Some reasons why we need to move to EPS

The article gave two main arguments to support Extended Producer Responsibility, or the reasons why we should shift the responsibility of recycling from government to producers.

Firstly, national recycling just helps recycle 10% of goods. This is because not all kinds of waste can be recycled within limited financial budgets. While aluminum, metals, many forms of paper can be recycled 100%, others such as plastic and glass almost can’t be recycled (the cost and resources required to recycle those materials versus the cost and availability of virgin materials).

Secondly, price of recycled plastic has decreased incredibly, leading to a drop in national recycling of these materials.

In general, under these economic issues related to recycling, current recycling approach shows to be ineffective. As an alternative, recycling should be taken out from commodity goods and be put under the control of original producers.

 

According to Walls (2006), among various types of EPS, individual take-back approach and combined fee/subsidiary approaches are preferred. Between individual and collective take-back approaches, individual approach is supposed to be better in encouraging Design for Environment (DfE) and companies can generate the economy of scale.

 
Is it time to rethink recycling? http://ensia.com/features/is-it-time-to-rethink-recycling/
Walls, M. (2006) Extended Producer Responsibility, OECD