None of Us Actually Recycle: The Marketing Scam that Deceived the West

Recycling is one of the most admirable things you can do for the environment these days. It’s respectable and socially expected of all people to recycle products after using them. As a society, we all know that when you toss a disposable cup into the blue bin, it’s reused and turned into something new — or perhaps even innovative. The carbon footprint of the cup is reduced back to zero as if it never even existed. Right?

You might be surprised when I tell you that this story about recycling is a complete lie. Although this idea of recycling has been marketed to the western population for a few decades, it is far from reality.

Cultural and Social Influences on Consumption

The mellow 20th century erupted into the 21st century’s culture of excessive consumption and waste at quite an alarming rate. Prior to the popularization of materialism in the late 20th century, the act of reusing items over and over again while only consuming new products in small quantities was not only normal but socially expected. So, what happened? Why did the developed world shift so dramatically from being relatively environmentally friendly to carelessly overconsuming?

Historian Susan Strasser presented one explanation for this trend in her book “Waste and Want: the Social History of Trash,” where she illustrated the effects of industrialization on consumer behaviour on the market. Before the globalization of trade, commonly used products like clothing and household equipment were not only locally sourced, but because they were manufactured within a community, the manufacturing process was a personal endeavour: if you wanted a new outfit, the most popular and affordable option was to purchase the fabric, threads, buttons, and any other material from a shop, and then take the material to a tailor to have the outfit fashioned to your taste and measurements. Due to the time and effort that it took to purchase the components of a product, there was a higher value placed on individual purchases because each consumer was a first-hand witness of the production process. In simpler words, consumers had a personal relationship with the production of new products to be sold on the market. They interacted with all levels of production directly.

After a particular product had outlived its lifecycle, it was not discarded as trash. As I’ve mentioned, larger values were placed on the worth of products because the energy expended during the production process was something that consumers directly witnessed. When a woman outgrew a dress prior to the early 1900s, it was customary to simply change the style of the dress or reuse the fabric to design something more fashionable. Fabrics and clothing would actually be recycled into new attires multiple times. Then when the materials were worn out beyond functionality, they would be turned into rags, a quilt, or a rug. Susan Strasser goes on to describe the social influence on consumption and recycling culture, stressing that:

“Before there was municipal solid waste disposal, stuff would pile up in your house if you didn’t reuse it. In addition, people who made things had an understanding of the value of material goods that we don’t have at all today. Literally, if everything you wore, sat on, or used in your house was something you made or your mother or uncle or the guy down the street made, you had a very different sense of value of material goods.”

But as western nations entered the 1920s, a new trend in the consumption and recycling patterns took a turn that would result in today’s modern waste crisis over 100 years later: source separation was no longer a common practice, and with further industrialization, there was less of a personal connection between consumers and their purchases. Aside from metal, nothing was really being recycled. There were very few incentives for people to consume less and recycle their materials during the first world war. Of course, materials were still valuable, but the economics of a low-impact way of life was not nearly as relevant as global warfare. Fewer resources were being invested into community-based sustainability, and a more nationalistic mindset was adopted for the sake of defence. After all, it costs money to pay tailors or milkmen to recycle old products like glass bottles or old dress fabric. These services never had been free, but now in the centre of war, paying to recycle something that could simply be thrown away became less appealing. The cost of reusing garbage began to steadily grow— especially for products like bottles and papers: the process of recycling paper, for example, was extensive. Additionally, each time paper is recycled, its quality is degraded. Similar to the paper example, collecting bottles, cleaning them, and then refilling them was time consuming and costly. The economics of recycling was transforming from a convenient market into a burden. Consumers and producers alike began to seek out disposable alternatives.

The Popularization of Plastic

What is referred to as plastic today is an umbrella term used to describe a large class of synthetic polymers, meaning that they contain no molecules that naturally occur in nature. The first successful plastics ever made were not artificial, but their invention would be the foundation for modern-day plastic.

Back in 1869, John Wesley Hyatt invented the new material to provide a substitute for ivory. Hyatt’s invention was revolutionary; now there was a substitute for killing thousands of elephants for their tusks. Additionally, Hyatt’s invention was groundbreaking because it enabled producers to rely on manufacturing products outside of the apparent supply chain, that being, the natural world. Hyatt discovered that plastic could be crafted into various shapes and colours, and could be manipulated to mimic the natural textures of naturally occurring substances like linen, ivory, and tortoiseshell. Now, there was no need to threaten biodiversity with mass slaughterings because plastic was a manufactured substitute.

Following Hyatt’s innovation, in 1907, Leo Baekeland invented the first fully synthetic plastic. Baekeland had been searching for the formula of a versatile substance that could substitute many of the material needs of the rapidly electrifying United States. Due to plastic’s durable nature, it was marketed as “the material of a thousand uses.” From the new discovery onward, a plethora of chemical companies began to invest in Baekeland’s invention, as well as in their own independent production of polymers. The two innovators of the first synthetic polymers were actively seeking to create more long-lasting and sustainable substitutes for already-existing products. However, as the durability and flexibility of plastics were discovered by big corporations, they began to make investments in the production of new types of plastic for the sake of profit.

The most significant eruption in the growth of plastic production industries was during World War II. Natural resources were growing increasingly scarce during the global war and more expensive as a result. As a result, the need to preserve natural resources and seek alternatives became apparent, and plastics offered the solution to costly natural resources. For example, silk is manufactured when silkworms wrap themselves in cocoons. Once they rap themselves to undergo metamorphosis, manufacturers boil the worms in how water and harvest the outer cocoon. Cotton is another example; manufactured from cotton flowers, large amounts of water and pesticides are required to grow the plants and transform the flowers into a malleable fibre. On the other hand, plastic could easily be stretched into fine ropes and spun into nylon, so to create ropes with the synthetic material, excessive natural resources no longer needed to be wasted. Throughout the second world war, plastics became the primary resource used to manufacture parachutes, ropes, body armour, helmet liners, and even plexiglass. The combination of the production demands of World War ii and the ongoing innovations within the plastic market increased the United States’ overall annual production by 300%.

After the second world war ended, the popularity of plastic did not perish. Nations that had had access to the new material grew accustomed to its convenience, the swiftness with which it could be produced, and its durability. Convenience was a cultural revolution — and especially after the famine of the Great Depression, Americans were more than thrilled to spend their new riches on cheap products that could be quickly produced and deposed of when their lifecycle ended. New private companies continued to create new and innovative plastic formulas and new plastic products. Each time they were put on the market, the plastic material products were more successful than the previous: plastic car parts were lighter and easier to produce than steel car parts. As a result, plastic became the new main component in cars. Similarly, traditional clothing fabrics like cotton and silk were slowly replaced with plastic variations like nylon and polyester. The old culture of community-based production and small businesses, and the long-lasting usage of consumer goods, had died.

For roughly 30 years from the beginning of World War II to the 1970s, the United States was experiencing exponential production and overconsumption without any regard for waste. Finally, after so much poverty with the great depression and the world wars, people were prepared to spend.

Plastic Industry’s Fight to Sell

For a while, the plastic industry had a good ride: production was skyrocketing, consumer interaction with the market was growing exponentially, and old products were being replaced with durable plastic alternatives regularly. But as the post-war period progressed into the 1960s, plastic products began to be viewed with less optimism. There was an international shift in the national opinions of plastic as citizens became more educated about the effects that overconsumption was having on the environment’s well-being: overconsumption was great for the American economy, but it was not sustainable if it was simultaneously destroying the nation. The anti-consumption movement grew immensely from the 60s to the 80s and targeted disposable products like those made from plastics. The general public began to stress that although the convenience of disposable products was undeniable, their byproducts last in the ecosystem forever, causing damage to biodiversity and pollution. The most publicly visible form of pollution that inspired anti-consumerism culture was the plastic debris observed in the ocean, particularly on the western coast of the U.S. Also gaining popularity was literature critiquing big corporations such as Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, Silent Spring, which exposed the dangers of chemical pesticides to the environment and population. Eventually, anti-consumers were able to spread their message loud and clear. Across the United States, plastic-based products purchasing reached an all-time low.

With the U.S. population beginning to reject unnecessary consumption, a cultural movement of collective slow-usage was born. As a result, however, the value of plastic decreased, and plastic companies were making record low revenues. Although a good thing for the environment, this was detrimental to plastic companies and their employees. Plastic had been one of the most revolutionary materials, and now, Americans were taking their money elsewhere. Unwilling to go out of business, oil and plastic companies devised a new marketing strategy to meet the cultural demands of the environmentally-conscious U.S. population: that marketing strategy was recycling.

The anti-consumption and slow living movements promoted reusing products to maximize their lifespan. This would allow people to reduce their impact on the environment. Since it was a cultural movement, individuals worked as a single collective entity to preserve and protect the environment. Plastic companies observed this and realized that they could market plastic products as a solution to the problem that the anti-consumption movement was trying to solve. The answer was very simple, and for the sake of marketing, it didn’t necessarily need to be true, as long as plastic sales began to increase again. So, oil and plastic companies began investing in commercializing the reusability of plastic products: television commercials, newspaper ads, radio ads, and even the labels on plastic products themselves, all stressed that the lifecycle of a plastic product did not need to end with a single-use. In the 1980s, the plastic industry led an influential campaign that encouraged municipalities across the U.S. to collect and process recyclable materials as a part of their waste-management systems, while simultaneously encouraging people to reuse their plastic items as many times as was possible in their households.

For a while, the prevalence of the anti-consumer movement died down. As Americans began reusing their plastic goods and municipal governments constructed programs to collect and recycle plastic waste, plastic sales increased. However, although this satisfied the needs of the plastic market for a time, plastic companies soon noticed a flaw in their marketing strategy: while Americans were purchasing plastic, the rate at which products were being purchased was significantly lower than before the anti-consumption movement.

The reality was that gas and oil companies were the backbone of plastic companies across the United States. After all, the most commonly used plastic formulas used fossil fuel byproducts as their main components. The first and foremost goal of these companies since their founding was to maximize revenue, and the decline in consumption was a massive problem for these companies. Because of this problem, oil, gas, and plastic companies across the United States collaborated in a marketing conspiracy to dramatically increase the consumption of plastic products once again. The concept of marketing plastic products as durable and reusable had served its purpose. Now, to increase production, consumers needed to stop reusing their purchases and revert back to the high rates of spending that were prevalent prior to the anti-consumption movement of the 1960s.

To explore the full magnitude of the plastic industry’s deception, what better source to go to than archived statements of plastic company heads? Back in 1974, right before the rise of marketing recycling in the media, an industry insider stated in a speech;

“There is serious doubt that recycling plastic can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”

But as we’ve already established, the effectiveness of recycling was not a concern to the plastic industry — as long as it was a marketable narrative. The industry spent millions of dollars on these marketing strategies, stressing that;

“If the public thinks recycling is working, then they are not going to be concerned about the environment.”

This was a very true statement made by Larry Thomas, a former president of the Plastic Industry Association.

Commercials and promotions of plastic products shifted from promoting reuse to bashing reuse and slow consumption. The oil, gas, and plastic companies realized the impressionability of consumer behaviour from media consumption. They used this to their advantage, now marketing the reuse of products as dirty and backwards. But the public need not worry, because the plastics companies could solve this uncivilized problem for consumers once and for all! Just dump your used plastic items in a recycling bin and be done with it; big plastic corporations will take care of it because they need this material to transform it into new products! This is the narrative that successfully spread like a plague across not only the United States, but western nations across the planet. Of course, the corporations perpetuating these narratives were aware that they were fabricating facts that, in reality, were complete contradictions to reality: once they have been used once, over 90% of plastic products are completely useless. As for the remaining 10% of products that can actually be reused, the process of recycling and remodelling degrades the durability and overall value of the plastic each time that it is remade into a new product. This means that the material can be reused a maximum of three times before it too will end up in landfills with the other 90% of un-recyclable products. Of course, plastic companies kept the truth about recycling a secret from their faithful consumers, and consumption of plastic goods began to rise exponentially year by year. The industry had successfully sold a public idea that they knew would never work.

What Actually Gets Recycled and Why Is It Inefficient?

If you were born in the 2000s like I was, you should recall programs instilled in our school assemblies since kindergarten promoting the importance of recycling: we had blue bins put inside of every classroom, as well as organic waste bins for paper and food byproducts. After all, we were responsible for the welfare of the environment, and as long as we remembered to separate our plastics from paper and place them in the correct disposal bin, we were lowering our impact on the planet. Right?

Wrong.

The extent to which this lie of recycling has indoctrinated the Developed World is genuinely incredible. The reality seems to be that the plastic industry sold us a way of feeling good about ourselves. During the 1960s-1980s, people had been aware that overconsumption was an overall negative on the environment, and naturally felt guilty about it, which lead to decreased plastics sales. But now, with the revolutionary idea of recycling, people believed they could consume as much as they wanted without needing to worry, because whatever they tossed in the blue bin would just be reused to make new plastic products. Unfortunately, this is economically, ethically, and environmentally impractical.

Firstly, let’s understand why recycling makes little to no economic sense. Theoretically, all plastic can be melted down and remoulded into new products. But this process is expensive, and in first-world nations, it’s not possible to pay people the legal minimum wage at legal work hours, and still manage to recycle ethically. To transform a collection of plastic trash into new products, all plastics must be separated based on their molecular makeup: since different types of plastic products are all made out of different plastics, they can’t all be melted down together, so they must first be separated by hand. Even if this issue were bypassed, the quality of plastic degrades each time it’s reused, meaning that after being recycled once, or maybe twice if the material is particularly sturdy, it still has to be discarded of and sent to a landfill. This entire process that I’ve just described is expensive and lengthy. On the other hand, new plastic is cheap to make because it’s made of oil and gas. In addition to the low price of making new plastic, products will always be of higher quality when they’re made from new plastic, meaning that companies can charge more for their products. For recycling to work, someone also has to actually want to buy the plastic waste and be willing to transform it into new products. But due to the expenses of recycling, hardly any companies are willing to incorporate used plastic goods into their products, so over 90% of plastic ends up in landfills anyway, even if we as consumers are “recycling” it by tossing it in a blue bin.

Secondly, why would this utopia of recycling not be ethical? Well, as already mentioned, recycling is expensive. Unless big corporations were to rely on the labour of volunteers, they would have to pay workers for long and illegal hours to sort out and transport all the plastic waste received by recycling plants. This may seem like a strictly financial issue, but in an attempt to actually get rid of most plastic waste, first world nations have been notorious for sending millions of pounds of plastic waste a year to developing nations like China, Pakistan, India, and Malaysia. Because fair wages aren’t regulated as strictly in developing nations as in first-world countries, shipping waste off to the third world reduces the cost of recycling. The former creates a new problem: western nations have been sending such large and annually increasing amounts of plastic waste to third world nations that they no longer have the infrastructure to process these large volumes of recyclables. What does that mean, exactly? Basically, western nations have turned developing countries into massive landfills for our waste. This became such a significant issue for China — which had acted as the largest market for recycled waste — that on the first day of 2018, the Chinese government actually began prohibiting 24 types of waste from entering the country. The result of this un-recyclable waste on the Chinese lower class was that huge amounts of the lower and underclasses of China were literally living in mountains of western waste.

Thirdly, recycling does have an impact on the environment. Of course, overconsumption leads to a surplus in waste that is harmful to the environment, but recycling as an industry in itself is not designed to benefit the environment because it was intended to be nothing more than a marketing strategy. It’s been established that, of the small amount of recycling that actually does occur, it isn’t happening in the nations creating the waste: the plastic waste has to be shipped off to developing countries by air or water. This means that colossal amounts of fossil fuels have to be used in the recycling process simply to ship the plastic waste to other continents. By the time the waste has reached these developing nations, over 90% of it can’t even be recycled because it’s either contaminated, or not valuable enough to invest any more recourses in. There’s just far too much to be processed with too little infrastructure suited for recycling available. There is an inability to recycle the way that it has been marketed to the western world, so the plastic goes to landfills where it destroys natural ecosystems, kills off biodiversity, and harms the standard of living for local human populations. In some cases, plastic is burned, which, although does create some reusable energy, is mostly toxic due to the amount of carbon emissions produced. Many companies try to label themselves as “waste to energy plants,” where toxic wastes can be burned to produce electric energy. Again, these plants release more harmful chemicals into the air per unit of energy than coal plants.

Since plastic, oil, and gas companies across the United States came together to fabricate this idea of recycling, less than 10 percent of plastic waste has actually been recycled.

Solutions

As I’m sure that many of you have probably already concluded, a society coming together as a collective, and having enough social awareness to stop over-consuming, is really the only solution to pollution. Obviously, I do have my own views on government policies that should be implemented to reduce waste and protect the environment, but I really don’t feel that I have any authority to talk about how a government should be structured. Outside of national policies, there are many steps that societies and private businesses can be taking to reduce their consumption and waste. For example, in Britain, the popularity of the milkman is on the rise once again, where bottles are collected to be refilled and redistributed on a regular basis. Similarly to this, many companies have recently been showing a preference for so-called zero waste models, meaning that these shops require their customers to bring their own reusable cups, bag, containers, and bottles, and fill them up at the store. A few makeup companies have even been taking this approach recently, where customers can send their packaging back to the manufacturers to be reused. Of course, these business models still would require packaging to be shipped off if customers chose to make international rather than local purchases, meaning that they’re not 100% zero waste. The most effective way to fix the problem of overconsumption is by having a cultural reset, where western society can collectively revert back to reusing products and extending their lifecycle. Overall, the fewer purchases that are made, the better. In countries like the U.S., where consumer spending makes up the majority of GDP, it’s safe to say that consumers spending less money would be a catastrophe for many politicians and big corporations. In a strong economy, a person’s standard of living is high, meaning that they have more money to spend. But is environmental degradation really worth it, and could you still live without some of your purchases? Is it a life-altering inconvenience to reuse a product and, perhaps, spend an hour or so a month repairing your old assets rather than throwing them out? Will your life be ruined by carrying a metal thermos all day rather than a plastic Starbucks cup? Personally, I know where I stand, and I know what will be sustainable for humanity and the planet in the long run, so I challenge you to find where you stand, and what you can do to decrease your impact on the Earth.

Sources:

Geyer, R., Jenna Jambeck, J., & Law, K. L. (n.d.). “Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made.” ResearchGate. Retrieved December 31, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318567844_Production_use_and_fate_of_all_plastics_ever_made\

Gan, J. (2021, March 11). Here are 5 reasons explaining why recycling is a Scam. Medium. Retrieved December 30, 2021, from https://medium.com/climate-conscious/here-are-5-reasons-explaining-why-recycling-is-a-scam-6cf7d943fe4

Franklin-Wallis. O. (2019, August 17) Guardian News and Media. ‘plastic recycling is a myth’: What really happens to your rubbish? The Guardian. Retrieved December 30, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/plastic-recycling-myth-what-really-happens-your-rubbish

Ambrose, J. (2019, October 13). War on plastic waste faces setback as cost of recycled material soars. The Guardian. Retrieved December 30, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/13/war-on-plastic-waste-faces-setback-as-cost-of-recycled-material-soars

Eldred, S. M. (2020, April 14). When did Americans start recycling? History.com. Retrieved December 30, 2021, from https://www.history.com/news/recycling-history-america

Semuels, A. (2019, March 6). Is this the end of recycling? The Atlantic. Retrieved December 30, 2021, from https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/584131/