By John McClaughry

Drew Cline of the Josiah Bartlett Center reports how the New Hampshire Legislature passed a recycling advancement bill over green objections. He writes, “Companies they think they have a breakthrough concept: chemical, or advanced, recycling. It has the potential to increase plastics recycling and decrease solid waste. Naturally, environmental activist groups hate it.”

Drew Cline: “No one can be sure that advanced recycling will live up to its promise. But it definitely won’t if it’s never allowed to start.”

“Why? They prefer to abolish the production of single-use plastics. It’s a classic case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.”

He continues, “A General Accounting Office report last fall concluded that advanced recycling created tremendous new opportunities for producing raw materials of virgin quality, thereby decreasing demand for fossil fuels and other natural resources; reduced landfill use; and new markets, promoting domestic business and employment.”

“Among its obstacles are state regulations, which tend to classify such facilities as solid waste disposal operations. Senate Bill 367 subjects advanced recycling to laws and regulations that apply to manufacturers rather than to solid waste disposal centers.”

“Despite a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate, the House passed it by 70-vote margin, but still 128 members voted against it.”

“The Conservation Law Foundation opposed the bill, saying in a statement that it “disguises burning plastic as recycling and will spread toxic pollution into New Hampshire’s communities while keeping single-use plastic in production.”

“No one can be sure that advanced recycling will live up to its promise. But it definitely won’t if it’s never allowed to start.”

John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute. Reprinted with permission from the Ethan Allen Institute Blog.