Editor's Focus

Definitely Not

Agreeing on a common definition of recycling can be a very tricky process. Considerations include whether all steps in a process are included within the definition (collection, hauling, processing, manufacturing a new product) as well as whether some end markets deserve the recycling label (with energy recovery being the one most commonly singled out as undeserving).

Recently, in both a one-on-one interview with this magazine and at an industry meeting, Michael Blumenthal of the Rubber Manufacturers Association and its Scrap Tire Management Council has suggested that the term "recyclers" should be reserved for those making an end product from scrap tires, while those who collect, haul and perhaps downsize tires should be known as processors.

Certainly there is nothing inaccurate about the word "processors" being applied in this case, but I would also contend that there is nothing inaccurate about the word "recyclers" being used.

Recycling as it is commonly defined and as it is portrayed in its chasing arrows logo consists of several steps, beginning with the conscious decision of an individual, company or government entity not to landfill something but rather to collect it for another purpose.

In the case of scrap tires, there have been noteworthy and regrettable cases where tires were collected by companies calling themselves recyclers who allowed them to build into enormous stockpiles that were never connected with end markets.

In light of such experiences, it is understandable that an observer may be reluctant to apply the recycling label to any part of the chain short of the last one—where a new product is created.

However, in more established markets such as those for scrap metals and recovered fiber, I would be very reluctant to tell employees and managers of decades-old and highly capitalized scrap companies that they are not, in fact, recyclers.

Indeed, in some cases the steelmakers, nonferrous metals producers and paper mill operators who have long consumed scrap materials have only belatedly become more willing to embrace the recycler label.

If manufacturers of products made from scrap tires wish to be known as recyclers comparatively early in their life spans, that is welcome news. But it should not come at the expense of informing others in the collection and supply chain that they are not worthy of the label.

The interests of the recycling industry can be best served not by narrowing the definition of recycling. Rather, haulers, processors and consumers of scrap can make their greatest impression on policy makers and individual members of the public by reminding them that recycling is a multi-billion dollar business that includes several critical steps.