become unavoidable. If you want to
buy something, it is going to come in that packaging. You are
going to put it in your blue bin, hoping that it will be
recycled, hoping that it will achieve circularity, and very
much knowing that it will not.
What is good about the Break Free From Plastics Pollution
Act, and I hope will become a discussion topic, this is why it
is supported by the American Beverage Association, similar
concepts, again, by Danone, Unilever, and Mars, a number of our
other friends, is it sets real standards for recyclability,
recovery, and use of recycled content. And then market signals
through eco-modulation to shift production and use from
materials that can't be recycled, that have a big impact on the
environment and on public health to materials that can feasibly
be recycled and really put dollars toward the kind of
innovation we need to see to make recycling actually work.
I think it is a win-win. There is broad support for it.
Industry, when ABA came to us and said we want every bottle
back, we want old bottles to become new bottles, I think they
really meant it, and industry is willing to put dollars into
the system to have some assurances that they will have
consistent, high quality access to recycled content going
forward. So when you buy your beverage, you buy your snack, you
feel good about what is inside of it and what is outside of it.
Thank you for the question, and thank you for your
incredible leadership.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired, but I would just
add as a chemistry note, that this stuff doesn't break down
back into natural things. It just lives on as plastic
indefinitely. Natural stuff breaks down into natural things,
and that is part of the cycle of life. Plastic is new to this
world, and it doesn't break down in the way the good Lord set
up the Earth to be able to cycle things.
Thank you.
Senator Carper [presiding]. Thank you, Sheldon. Thanks for
your leadership, and that of our colleague from Alaska, very,
very much.
Senator Capito has graciously agreed to just yield to
others that are here. I think Senator Merkley is next, followed
by Senator Stabenow, and we will take it from there. Thank you.
Jeff, thank you.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I was just looking at a chart put together by Eunomia to
compare all 50 States and their recycling rates, and
particularly looking at the plastic bottle challenge. There are
four States, five actually, that have hit over 50 percent:
Maine at 78 percent, Oregon at 69, Vermont 51, California and
New York at 57 percent. Then, the vast bulk of States are under
20 percent.
Ms. Biser, I was wondering about North Carolina, because of
the important work you are doing in many sectors, but in this
category of PET bottles, plastic bottles, 8 percent on North
Carolina. It is pretty far down there.
Has North Carolina considered how to really focus on this
problem of plastic bottles? I know that the expression that was
in the testimony of reduce, reuse, recycle. But with plastic
bottles, the truth is, it is burned, buried, or borne out to
sea, all three of which create significant environmental
challenges.
As we wrestle with it State by State, Oregon was the first
one to have a bottle bill. I am disappointed to see that Maine
has a higher recycling rate than us, but at least we are
hanging in there at second, hopefully to improve. But has North
Carolina considered the possibility of doing something to boost
themselves from the 8 percent level to the above 50 percent
level through some sort of deposit strategy or other strategy?
Ms. Biser. Thank you for that question, Senator. There has
not been any bottle deposit legislation introduced recently.
North Carolina has focused on its return of PET bottles,
though. We have some important industries and some market
demand in the State that is important that we find the material
to feed. Unifi, which is located in Yadkin County, a rural
county in our State, is a good example of that where, when we
were losing textile jobs back in the 2000s, they found a way to
convert PET to polyester yarn. But we need to find a way to
help folks like Unifi get those bottles.
We found significant, and I am not sure about the 8 percent
number you referenced, but we have found success before and
actually doubled our plastic bottle recycling rate about a
decade ago. Again, not nearly where it needs to be, but by
investing in curbside recycling programs, market development
grants, and a lot of education for our residents, but we do
have a long way to go.
Senator Merkley. Well, the thing that those States that are
over 50 percent and up have in common is a deposit system. So,
Ms. Elias, essentially, no State has succeeded in having a
significant amount of bottles recycled without a deposit
system. As we look to best examples, is that kind of the best
example we have or the best strategy we have right now, is to
encourage recycling through a deposit?
Ms. Elias. Yes, we absolutely think that a deposit return
system needs to go hand in glove with an EPR system. We have
absolutely seen that deposit return systems provide an
incredible incentive for consumers to bring that product back,
get it back into recycling system, have it pre-sorted so that
products can become a product again.
PET obviously has incredible ability to become a new
product time and time again. PET only represents 7 percent of
what is in the blue bin. So we are really looking for something
that gets that material back, but also addresses the other 93
percent and figures out a way for it to have continued value in
the system. So we would like to see both.
Senator Merkley. Great. Extended producer responsibility, I
appreciate your focusing on it and highlighting it, because
there are many different forms it can come in, but I think that
is essential.
Mr. Hawkinson, you noted kind of the growing skepticism of
consumers. This weekend, I was up in Erie, Pennsylvania, and
the hotel had paper plates, and the paper plates said
recyclable and renewable in big print, and then they had
asterisks, and they had little tiny print. I couldn't read the
tiny print, so I took a picture of it and expanded it.
I just thought about that as you were speaking, and I went
back just now, and transcribed what it says. It says
``Recyclable and renewable'' in big print. Then, it has a star
by the recyclable, and it says ``May be recycled if you have
access to a recycler that accepts paper products containing
food residue. Such facilities may not exist in your area.''
Then on renewable, it has two stars, two asterisks, and
under the two asterisks it says, ``Contains a 91 percent
renewable material,'' and then it goes on to define renewable
material as ``new trees.'' So, it is not actually recycled
content.
It is really confusing, right, because you see recyclable
and renewable and you think, oh, this means they are using
existing fiber that has been recycled from other products, and
yay for that, and also this is going to get recycled. But then
you read the details, and it is like, no, this is coming from
trees, and if you have food on it, it is probably not going to
get reused.
Do we need to really work at having terms or a system where
people can kind of go, oh, well this product actually is
recycled, or really is recyclable in most cases, and not kind
of this kind of fine print, well, kind of pretend?
Mr. Hawkinson. Thank you. First of all, paper products are
made from a renewable resource. That is wood fiber from trees
that are infinitely renewable, or recycled fiber that has been
used once before and put into the plate. So, the paper plate
that said it was made from renewable fiber is made from
renewable fiber, whether that is new fiber or recycled fiber.
It is recyclable, depending on the collection system in the
jurisdiction that you are in.
The Federal Trade Commission establishes the definitions
for what marketing claims can be made around the title of
recyclability. The threshold for being widely recyclable is at
least 60 percent of U.S. population has access to an
established----
Senator Merkley. OK, I am going to cut you off there
because my basic question is, aren't these terms confusing to
people, and you are going into a long definition of yes, there
are definition behind them. Great, but I have a better question
for you, because my time is running out, and I want to ask a
better question.
Mr. Hawkinson. OK.
Senator Merkley. Can you come up with a paper lid to
replace this plastic lid on a McDonald's cup? Because the world
would bless you. And I see you have one right in front of you,
so here is, how do we replace these single use plastics with
something like paper, which is so much more decomposable and
recyclable than this plastic?
Mr. Hawkinson. Right. Senator, I think there are members
who are working on that right now, looking for applications of
innovations in manufacturing processes, different kinds of
packaging that will solve some of the problems that we are
faced with in other packaging substrates.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying the problem with
plastics has exploded. The plastics in the seas will soon be
equal to the weight of all the fish.
The microplastics are a big problem. We are now each
consuming, it is estimated, a credit card of plastic every week
in our food and our air and water. That is very unhealthy,
especially for our children. Of course, the chemicals that are
embedded in the plastic are very unhealthy, and so we really
have to focus on this plastics challenge.
Senator Carper. Amen.
OK, I think Senator Stabenow is next.
Senator Stabenow, thanks for getting here early and staying
late. Thanks.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member. I just want to first just add my voice to the choir in
terms of addressing plastics. Plastics resins are in
everything, and that is the challenge. It isn't a natural
fiber, and so it is important. It has been important to our
economy; it is important in many ways, but we have to get our
arms around this recycling regimen.
I have to tell you, I am putting in a plug for a company. I
wear shoes every day that are made from recycled plastics, Mr.
Chairman. They are called Rothy's, and now I feel like I should
be a salesman.
Senator Carper. What are they called?
Senator Stabenow. Rothy's. R-O-T-H-Y, and I feel like I
should be a salesperson, because I converted several women in
the Senate now to be wearing them. I will be talking to our
Ranking Member about this. But we just need to be serious and
aggressive in terms of what needs to happen.
I did want to share one other thing, too, in talking
earlier about EVs. I just wanted to let you know, there is
really important work being done on recycling right now. A lot
of industries, a lot of companies in Michigan are doing
research and development, and now are actually recycling. There
is more that needs to be done.
Ford is partnering with a battery recycling startup,
Redwood Materials, to reuse the raw materials from EV battery
packs. They just announced it a few, actually, a couple days
ago. General Motors is doing a major effort to educate the
public on removing and recycling battery packs, and Nissan is
reusing old batteries for automated vehicles. I know Toyota is
working with folks in Michigan on taking batteries that aren't
used in automobiles anymore, but using them for golf carts.
There are all kinds of ways that we are looking at, and
Volkswagen is doing the same thing on recycling and creating
their first recycling plant in Germany. We would love to have
it in the United States. That is another discussion, but the
point is, there is a lot being done, and it needs to be done.
I want to actually ask Mr. Hawkinson a question, because
you want to talk about a success story; you are the success
story. I am very excited that a lot of that success actually
happens in Michigan around paper recycling, and the work that
is being done and more that needs to be done.
But when we are talking about a 2020 paper recycling rate
of two-thirds, basically, with more than 47 million tons of
paper recovered, that is very impressive. I wish we had the
same in plastics and other materials. I know that there is more
that we can do to support you, and I wanted you to respond.
There is a bill I have introduced called the Protect
America's Paper for Recycling, the PAPR Act, and the Chairman
is a co-sponsor, and Senator Boozman is a co-sponsor, and
others. It has good bipartisan support.
But this would stop waste to energy facilities from earning
a tax credit for burning recyclable paper. We don't want that
burned. We want to recycle it. We want to use it again. So
could you talk more about what you are doing, but also how this
legislation could help you build on that success? We have
policies right now that are going against what you are trying
to do, and we need to fix it.
Mr. Hawkinson. Thank you, Senator Stabenow, and thanks very
much for your leadership on this issue.
Paper and paper based packaging mills are looking for new
fiber, sourcing all that they can to make new products. A big
problem is government incentives or directives that might
divert recovered paper for use in things other than
manufacturing.
We appreciate the work that you are doing in leadership and
making sure that that doesn't happen. So, for example, someone
might divert commonly recycled paper for use in combustion to
generate energy, that would not count as recycling.
We think it is very important to protect the recovered
fiber stream for use in manufacturing. We support the
legislation; we submitted a letter of support for that. I
wholeheartedly thank you for the work that you are doing on
that.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. Well, hopefully, we can get
this done.
Secretary Biser, thank you for the work you are doing in
North Carolina. In our bipartisan infrastructure bill that we
passed, a bill of mine with Senator Portman, the RECYCLE Act,
was included, as you know. And when you are talking about
educating individuals as well as working with local governments
and States and so on, I think this is so important.
Could you talk a little bit more about assisting local
governments in recycling education efforts, and how does
improving these practices really reduce cross-contamination
that lowers recycling rates? Right now, we have a problem if
folks aren't doing it right. So could you speak a little bit
more about that?
Ms. Biser. Sure, and Senator, let me first of all thank you
for your leadership on the RECYCLE Act. That is an important
source of funding for States like mine to carry that message to
our residents, who, poll after poll shows, are confused about
how to recycle right.
What those dollars could go to help support are programs
like North Carolina recently completed, where we worked with
material recovery facilities within the State and mapped out
what was accepted by each of those programs.
Then there are 18, we called it a MRF Shed map. There are
18 MRF Sheds within the State. Our recycling program created
customized education materials for each of those MRF Sheds and
worked with local governments within each of those areas to do
a targeted social media campaign, and social media, but also
traditional education as well. So having additional funding to
do that on a more recurring basis would be very useful.
There is a lot of great traditional education methods that
could be used, but there is also some innovative methods, such
as cart tagging, where folks get actual feedback on what is in
their bins. It is a program that can be done, where folks walk
ahead of the recycling truck, look in it, get a little tag that
says, hey, oops, you may have included plastic bags, for
example. We will come back and re-collect.
I kind of compare it to, if I tell my daughter not to leave
her socks out, and have her do it, versus me kind of putting it
back in for her. The more we can engage our residents and how
they are recycling correctly, the less contamination, and that
leads to lower cost for the local recycling programs in their
MRF contracts, as well.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Stabenow, thanks very much for your
leadership on these issues. It is great. We share a friend who
is passionate about these issues as well. We were discussing
some of this over the weekend.
All right, thanks.
OK, Senator Capito, please.
Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, I mentioned in my opening statement that China
had changed its policy toward accepting materials from our
country. I am wondering, has the market already responded to
this? What are you seeing in terms of how this is making our
system more resilient, or what kind of impacts does it have?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you. Yes, I think some of the
commodities have already made terrific adjustments, paper being
really a fine example of that. The metals industry, which is a
large portion of our membership, has also been able to improve
their quality as well.
One of the things that, as it looks like, most people look
at this situation, and they say that China closed the door to
all this material. I think it is also a wake up call. It is a
wake up call to say that we can do a lot better with processing
our materials and recycling them and reusing them here in this
country, as well as other places. So many of the commodities
have already adjusted pretty well.
Senator Capito. Let me ask you another question. I am from
a rural State, West Virginia. I live in the capital city. We
have had recycling bins here and there, but it is unsustainable
for the municipality. They just can't afford it. They don't
have the manpower, but not just that, the funds to be able to
transport and figure out what to do with this. I would imagine,
in rural America, this is a huge problem.
What kind of solutions have you seen? Is it a hub and spoke
kind of solution, or Mr. Johnson, what are your members seeing?
I am talking more residential, but it could be small business,
small manufacturing recycling, as well.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. In the traditional way that recycling
works, with metals to all the other, the commercial,
industrial, as well as residential, what we would turn them
into more of the scrap side of the business as feeder yards.
So, what you are doing is you are collecting in lots of places,
and then based on the transportation costs, delivering it to
more of a central location where you have the equipment, the
machinery, the technology to be able to make it into a high
grade commodity to then be reused again.
Senator Capito. Yes. When you talk about education, I am
sure you run into this in North Carolina. It is just so stop
and start. Then when I heard Ms. Elias talk about deposit, I
thought about when I was growing up, probably you too, Mr.
Chairman, we had Coke bottles. You would have the empty ones,
and you would take them back, they had value. It was just the
way you did things. Then in the advent of plastics, that went
by the wayside, so maybe that was a good technology. It was
forward thinking.
Mr. Hawkinson, I understand there is a burning question
that my staff wanted me to ask: Are pizza boxes recyclable?
Mr. Hawkinson. Yes, and thank you for asking that question.
I think this is one of the remaining sort of urban legends
around paper recycling.
Pizza boxes are recyclable. We set out to put out an
industry statement to try to raise awareness and eliminate
confusion in the marketplace around this issue a couple of
years ago. As we do with all of our issues, we gathered facts
to make sure that we had the data right, and upon which to make
the statement.
So, we went out to our member mills who consume the two
grades most likely to have pizza boxes, old corrugated
containers and mixed paper. What we found is that 93.6 percent
of all of that fiber consumed at our member mills, of those
grades that contained pizza boxes, are accepted for recycling
in the mills. So, overwhelmingly accepted; they are widely
accepted in community recycling programs. We hope that any
other community recycling programs that don't currently accept
them do so.
Senator Capito. Well, I think what we are going to see
later this afternoon is a breaking news crawl: Pizza boxes are
recyclable.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Would the Ranking Member yield? What if the
pizza is still inside the pizza box?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hawkinson. I am glad you brought that up, because one
of the questions we asked in the research was, are they any
things that preclude your ability to use these in
manufacturing, and as you might imagine, pizza was the top
answer, so probably the best way to think about think or
remember it is: Pizza boxes are recyclable; pizza is not. Pizza
boxes, not pizza.
Senator Capito. Well, my pizza boxes are always empty.
OK, so let me ask one other serious question here. You have
obviously had great success in the Forest and Paper Association
with recycling with your Juno technologies and others. We have
heard a lot about the plastics and the low numbers. What
lessons learned from what you have been able to do, and hearing
the testimony today and concerns from the members, would you
say could be correlated to a more efficient and successful
plastics recycling?
Mr. Hawkinson. As you recognized, the paper recycling rate
reached 65.7 percent in 2020. That is about double what it was
in 1990, and it didn't get there by accident. It is the result
of the industry's recognition that we wanted to recycle more of
our products, made investments in collection infrastructure,
made a commitment to recycle more. We are doing a lot of
education for consumers about what is recyclable and how to
recycle properly.
And importantly, we are making investments in manufacturing
technology to enable us to use more recycled fiber. I mentioned
a number earlier, about $5 billion in manufacturing
infrastructure to use recovered fiber that is going to come
online. It began in 2018 and will come online through 2023.
That sort of private sector investment is enabling us to use
more fiber and increase the recycling rates for our products.
Senator Capito. Yes, and I would imagine, too, it also
increases, as you do that, it increases your end rate, your
user rate at the other end of the recycling life. There is
somebody there to buy your product, and use it, and have it be
efficient and all that, and I think that is an issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Now, while we know there is a whole suite of policy options
that are available to us on this front, could each of you
share, this is for the entire panel, could each of you share
with us maybe the top one or two legislative actions that
Congress could take, should take within the next year or so to
really move the needle and help us move toward a more circular
economy?
I am going to ask Ms. Biser to go first, please. Just one
or two that we just got to do items.
Ms. Biser. Thank you. One of those items, Senator, I will
have to thank the Committee for its work in working on
infrastructure and education investment that can go down to
States. Without the help of the Federal Government, we don't
have the dollars available at the State level to sufficiently
invest the level that we need to.
Water and wastewater infrastructure is a great example of
the money that is coming to the State that we are going to be
able to deploy to communities. Similarly, recycling could
benefit from that investment as well.
The second thing I would say is grants and technical
assistance to help grow State programs. States really have an
important role to play in helping local governments and
connecting with on the ground action, and the stronger the
State program, the more regional and localized solutions we can
develop to help support those communities who may not have the
resources to address those issues otherwise.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Ms. Elias, same question.
Ms. Elias. Thank you. You know, this issue is so teed up at
this point, and there is such a broad consensus for really
making significant action across communities by industry, by
the public, from Tennessee to Maine, California to Alaska. So I
would go for the whole thing at this point and kind of see how
far we can get.
My two things would be real policy signals to reduce truly
unnecessary and problematic materials. Any system is not going
to be able to handle the sheer volume of materials that are
being used. The public doesn't want as many materials coming
into their homes and into their lives.
The second piece is really to get the conversation going on
extended producer responsibility, including a national bottle
bill to get the market signals to really deliver the results
that people and industry want to see and to ensure equity and
parity between industries like paper that have really been
leading the charge, and other industries and really lift all
boats.
It is a big job, but I really appreciate you having the
conversation and continuing to move the ball forward.
Senator Carper. Thank you for being a part of that
conversation.
Mr. Hawkinson.
Mr. Hawkinson. AF&PA supports the RECYCLE Act. We think
that the funding, especially, that goes to EPA is important.
There are a number of things that it can do. We think the most
important thing is the funding that will go to States, Indian
Tribes, and communities that will do things like enable them to
conduct community needs assessments to understand gaps in their
programs so that they can fill that, so that they can
understand and adapt effective practices in the work that they
are doing.
Also funding to States so that they can provide technical
assistance to the communities. We think that by being able to
leverage those resources, communities are going to be able to
make lasting improvements in their recycling programs.
The second thing that the Government can do is to stay out
of the supply chains for paper manufacturing. Things like EPR,
which are well intentioned, are in place in the U.S. for things
that are hard to recycle: Mattresses, batteries, paint, those
sorts of things.
For products like paper and paper based packaging, the
collection system is well established and well participated in.
We have a very high recycling rate. EPR is not going to
appreciably increase the recycling rate for our products. It
is, however, a tax on packaging, which will cause manufacturers
to divert funds to paying that tax that could otherwise go to
making investments in manufacturing. And that tax is going to
disproportionately affect lower income Americans who spend a
larger percentage of their funds on food and other necessities
that come in paper based packaging.
So not adopting EPR at the national level would be a great
thing to do. Another great thing to do would be to not adopt
higher recycled content mandates for products. Every time a
paper mill makes a product, it balances the source of fiber it
uses based on availability, cost, performance on the paper
machine, and the finished product characteristics. Recycled
content mandates force fiber from products where it is most
efficiently used into products where it is less efficiently
used, creating both economic and environmental negative
impacts.
Senator Carper. Great. That is a lot to digest. That is
good, thanks. Thanks so much.
Mr. Johnson, please. Same question, and then I am going to
yield to our colleague from Alaska.
Welcome, Dan.
Senator Sullivan. Thanks, Tom.
Senator Carper. Go ahead, please.
Mr. Johnson. Well, Brian stole all my stuff.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Repetition is a good thing. Actually, it
is. Somebody told me the other day, we don't really absorb an
idea until we have heard it about 15 times, so it is still
early.
Mr. Johnson. I agree with both of his, but they shouldn't
count against mine, so I get to add some.
The first is, and I will add into it, is policies that
would encourage market development. Market development is the
demand side. That is going to pull everything through the
system. That is how the market works; that is why people pay in
the recycling system.
The other would be to encourage recycled content, but not
mandates. We would want encouragement. It could come through
all types of forms, from tax incentives, as well as just
explaining to the people through the RECYCLE Act why it is so
important. I would actually take you back to the World War II
efforts, when we brought all of our old metal and things like
that to the scrapyard to go back into being used in the war
effort.
The second one would be promoting design. You need to
design the products at the very, very beginning of the system
in order to make it easier to recycle, to get the better yield
back out of those products, and that makes recycling much more
efficient and effective.
Since you gave me the option for three, I am going to throw
one more in, and that is to actually change the nomenclature
and actually the regulations in treating recyclables and
recycling as a solid waste and a solid waste management system.
We are--I think we both said this before, that recyclables are
valuable commodities. They are being used in manufacturing.
This is what manufacturers have done for a long time. By
treating them as solid waste, it imposes a number of burdens
and costs, as well as we talk about recyclables as waste, as
trash, and it is certainly just the opposite of that.
So, I would encourage the Committee to look at legislation
to have EPA reform the RCRA for recycling. It is an act that
was written a long time ago. Making those changes, I think,
would make both an appearance as well as a technical and a
legal pathway toward recycling being much more efficient.
Senator Carper. Well, collectively, you have provided a
great to do list for our colleagues, and we are grateful.
Senator Sullivan, your name has been used not in vain
earlier today.
Senator Sullivan. Oh, good.
Senator Carper. With some of the good work that you have
done with Senator Whitehouse and others. Please proceed.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
the witnesses here.
I do want to talk just briefly about the Save Our Seas Act
and the Save Our Seas 2.0. I think that is an example of
Senator Whitehouse, and all of us really, working together
where you get key stakeholders, a lot of you guys were critical
and important in getting this over the goal line, and working
on both the executive branch, the Congress, industry, key
conservation and environmental groups all worked together on
this. You don't get everything you want. That is just the
nature of getting things done here, right?
So, I think this issue, though, is really a unifying issue.
You can get Democrats and Republicans and industry and
environmental groups all on board, and I think we want to keep
the momentum.
Let me ask Ms. Elias and Mr. Johnson, you may have seen in
the infrastructure bill, there were significant funds on the
implementation of Save Our Seas 2.0 that has got a domestic,
international component. What would you see as important steps
that we can take, kind of on the implementation side of that
legislation to make sure we continue this momentum?
Ms. Elias. Thanks, Senator Sullivan, and thank you again
for your leadership on Save Our Seas and Save Our Seas 2.0. I
was in the room; you had a great event with Senator Whitehouse
on the Alliance to End Plastic Waste that was about to be
reintroduced. Those are fantastic bills, obviously. Thank you
to Mary Eileen.
There are any number of important pieces in that. I was on
the phone with you a couple weeks ago with ABA and the CRS
study, was it, that said the most comprehensive plastics
legislation or materials legislation ever. I am not going to
remember every provision that is in both of those bills, but we
are very happy to see funding and full implementation going,
and we will continue to keep an eye on that.
Senator Sullivan. Good, thank you.
Mr. Johnson, do you have a view at all, and maybe I am
being too--I don't want to put you guys on the spot for quizzes
on different sections, but just next steps in general on that?
Because again, there is good momentum, and people want to see
that, right? Who doesn't want to protect our oceans, clean up
our oceans, keep sustainable oceans, sustainable fisheries?
These are huge issues for my State. Over 60 percent of all
the seafood harvested in America comes from Alaska. We have
more coastline that the rest of the lower 48 combined. So these
are big issues for my constituents, but I think they are big
issues for all Americans.
Mr. Johnson. Yes sir, and we fully support Save Our Seas
1.0 and 2.0, and thank you very much for doing all of that.
I completely agree with you. I would almost repeat some of
the things I said to Senator Carper just now: Encouraging ways
for my industry to be able to recycle all that plastic, to get
that plastic out of the seas, and to find uses for it. That
would be a great thing.
Our members--when we get it, it is a contaminated source.
So some of the improvements to technology could be great,
research and development for that, as well as the markets for
that material, that there is something, so instead of just
pulling it out of the seas and burying it or burning it, to
find some uses for it, even if they are low level uses. That
would be great.
Senator Sullivan. Good.
Let me ask, this is really for all the witnesses. In my
State, it is estimated that nearly 70 percent of households do
not have access to curbside recycling. And any transition to a
circular economy that leaves rural America out I think is going
to fail.
So, what do you recommend on how to address this issue? I
have met many, many smaller communities throughout Alaska that
are remote and have a difficult time accessing any of these
programs. What are the best tools to increase access for
recycling, particularly in remote communities?
Maybe we will start with you, Ms. Biser.
Ms. Biser. First of all, Senator Sullivan, thank you for
your leadership on these issues.
Rural recycling does present challenges. We have a fair
amount of rural communities in North Carolina as well;
particular challenges in Alaska.
One of the things that you have to pay attention to is
looking at how to make the economics of recycling work in rural
communities, and one of the ways to do that is through hub and
spoke systems. That is providing the central locations, where
it may not be economical for small towns to have their own
contracts for recycling pick up, but they can centralize their
collection at a central place. Then it makes the economics work
much better to have those types of accessibility.
There is also--I know Alaska does not have a material
recovery facility in this State, which adds to the challenges,
but having processing close by is also helpful. And again, with
the market demand of creating the industries or attracting
industries that can use that material as feedstock.
Last, I would say investing in curbside--after you take
care of those first two, it is also just investing in the
ability to bring carts to communities, making sure that they
have the right education on how to use those carts in the right
way, and to help create that circular economy in rural America.
Senator Sullivan. Good, that is a really good answer.
Anyone else wants to address this topic?
Ms. Elias. Yes, please. I will also answer your previous
question in some more detail. WWF supports and celebrates
Alaska's fisheries. They are some of the absolute best managed
in the world.
As follow up, we would love to see further action on the
Ghost Pier issues that represent such an amazing threat to well
managed fisheries around the world. So that, and also U.S.
accession, really having the U.S. have a seat at the table at
the Basel Convention, so both really international issues.
On your second question, WWF supports a Federal, flexible
framework to kind of lift up all regions of the country in the
recycling space, but that system is not going to work for
different areas. It needs to be flexible enough that it can be
implemented where people work and live, and really bring
private dollars to the table to make that collection work.
It is unrealistic to think that there will ever be enough
Federal dollars, and it is not, at the end of the day,
necessarily a Federal responsibility to make recycling work.
But the good news is that the private industry really does want
to invest.
We would like to see all the 20,000 municipalities that are
in charge of recycling right now have some sort of additional
financial support, and real goal posts for what that system
should look like. Hopefully some of those dollars would make it
to the right place in Alaska and elsewhere.
Senator Sullivan. Good, great answer. Thanks.
Anyone else?
Mr. Hawkinson. At AF&PA, we are big fans of public-private
partnerships. We are an inaugural funder of the Recycling
Partnership, which channels private funding and technical
expertise into communities to help build out collection
infrastructure, education, and the ability to help improve,
start or improve recycling programs in those communities to put
up matching funds. We think that is a great model that could be
used in Alaska to improve recycling there.
Senator Sullivan. Great, thank you.
Last word.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, so the hub and spoke is probably a very
good way. For Alaska, and some of the other large States like
that, recycling is a local activity. So I think Alaska is going
to need to think about how it works best for Alaska, versus how
it would be best in another State. So I think it is going to be
up to Alaska to figure that out for themselves in that.
One of the things I would suggest though, with the hub and
spoke, is making, with the education through the RECYCLE Act,
is to have people understand with the recycling to get a better
quality, and as that quality raises up, the value of the
material increases. And when the value of the material
increases, the costs for running the program, as well as the
transportation, then can be included in the product. That may
help make the program work a lot better.
Senator Sullivan. Right, right. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan, thanks for joining us
today. Thanks very much for partnering with our friend Senator
Whitehouse in a great effort.
Senator Sullivan. Yes. We are the Senate odd couple, but we
get a lot done.
Senator Carper. We need more odd couples. I understand,
over your left shoulder is Mary Eileen Manning?
Senator Sullivan. Yes, she has worked very hard on it.
Senator Carper. For the record, I just want to say I can
barely see her lips move when you spoke, and I want to thank
her for her good work on this, as well. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. She does great work.
Senator Carper. I have one last question, and then we are
going to wrap and go vote and go to other hearings and so forth
that are taking place.
Quick question for Ms. Biser if I may. I think you
mentioned that some 30, 40 percent of our Nation's food supply
is wasted, while nearly 14 million Americans, a lot of whom are
kids, experience food insecurity. What actions has the State of
North Carolina taken to incentivize composting and food waste
reduction efforts?
Ms. Biser. Thank you for that question, Senator Carper.
This is an important issue, and one that we have a ways to go.
Where we have started in North Carolina is to help support
local community programs who are doing drop offs for food waste
donation. What we are seeing is that there has been great
response from the residents in those communities when that
option is made available. So we are currently exploring the
opportunity to expand that within the State.
If I may, Senator, I may, as we are looking at how we can
expand this, I might make some suggestions for how you all can
help support that effort, as well. Thinking about the EPA food
waste hierarchy, the No. 1 thing to do is to prevent food waste
from occurring in the first place.
Having assistance, whether it is through grants to States,
for example, for providing technical assistance to large
generators of food waste would be very helpful. Programs like
the Environmental Stewardship Initiative could be expanded to
help provide that technical assistance and reduce it to start
with.
Second of all in that food hierarchy is feeding hungry
people. As you mentioned, nearly 14 million households that are
food insecure. There are items that could help States,
especially like mine that have a lot of agriculture, such as
transitioning from a food donation tax deduction to a tax
credit. For those who don't have a lot of margin on their
income, that could be a much more effective way to incentivize
food donation, and further clarifying the food donation
liability through the Emerson Act.
Then last, organics recycling is a nascent recycling
compared to things like aluminum cans or bottles or paper. So
the more infrastructure and education help we can get to help
support those markets, the more the Federal Government can help
by supporting the purchasing of compost, for example, to help
strengthen that market, all of those things would be hugely
helpful as the States are looking at their approach to this
important issue. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
As we prepare to close out, I just want to thank Senator
Capito myself, and everyone on this Committee, the staffs as
well who work really hard on this stuff. We want to thank you
for really excellent testimony today. Excellent testimony, very
helpful. You helped us appreciate that our waste and related
climate challenges are vast, but not insurmountable.
I am passionate, as you know, a lot of us are passionate
about the promise of a circular economy to meet these
challenges and allow us to have a more sustainable future. My
hope, our hope, is that today's hearing will inspire and guide
us all to strive together to achieve that more promising
future.
I love the issue of recycling. I have loved it forever. I
know you do, too. It is part of my DNA, and I know I speak for
Senator Capito and Senator Boozman, who provide great
leadership on these issues, along with Sheldon and Dan Sullivan
and others.
But we are in a situation where we got a lot of people who
are still looking for jobs. We will get a jobs report for
labor, in about 10 days we will get one for the month of
September. It will show how many people have found jobs,
hopefully a lot, and also show how many people are still
looking for work, and it will be a lot.
And this is just a great way, these industries, this is a
great way to put people to work, including people whose skills,
they don't have Master's degrees, or Ph.D.s, in most cases.
They may not even have gone to college. But they can work; they
want to work, and we can put a lot of people to work here. We
can strike a blow on behalf of climate change and help us
address that.
We can address blight. My wife and I took a road trip.
Senator Capito knows that. When we had our week off back in the
recess, we just drove around about four or five States, and too
much blight, too much in Delaware and other places, as well.
North Carolina looked pretty darn good if you will let me say
that. But this is a great opportunity here for us just to knock
the ball out of the park in so many different ways.
You have helped us, I think, move the needle and inspired
us with what can actually be done here. My staff says, and my
wife says that I quote Albert Einstein way too much. Two things
that Einstein said, I only know two quotes. One was the
definition of insanity, you do the same thing over and over
again and expect a different result, but the one I really love
is, ``In adversity, lies opportunity.''
There is huge adversity here, huge adversity here. We see
it every day as we travel through our neighborhoods and our
States. We see it in our rivers and what is in our oceans.
Great adversity, real opportunity, too. Opportunity to strike a
blow for our planet and opportunity to put a lot of people to
work, and to leave this Earth a better place for our kids and
grandchildren.
That is our challenge; that is our opportunity. Thank you
for helping us to realize that opportunity.
With that, I think I need to say, some housekeeping. I
would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a variety
of materials that include letters from stakeholders and other
materials that relate to today's hearing.
Is there objection? I don't hear any.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Additionally, Senators will be allowed to
submit questions for the record through the close of business
on Wednesday, October 6th. We will compile those questions and
send them to our witnesses, and ask our witnesses to reply by
Wednesday, October the 20th.
Anything else, Senator Capito?
Senator Capito. No.
Senator Carper. It was good being your wingman.
Thank you all very, very much, and with that, this hearing
is adjourned.
I think we have votes on the floor, and I have to get to my
other committee hearing before it breaks.
Thank you all. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]