Across the United States, confidence in the recycling system is eroding. I hear it all the time- “recycling doesn’t work” or “it all ends up in the landfill anyway.” Once that seed is planted, the cynicism is hard to overcome. What used to be the most tangible way for communities and households to reduce waste—separating recyclables and placing them in the blue bin—has been tainted by budget decisions to scale back or eliminate recycling programs, proliferation of single-use products and increased waste generation, and consumer-driven skepticism of corporations and greenwashing.
These beliefs are not unfounded. While the United States generates nearly 300 million tons of municipal solid waste a year, our national recycling rate hovers around 32 percent. For plastics, the rate is even lower, with estimates between 5–9 percent. This low rate is not the result of a single failure—it is the predictable outcome of a system never designed to manage the volume, complexity, and material mix of modern packaging.
Recycling programs in the United States have traditionally been managed at the local level. Gaining popularity in the 1970s, municipalities built and funded recycling programs with taxpayer revenue. The introduction of single-sort recycling in the late 1990s led to the rise of curbside programs across much of the country. This growth occurred alongside federal policy— the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 to provide a framework for solid waste management. Fifty years later, we are experiencing the shortcomings of a system that was not designed to create circularity, operate cohesively across the country, or assign responsibility beyond taxpayers and consumers.
Since the 1990s, costs and operational challenges associated with recycling have become increasingly prohibitive. When combined with increases in the variety and complexity of packaging materials (think of a box of pasta that combines a cardboard box with a plastic viewing window), local recycling programs have struggled to keep up. China’s 2018 “National Sword” policy, which restricted imports of foreign waste, left many programs without viable end markets since U.S. recyclers had heavily relied on being able to export plastic waste abroad, further driving up costs. In response, many communities reduced the numbers of accepted materials or suspended recycling programs altogether. Small towns and rural areas were hit particularly hard, and the Recycling Partnership estimates that approximately 40 million U.S. households lack access to recycling services comparable to their trash service.
Despite these challenges caused by external forces, the financial burden of recycling remains largely on local taxpayers. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided the largest investment in municipal recycling infrastructure and education to date, but requests far outnumbered available funding. To help close this funding gap, states have increasingly turned to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs to ensure producers take financial responsibility for the full life-cycle of their products.
EPR is not a new concept—state programs requiring producer-funded management of products like mattresses, tires, and paint have existed in the U.S. for years. However, applying EPR to packaging materials such as plastic, paper, aluminum, and glass is a more recent development. Under these EPR programs, producers pay fees to a Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO) based on the volume and type of packaging they place on the market. The PRO then uses those funds to finance recycling infrastructure, improve collection systems, and support more efficient materials management.
Momentum for EPR is building. Maine, Oregon, California, and Colorado have enacted packaging EPR laws, covering roughly a quarter of the U.S. population. Other states—including New York, Washington, Maryland, Minnesota, Illinois, and Tennessee—are exploring similar programs. If adopted broadly, nearly half the U.S. population’s plastic and packaging recycling needs could be covered.
In effect, the United States is already moving towards a national EPR system, but the lack of coordination creates significant challenges and missed opportunities.
For producers, the state-by-state approach creates a patchwork of regulations that is costly and time-consuming to navigate. Programs differ in how they define covered products, structure fees, and set compliance requirements. This is particularly challenging given that industry has expressed willingness to support well-designed EPR systems. That buy-in should not be taken for granted. Companies are willing to contribute to recycling systems in exchange for increased availability of recycled materials that help meet sustainability goals and regulatory requirements. Local governments benefit from decreased costs and improved, state-of-the-art technology they likely could not invest in on their own, and major food, beverage, and consumer goods companies derive meaningful benefits to their bottom line.
However, growing concern over regulatory fragmentation threatens the success of EPR on the whole and begs the question, “Could a thoughtfully designed federal approach provide greater consistency, while unlocking more strategic, system-wide investments?” My answer is yes.
I am often asked whether a federal EPR policy is possible. I believe it is—but its success depends on thoughtful, deliberate considerations of the policy details. A national program should not simply duplicate or scale existing state models. California is not Wyoming. Differences in population density, geography, and infrastructure mean that a one-size-fits-all approach risks inefficiency and missed opportunities.
To avoid this, any federal approach should begin with a robust national needs assessment. Before setting mandates, policymakers must identify where the system falls short and where the greatest opportunities exist. Evaluating collection access, infrastructure gaps, and lost material value can help direct strategic investments and strengthen supply chains.
The Environmental Protection Agency has already taken steps in this direction, identifying EPR as a potential tool in its National Strategy to Prevent Plastic Pollution. Legislative proposals like the Clean Future Act similarly recognize the need to bring together experts to study and define what an effective EPR system could look like at the federal level. Grounding policy in this type of analysis allows for more strategic, regionally informed investments that make a difference for taxpayers.
In densely populated areas, investments in advanced sorting and material recovery infrastructure may deliver the greatest return by capturing large volumes of well-sorted material, leading to higher value end markets. In rural regions, expanding recycling access through curbside programs, drop-off hubs, or regional networks may be more impactful. A coordinated national approach allows PROs to maximize collected fees by directing resources where they will have the greatest effect—whether through best-in-class facilities, improved transportation networks, or expanded collection systems.
Ultimately, EPR is not just about who shoulders the cost of recycling– it’s about designing a system that works for all of us.
Recycling in the U.S. has remained largely stagnant for more than 30 years. Recycling rates for plastics remain low, and consumers have lost confidence that the materials they place in the blue bins are actually being recycled. At the same time, companies are setting ambitious recycled content goals but face limited and inconsistent supply.
It doesn’t have to be this way. A well-designed federal EPR system can reimagine waste management and move the U.S. toward a more circular model. By aligning financial responsibility with system performance, we can incentivize better collection, target infrastructure investments, and increase the value of recycled materials.
