Chinese Ban on Trash Importation: A New Dilemma for Recycling
China is known for being a very resourceful country. During my father’s generation in the 1960s, less prosperous families constructed sandals from worn car tires and elementary schools organized field trips to pick up scrap metal from factories. However, as China emerges from its phase as a developing country and experiences improvements in living standards, such resourcefulness is fading away. It is true that since 2018, China has stopped accepting trash from the West.
In the past two years, China has moved away from receiving the enormous volumes of waste generated by western nations, which has placed pressure on the United States to find a means of maintaining sustainable lifestyle within its consumer-based culture.
According to the National Public Radio, around “70 percent of the world's plastic waste went to China – about 7 million tons a year.” Since the implementation of the trash ban, the shipment of waste into the country has dramatically declined to 1% of previous import volumes. The main concern that catalyzed this legislation was environmental externalities. Among the cargo loads of trash that made their way into China, many of the materials were difficult and unprofitable to recycle, with contaminants such as “paper, food waste and plastic wrap.” Unscrupulous processors would illegally discard this rejected waste into the ecosystem with little regard towards its toxicity on local farmlands. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping’s environmental slogan, “clear water and green mountains are valuable as mountains of gold and silver.” Clearly, there is no place for trash mountains.
China’s new attitude towards trash is resulting in many dilemmas for cities around the United States. Before China’s trash ban, both individual households and local authorities shared similar enthusiasm about recycling. In the past, small cities such as Franklin, New Hampshire could “break even on recycling by selling it for $6 a ton.” Although the financial incentives were insignificant, at the very least, recycling was not considered a strain on public budget. However, the decrease in Chinese demand means the burden of waste processing is now imposed on the local transfer stations, which in the case of Franklin charges “$125 a ton to recycle, or $68 a ton to incinerate.”
It is truly disheartening to learn that our meticulous efforts in sorting plastic and paper into their proper containers might be in vain. As a result, this issue cannot simply be resolved with adjustments to our individual recycling habits. On a systematic level, the concept of recycling is usually not an important factor considered by manufacturers. It is less expensive to produce with new plastic and paper than with recycled resources. The high cost associated with using recycled materials has to do with the labor intensity in the waste separation process. For example, many cardboard boxes that are coated with a layer of plastic film cannot be recycled and must be manually separated from other paper-based items.
From a young age, we are indoctrinated with the idea that we should not be wasteful. However, this idea of using less seems to contradict the prevalent culture of consumerism, especially in countries of material prosperity such as the United States. While we have heard of the Three R's of environmentalism —Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle— we have a tendency to place disproportional emphasis on “Recycle.” Indeed, the actions of reducing or reusing seem unnecessary if we could simply recycle all the products we consume. However, this assumption is qualified only if we hypothetically invent a 100% efficient recycling system. Until such a scientific breakthrough occurs, we must remain cognizant that for many municipalities with limited financial means, recycling programs are a luxury they can’t afford. Now that China has closed the gates to our influx of trash, it is necessary that we proactively limit our waste production by virtue of reducing and reusing.
Thumbnail credits to The Wall Street Journal