Blog 6

                MacBride talks about corporate involvement in recycling activity in Chapter 2 of Recycling Reconsidered. She discusses how the EAC received funding from sources typically considered unconventional sources for an environmental group, quoting an article from the time that stated that “‘More than 200 companies – many of them prime targets for environmentalists – have pledged millions in dollars in cash, time, and services to a massive war on solid waste’” (pg 55). When she referenced a quote about Karen Dumont, the EAC Executive Director, that said, “Refreshingly, she places responsibility not just on the manufacturer but on the consumer as well” (pg 56), it reminded me of our brief discussion in class today of the involvement of companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola in the Closed Loop Recycling Fund (CLRF). It seemed to me that MacBride was showing how the companies supporting the EAC were supporting recycling in an attempt to deflect public attention away from producer-focused legislation. Similarly, someone in our class had stated that the $100 million donated to the CLRF is really an insignificant amount to the companies that merely serves to give them a good reputation of supporting the environment without requiring any really impactful changes to the way the companies handle production.

                An article I found from The Guardian made this very argument about companies supporting the CLRF in more detail. For one thing, $100 million is not very much money to either the companies donating it or to the cost of recycling programs. While that much money is merely 1/1600^th of a percent of the annual profit of the combined yearly profits for nine of the donating companies, it would cover less than 1/5 of the annual cost of managing litter in California alone. Additionally, the money from the CLRF is not even a donation in the sense of a gift, it is really just a loan to cities for recycling projects and thus would eventually be repaid. After detailing these facts, the article argues the same point that was brought up in class—that donations to the CLRF save face on the environmental front without requiring any real change. While the companies are willing to donate tiny amounts of money or make changes that might even serve to save them money (like reusing recyclable materials instead of extracting virgin material), they are unwilling to make harder changes that would have more significant and beneficial impacts (like changing the production process, using different materials/formulas for products, or accepting any forms of legislation that would require extended producer responsibility).

                Although I am in favor of the CLRF and the expansion of recycling programs throughout the US, and I think that it is fabulous that there can be support for this fund from large companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola, I find it discouraging that this kind of action can be used as a sort of “get out free” card for those companies. It is disappointing that they think that this is where their environmental changes and positive actions should end.