Loading summary

Transcript51 lines

[00:01]
Suzanne Rust
This is an la times studios podcast.
[00:08]
Miranda Green
There's a debate raging in California and it's over the future of plastics. In the 1950s, there was a post war boom of plastics products in everything from Tupperware to toys. But more recently, there's been a recognition that plastic derived from fossil fuels isn't the miracle product it was once hailed to be. Conversations have largely converged around plastics recyclability or really how unrecyclable so much of it is. Just 5% of all plastic in the US is recycled. Two new bills passed in California in the past couple years aimed to change that. SB343, the truth in Recycling bill, limits what products manufacturers can label with the Recycling Aero logo. The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility act, more commonly and succinctly known as SB54, focuses instead on putting the onus on producers to only sell plastic products that are truly recyclable in California. Innovators and scientists saw these two laws as landmark legislation that that could catapult the state and non plastic alternatives into household names.
[01:24]
Suzanne Rust
It was gonna inspire and incentivize new material research and development. It was a glimmer of hope.
[01:34]
Miranda Green
But as so often happens with legislation, both laws are facing legal pushback from both sides. Environmentalists are calling them too weak and producers and other manufacturing groups say they overstep their authority. The result is a state good intentions but an unclear direction on how to best regulate the plastic waste. And it's leaving some business founders who have good ideas for solutions without a way to get their foot in the door.
[02:05]
Will Lorenzi
There's no on ramp for new products within the bill that says we're going to encourage innovators to come up with new materials and incentivize the brands to use those materials.
[02:17]
Suzanne Rust
And it's these same fights that have been happening for years and years over plastic itself and is over like, you know, climate change. And you just feel like you take a step forward and then you go two back and you know, are we actually moving forward? I don't, it doesn't feel like it sometimes.
[02:33]
Miranda Green
One step forward, two steps back. The legislative cha cha. But where does this leave California when it comes to its goals to eliminate plastic waste in landfills? From LA Times Studios, this is Boiling Point. I'm your host, Miranda Green.
[03:08]
Southern California Edison Announcer
During one of the most severe windstorms Southern California experienced in more than a decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires ignited, leaving heartbreaking losses in our communities. Now as we build back, we're building stronger, cleaner and more resilient in communities most vulnerable to dangerous weather conditions and wildfires, Southern California Edison is placing power lines underground, hardening the electric system by installing wires with protective coating and adding advanced technology to help keep communities safe. The work is underway as communities rebuild across the region. And if you were impacted by the Eaton fire, support may be available through Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Claims can be filed directly through the program. No legal fees, no lengthy litigation. Payment in months, not years. To file or explore the program, visit sce.com directclaims Communications funded by ratepayers.
[04:09]
Brooke Gladstone
I'm Brooke Gladstone, CO host of WNYC's on the Media. Information doesn't just inform us. It shapes how we see the world, what we fear, and who we trust. That's where OnTheMedia comes in each week. We investigate how information flows, who controls it, and what that means for our democracy. It's not about the headlines. It's about the hidden structures behind them. Don't be a passive consumer. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
[04:41]
Miranda Green
This week I'm speaking with Suzanne Rust, a Los Angeles Times reporter who is essentially a newsroom expert on plastics. Hi, Suzanne. Thanks so much for coming on the podcast today.
[04:52]
Suzanne Rust
Thank you for having me. It's nice to be here.
[04:54]
Miranda Green
So you've been covering this landmark plastics law that was signed into law in California back in 2022. It's called the Plastics Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. Quite a mouthful. When it passed, it required plastic and packaging companies to ensure that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable. And then this past May, the final regulations were released, essentially putting this law into effect. But it seems that not everyone is happy. Actually, it seems like almost no one is happy here. Both sides of the aisle, environmentalists and plastics producers have been very upset with the way that this law has been implemented. So can you walk us through the history of how we even got here?
[05:41]
Suzanne Rust
Oh, yeah. I mean, it's quite a history. So in 2022, there were environmental groups in California who wanted to put a ballot measure onto the November ballot, right when we were all going to vote. And it was going to pretty much say, like, no more single use plastics in the state. We're gonna really reduce them. And any single use plastic that is brought into the state, there's gonna be a $0.01 tax on it, and so on and so forth. And not surprisingly, industry got really concerned and upset about this and began a huge lobbying campaign and they were able to convince some legislators to create legislation that would sort of do the same thing, but it wouldn't be an outright ban on this stuff. And the legislation would incorporate, incorporate or include the industry, the packaging companies, companies like agricultural companies, the dairy industry, and have them sort of police this whole plastic law. So they created what's called a producer responsibility organization. And all the companies that sell these products in the state have to join it. At the time, it felt to everybody like, okay, here is, here is a law that's going to do what this ban would have done, but in a way that everybody can kind of stomach. Right. But not surprisingly, as things got closer and closer to, you know, go time, different forces began to chip away at it, beginning with the governor.
[07:21]
Miranda Green
This has actually been passed, but now they're trying to figure out how to actually implement this.
[07:24]
Suzanne Rust
Correct. Right. So in 2022 we signed it. And then CalRecycle had to sit down and figure out, working with industry, figure out how they're actually going to make this happen. And as it got close to the time where they were going to release final regulations, the governor stepped in and suddenly there were these huge exemptions for like any product that the USDA or FDA might oversee. Right. And so that pretty much includes anything in the produce aisle, anything, you know, cereals. There was this huge exemption. And he also sort of opened the door to allowing chemical recycling to occur. And so one of the things about this bill was not only was it going to reduce single use plastic, it was going to reduce pollution. And there are real concerns about chemical recycling. It requires a lot of energy, it can create toxic air. And so in the way the law was originally written, and there was an addendum written to it, chemical recycling was not supposed to be in there. But suddenly the door was open to it. Then the environmental groups got really angry and the final regulations were finally released. And the environmental groups were really upset because they felt like now the law isn't going to do what they had been supporting and had been promised. But also the industry didn't like it at all because suddenly they were having to look at their packaging, maybe change their packaging spe on packaging, pay fines if they were bringing things into the state which aren't supposed to be in the state. And so the most recent development is 17 attorneys general from a variety of states, all red states, sued California and said this law is basically illegal. It was going to compromise interstate commerce. That's where we are. And it feels just like this whole thing is crumbling apart. And the people I had spoken to back in 2022 who were about this ballot measure are like, yeah, we knew this was going to happen and we told everybody and if we had just done this ban, we wouldn't be where we are today.
[09:41]
Miranda Green
Thank you for that incredible backstory here. I mean, I think what's so interesting about this is it feels like the people who are obviously interested in this ballot initiative and maybe who also put together this law had the intentionality of getting at this very like deep seated question, which is who's responsible for plastic pollution? And it's this question that I think everyone has been grappling with and both sides wants to point the finger at the others. Environmentalists claim that it's the producers who should be responsible for this, the end life cycle of the plastics. They should be paying for the plastics that are not recycled. They should be paying for what goes in the landfill. Or they should, as this bill was, I think intended to do, keep binding them and saying, if you cannot prove that this is recyclable, you should not be producing this to begin with and you should be really responsible. And then on the other hand, the producers are saying, you know, if we don't have these products, then you're not going to have your beloved plastic water bottles, you're not going to have your milk jugs. And that cost is ultimately going to get passed down to the consumer who's not going to be okay with kind of big jugs and refill stores or maybe paper products instead. And it's been this back and forth kind of argument that's been happening for quite some time. California seems like it really wanted to take the lead on figuring out this solution. But as you're mentioning here, it kind of seems like we haven't gotten very far in that argument and it's kind of devolving into this back and forth on the legality all of a sudden.
[11:06]
Suzanne Rust
Yeah, and I think you really articulated that. Well, just this really does boil down to this question of who is responsible for this, who should be paying for this? And you know, the law was intended to protect consumers. Right. They shouldn't have to pay for this anymore. Every month I get a bill that shouldn't be going up because our, you know, recyclers can't have, they have to send stuff off to landfill and then they fined for that. Right. So yeah, it was a real issue about that. And of course these industries don't want to have to pay for it. And part of the way the law was written, it was the companies will get fined, but it should not go back on The California consumer. But of course, if they're having to pay more, they're going to figure out a way to do it. And what they've been saying is the California consumer is going to have to pay more. And yeah, we're now in this place where it is not looking good. If your goal is to reduce plastic in California, single use plastics, that's not looking like it's achievable right now.
[12:12]
Miranda Green
So, I mean, the country is dealing with a major recyclability issue here. And we know all plastics are not created equal. There's a preference for clear plastics that are easily meltable and can be made into more products versus milk jugs. And I do find it really interesting that one of the groups that's pushing back so hard against this is actually the dairy industry. What are they arguing and what are they asking for?
[12:37]
Suzanne Rust
The dairy industry is really interesting here. So I've written about this a bit and it gets into a different law that I think we're going to also talk about, SB343, which is like the truth and recycling law. And so the state has started to look at what products are actually recycled and at what percentages. And if you go into the dairy aisle in your grocery store, you will notice, yes, there are plastic milk jugs, but there are a whole lot of milk cartons. And basically you can't recycle a milk carton. They look more environmentally friendly because they look like cardboard, but they are not. They're actually made of several layers of plastic and metal and paper. And so a recycler gets it and they're like, what the hell can I do with this? Right? And it's really weird, like when I learned this because I used to always take the paper because that looks way better than the plastic, but in fact it's not. It's actually much worse. And so once the state started going and looking at, you know, at what rates are these different materials being recycled, they found out really abysmally low levels, like milk cartons, I think are less than 2%. The dairy industry just, they realized that this would be a big problem for them, right, if, if the law was to, was to actually run the way it's supposed to operate, the way it was supposed to. They couldn't sell these cartons anymore. And that would be huge, right, because that's the biggest sort of delivery vessel for milk right now. So they just sort of see an existential threat with the law there that they wouldn't be able to sell that product. They would have to sell it in a different kind of plastic or in, God forbid, glass. And so the dairy industry is sort of like the biggest of all of those, but there are others as well. I mean, I think, like, if you're looking at people who. The industry that sells strawberries. Right. I think they are concerned that if you took those little, like, green boxes away, which are kind of rigid, that strawberries might get crushed. Right. Or they wouldn't have as nice a looking product, and they would have to figure out something different. So they're all just very concerned about what this actually means for their business. With SB3343, the truth in recycling law. If recycling levels are less than 60%, basically, you can't call it recyclable. And if you can't call it recyclable, then you suddenly won't meet the requirements of SB 54, which require that by 2032, any plastic packaging you sell in the state is compostable or recyclable. And so they're fighting, fighting back hard.
[15:25]
Miranda Green
Yeah. I mean, and it looks like the most recent developments, just in mid July, another lawsuit came down. And this one was actually a judge just ruled against the Truth and Recycling Law. So can you walk us through what his ruling was and kind of where we are with that one right now?
[15:39]
Suzanne Rust
Okay, so in that it was a coalition of, like agriculture, food, packaging companies sued the state over this Truth and Recycling Law. And what they argued was it was unconstitutional in two ways. One, under Article 14, they said that the law was vague. So one of the things that the law requires is that the companies can show that the product is being recycled and recycled in an environmentally friendly way. But they say they don't know what that means. And once their product comes into the state and a recycler picks it up, a recycler can send it to Mexico, they can send it to Canada. Canada. Right. They don't know what the end point is. So therefore, how can they create a product when they don't know what the end is going to be? And then the second thing that they said was that it violated their Article one right, their right to free speech. And their argument there was basically, theoretically, almost anything can be recycled. But to meet the requirements of California was sort of a different level. And their right to say something is recyclable should be just truth. It can be recycled versus having to meet what they see as sort of arbitrary standards from California. And the judge agreed with him on the free speech thing. And so he granted a Preliminary injunction, which means California can't enforce the law right now. So it doesn't mean that this is over. The trial is still going on. The other thing that can happen is our attorney general, Rob Bonta, can appeal, and then it would go to the 9th district and go in front of a different court. But anyway, that's where we are right now. So SB343 right now cannot be enforced.
[17:44]
Miranda Green
Based off of the shareholders that you've been talking to and you're reporting kind of on all spectrums, what is the general feeling about how these lawsuits are going to play out and ultimately impact both of these laws and how they're implemented in California?
[18:00]
Suzanne Rust
I mean, I think there's discouragement on both sides. Right. And I think everybody, though, is hopeful that their vision of what it should be will ultimately prevail. So environmentalists think the judge's ruling, for instance, on the truth in recycling law is ridiculous. And they think if it's brought to a different court, a different court will see it a different way, that free speech does not mean you can say what you want, because something could happen. They need to follow the state's laws. And I think industry and the agricultural producers are hopeful that they will continue being able to sell the products that they have sold to Californians for so long at a particular price. And same for SB54, I mean, I think. Well, that one is more like nobody's happy with that law right now. Nobody likes it, which is kind of weird. Right, because everybody loved it when it was first introduced. And I think they're gonna be in
[19:15]
Miranda Green
the effort to make everyone happy. They've made essentially nobody happy.
[19:17]
Suzanne Rust
Exactly. Exactly. And for a while there. There was this acknowledgement that nobody loved the law. Right. It wasn't like the. What environmentalists wanted, and it wasn't what the industry wanted, but it was a nice compromise. Now it's just they really don't like it. So I think there's just a lot of frustration. And we're in a particular environment right now where I do think there probably is more like the thumb on the scale is more on industry side right now, and we're just going to kind of have to see how this all shakes out. But of course, of course. I just want to say on the other side of this, there are those who, beginning in 2021, 2022, saw that these laws were coming. And we've had a huge growth in startup companies in California and elsewhere who are waiting for this law to happen because they do have the products that would enable these companies to sell their products to us right in packaging that actually would meet the requirements. So of course they're furious about everything that's been happening because they've so much money over the past few years and getting to this point to be able to make mint on that.
[20:39]
Miranda Green
After the break. More on one business that viewed these laws as a door opening and tried to create new products to meet their standards.
[20:58]
Southern California Edison Announcer
During one of the most severe windstorms Southern California experienced in more than a decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires ignited, leaving heartbreaking losses in our communities. Now, as we build back, we're building stronger, cleaner and more resilient in communities most vulnerable to dangerous weather conditions and wildfires. Southern California Edison is placing power lines underground, hardening the electric system by installing wires with protective coating and adding advanced technology to help keep communities safe. The work is underway as communities rebuild across the region. And if you were impacted by the Eaton fire, support may be available through Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Claims can be filed directly through the program. No legal fees, no lengthy litigation. Payment in months, not years. To file or explore the program, visit sce.com directclaims Communications funded by ratepayers.
[21:59]
Brooke Gladstone
I'm Brooke Gladstone, co host of WNYC's OnTheMedia. Information doesn't just inform us. It shapes how we see the world, what we fear, and who we trust. That's where OnTheMedia comes in each week. We investigate how information flows, who controls it, and what that means for our democracy. It's not about the headlines, it's about the hidden structures behind them. Don't be a passive consumer. Listen wherever you get your podcasts checked
[22:30]
Environmental Defense Fund Announcer
out, your thermostat and your electric bill. Lately, both are rising faster than we'd like, and students and teachers are feeling the heat, too, while they sit in uncomfortable classrooms and breathe dirty air. California is sitting on nearly $200 million in funds set aside to upgrade aging school heating and cooling systems. By freeing hoarded school H vac funds, students and teachers can get cooler, cleaner air. And by putting the interest on these funds to work, families can access cheaper and cleaner energy when temperatures climb instead of relying on the most expensive, dirty sources of power. Before leaving Sacramento, lawmakers must extend the California school's Healthy Air Plumbing and Efficiency Program, or CalShape, and finally release funding for cooler cleaner classrooms. At the same time, legislators must set aside the 70 million in interest earned to reduce electricity costs for families through the Demand side Grid Support Program. Learn more@edfaction.org that's E D F A C-T I O N.org Once again, edfaction.org paid for by environmental Defense Action Fund.
[23:38]
Miranda Green
An estimated 3.1 million tons of plastic ended up in California landfills in 2024. When it comes to recycling paper, even more ends up there, roughly 4 million tons every year. There are companies whose products attempt to directly fix this. And as consumers, we've seen them on shelves. There are compostable forks and disposable straws made from avocado rinds and bamboo plates. Will Lorenzi is one innovator who saw the need for more sustainable packaging in California. He's the founder of Smart Planet Technologies and their main product is an alternative to the plastic lining placed inside paper cups. His product, called Earth coating, is instead made with minerals and it's recyclable. Will, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
[24:33]
Will Lorenzi
Pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
[24:35]
Miranda Green
So, Will, let's talk a little bit about your backstory. You're originally from Orange county and you got the idea to develop something called Earth coding. Can you walk me through what that is?
[24:46]
Will Lorenzi
Yeah. Earth coding is what we did was we looked at a way. Is there a way that we can have all the needs that you need for paper packaging, which is the heat sealing? Because when you form a cup, you've got to basically seal it against itself. You also need to have the barrier because paper absorbs moisture. So you need to have something between the paper that's going to keep the moisture or of the food from touching the paper. Can we do it in a way that basically meets the goals of the packaging industry, but at the same time meets the goals of the recycling industry? So they can actually recover these great fibers and use them over and over again like uncoated paper.
[25:26]
Miranda Green
I want to take a step back here. I have a cup and it looks like it's paper. But you're telling me that most of these paper cups actually have a plastic coating on the inside that makes it much less recyclable than I realize, right?
[25:39]
Will Lorenzi
Yes. It's not compatible. If a bale of paper cups showed up at a paper recycling system, they can't recycle it. The plastic will go into the screening process and clog it and they can't recover the fibers. So you really have to keep out these plastic coated materials because the paper recycling wasn't designed to handle them. And what we did was, is the industry did it went a lot of direction down the path of the path of coming up with New plastics. And what we did was we said let's mix in minerals which are already used in paper making, but put that into the plastic. Now if you add enough, you satisfy what the recycling industry wants or the packaging industry, but you cover what the recycling machine wants and they can recycle it like uncoated paper. And that's what we created. So it solves the whole plastic coated paper problem in a way that is as elegant as possible. Mixing in something as low cost as calcium carbonate.
[26:38]
Miranda Green
So how did you come up with this idea? When did you realize that there was plastic on the inside of cups and that there was a solution at hand here and that you were the right person to do this?
[26:50]
Will Lorenzi
Yeah, we actually, it's. The inventor's name is Chris Tilton and he's absolutely brilliant. It's not his first invention. He has many like inventors, they often have a long list of incredible ideas. And he just continues to come up with ideas like that. He came up with this idea to basically put this in, put minerals in and to basically and to get the performance that the packaging industry needed and to get the recyclability that the recycling industry wants and find that sweet spot where both how much minerals do you put in that you get the effect on both sides. And the industry hadn't seen that before. They didn't expect that. So it came out of nowhere and kind of shocked everybody. The whole industry was going down the path of compostable resins. We're going to, we're going to find a way to bury all this waste in the compost and instead we came up with a way of mixing in plastic. Now it would be nice if one day there's a plastic free solution. But what we're doing is we're, we're cutting the plastic amount in half. But the, it no longer acts like a plastic in the recycling system. So it doesn't see a baggie that clogs the system. What it sees is clay, clay coating. And most paper is coated with clay coating. So it just goes right to the bottom. Like with your staples and your paper clips. It goes down instead of floating with the fibers. So it's a very elegant solution that works with the existing equipment.
[28:09]
Miranda Green
Your idea of earth coating came about around the same time that a bill was proposed, is that correct? It was Senate Bill 1167, which would have required chain restaurants in California to provide non toxic reusable cups for dining customers. How did that spark this idea?
[28:25]
Will Lorenzi
Once that legislation popped up, we said, oh, here's our opportunity Because I'd like to think that companies will just switch over because they care about the planet and do what's right. But they have bottom lines, they're trying to be profitable. And their goals of why I might have started the company is not maybe aligned why they're interested, they're going to be. One of the best ways to move things forward is government regulations that are properly done that incentivize the right behavior. And when that happens, the entire industry can switch and you can solve an entire problem. So we were thrilled that that bill came up because it allowed for us to step in the middle and say, you don't have to be without paper cups. If these paper cups are recyclable and made into new paper products, then everybody is satisfied because it never turned into waste.
[29:14]
Miranda Green
How much are bills like these important to innovation in the industry? That bill ultimately did not pass in 2024, but two other plastic laws have recently been signed into law in California. I'm talking about SB and SB 343, which both regulate plastic producers and what they must do to make their products recyclable. But they're also both proving to be pretty controversial. There have been a lot of lawsuits. I guess I'm wondering what does that mean for people like you who are trying to pass these products and are looking to these bills as a chance to get more sustainable products on the market?
[29:53]
Will Lorenzi
Yeah, it's. I'd have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the execution on SB54. It's well intentioned and every play everywhere should be doing EPR and trying to put in proper policies to encourage the use of sustainable materials, to reduce the amount of plastic and to basically be. And to reduce the landfill waste and get into circular economies. The challenge that we've had with SB54 is that it doesn't have an innovation on ramp. So for example, you have a paper cup that's fully recyclable and the recyclers can turn it into any product it recycles, just like uncoated paper. Yet because there still exists paper cups that aren't that way, then it's a race to the bottom. Everybody stays, everyone gets a failing grade no matter what your material is. So you could have a perfect cup that solves the entire problem. But you're in a category that isn't collected yet. And the reason why is because your product isn't on the market yet. So you have a chicken and egg problem here is that we would recycle all the paper cups if they were recyclable, and you've got the recyclable cup, but it's not currently being recycled, therefore you can't label it as recyclable. SB54 assumes that no new product will come along that innovates. It just assumes, let's get the current materials at higher recycling rates. It's a bit of a simplistic view. Other countries and regions have evolved their EPR programs to make sure that the result is that innovation is prioritized. Because it's certainly a lot easier to innovate new materials than it is to build out an infrastructure with systems that don't exist yet that will somehow take materials that, that you haven't recycled in the past, and now they're valuable to recycle. The infrastructure costs on that are enormous and it's very, very difficult. And it's processes that don't exist yet.
[31:52]
Miranda Green
I've heard from a couple innovators like yourself that they had hoped that the implementation of this law would make more of a market for their products, that there would finally be a need for more recyclable goods because it would inhibit some of the other products that just are ultimately not recyclable, even though you might think they are. But instead, the rollout of this bill has been so delayed and also so heated that no one really seems happy. And these innovators are ultimately feeling pretty disappointed with what this means for their products.
[32:25]
Will Lorenzi
SG54, the approach they took, which is different than other places it was, is it's not recyclable unless it's already being recycled. And when that. So you come up with a new idea, a new innovation, and you start out of the gate not recyclable. Now, the recycling industry has laboratory tests that they clearly know where there's value and where there's not value, but that's not being used here. Other places like Europe and other areas, they're using that. And so we have great opportunity here in Europe to move our products forward. But we're a California company and I have no way to move our products forward in California. So we put all of our time and effort here in Europe, and we don't put it into California because the regulations are written that there is no incentive for sustainable products in California.
[33:12]
Miranda Green
And Will, I know you keep on saying here because I know you're currently in Switzerland, but talk to me a little bit more about what you just said that's so interesting to me. I mean, you're a California local, you're based in California normally, but you're essentially saying there's no place for your products on the market there. Even though you know, you would say California is a state that really wants to be the leader on these issues. Why are you finding it to be so much easier to sell products in Europe? Do you have hopes that eventually there will be a place for you in the US market?
[33:45]
Will Lorenzi
So the way Europe goes about creating regulations, they had it wrong too for a while on their regulations. About three years ago I said this is not going to go well for us in Europe. And then they went and they spoke to the recycling industry and so they had these regulations that first were created by the packaging companies and the brands. They said this is what we'd like it to be. And they ran with that and that's what the regulations looked like. Then they went back and they checked with the recycling industry and said, is this going to work? And the recycling industry was no, this is not going to work. It's not going to. And they said, well, what would work? And they said we have testing procedures and lab results. We know what works and doesn't. You got to hold the packaging accountable and the materials so that we get quality materials to recycle. So they elevated the materials and said they have to pass the industry's lab results, which already exist. But that's what we're going to use as the basis for deciding what's a recyclable material versus saying that the only things that are recyclable are things that are already recyclable. So that gave us the opportunity here to let our products shine and said our paper cups, our takeout trays, all of our materials are classified and qualified by a like the industry laboratory testing has uncoated paper. So in Australia we make gift wrap for Hallmark copy paper for Australian paper can make anything with it because it's classified and treated as ordinary paper. And the reason why that happened was, is because we were allowed to put the word recyclable on the package and brands will pay for that. But right now with SB343, we can't put the word recyclable, no matter how much the industry would love to see our product.
[35:23]
Miranda Green
If you could read the tea leaves about the future of plastic recycling and innovation around single use products, what do you think is going to happen in the next two or three years?
[35:33]
Will Lorenzi
My view is that Europe has it right. They pivoted a few times on their once they went to the recyclers and figured out what actually works and what doesn't work. Their EPR legislation and the regulations are coming in are really good. It really fits. When I saw the change that they did, I said, oh my God, it couldn't be better. It's like they figured it out. I was so thrilled and I spoke to some of the people in the industry and I said, did they get this right? And they said, they sure did, didn't they? I said, I know, it's amazing. Now I would love for them just to straight away just say, let's solve the paper cup problem tomorrow. 25 cents per paper cup unless it passes and solve it overnight. That's a tall ask. UK almost did it. It was close. That would have been great. But absent that, their legislation, they did a really good job of pivoting it. And I think what'll happen is different places will try different things and then everyone is going to share their notes and say what worked and didn't. Then everyone's going to figure out, because this is very complex, but they're all going to figure out what process worked the best. So eventually we'll all get there. But I hoped that SB 54 was written for innovation, especially California is the state of innovation. Everyone looks to us for innovation. So to see us not putting anything into the regulations that foster innovation is disappointing.
[37:00]
Miranda Green
Will Lorenzi, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast.
[37:04]
Will Lorenzi
Thank you for inviting me.
[37:09]
Miranda Green
While the lawsuits challenging California's two plastic laws are continuing to play out, there is positive momentum across the pond. Will told me that he actually moved to Portugal last year to get his product ready for market. That's because on August 12, the European Union's packaging and packaging waste regulation will fully take effect across all 27 member states. It's a rule that in part aims to inspire most businesses to create and sell plastic alternatives. Thank you for listening to Boiling Point. I'm your host Miranda Green. Special thanks to LA Times investigative reporter Suzanne Rust for joining the show today. My producers are Mary Knoff and Jonathan Shiflett of Studio Phonic. Additional production help from Audrey Ngo. Sound design by Jonathan Shiflett, Monty Morin and Ingrid Lobet are our editors. Director of Post production is Patrick Stewart. Senior Sound Recording engineer is Nick Norton. Our podcast Marketing manager is Bryn Jora, our senior Media manager is Kelsey Rodriguez, and our Director of Marketing operations is Nicole Adderholm. Special thanks to LA Times Studios president Anna Migzonian. President and Chief Operating Officer of the Los Angeles Times is Chris Argentieri. Executive Editor of the Los Angeles Times is Terry Tang. Boiling Point is executive produced and co created by Darius Derek Shawn.
[39:12]
Brooke Gladstone
I'm Brooke Gladstone, CO host of WNYC's on the Media. Information doesn't just inform us. It shapes how we see the world, what we fear and who we trust. That's where on the Media comes in each week. We investigate how information flows, who controls it, and what that means for our democracy. It's not about the headlines, it's about the hidden structures behind them. Don't be a passive consumer. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts.

Summary6 min read

Boiling Point: Two New Plastics Laws are Bringing a Whole Lot of Baggage

Podcast: Boiling Point (LA Times Studios)
Host: Miranda Green
Guests: Suzanne Rust (LA Times plastics reporter), Will Lorenzi (Smart Planet Technologies founder)
Date: August 6, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode examines California’s two latest plastics laws—SB343 (Truth in Recycling) and SB54 (Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act)—and the mounting backlash from both environmental advocates and industry players. Host Miranda Green investigates why these potentially transformative measures have left everyone dissatisfied, what’s at stake for innovation, and how these legal battles are shaping the future of packaging and recycling in California and beyond.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Genesis of California’s Plastics Laws

(05:41 - 07:20)

Environmental groups initially pushed for a ballot measure to ban most single-use plastics and tax the rest.
Fast-moving industry lobbying resulted in a legislative compromise:
- Creation of a “producer responsibility organization” (PRO) for plastic and packaging companies, including agricultural and dairy sectors.
- Everyone in the industry has to join the PRO, sharing responsibility for meeting the law's benchmarks.
The compromise was seen as a palatable alternative to an outright ban but proved contentious and complex to implement.

Notable Quote:
“At the time, it felt to everybody like, okay, here is a law that's going to do what this ban would have done, but in a way that everybody can kind of stomach.”—Suzanne Rust (06:39)

2. The Tug of War: Implementation and Pushback

(07:20 - 12:12)

After the law’s 2022 signing, the state’s CalRecycle department had to draft regulations—a process further complicated by last-minute gubernatorial exemptions for products overseen by the USDA or FDA and by the allowance of some "chemical recycling."
Environmentalists felt betrayed by what they viewed as watered-down ambitions, while industry worried about fines, packaging changes, and compliance.
A coalition of 17 red-state attorneys general sued California, arguing SB54 violates interstate commerce.

Notable Quotes:
“It feels just like this whole thing is crumbling apart. And the people I had spoken to back in 2022...are like, yeah, we knew this was going to happen and we told everybody. If we had just done this ban, we wouldn’t be where we are today.”—Suzanne Rust (09:20)

“Who is responsible for this, who should be paying for this?...the law was intended to protect consumers. Right. They shouldn’t have to pay for this anymore.”—Suzanne Rust (11:06 - 11:15)

3. “Truth in Recycling” and Product Labelling Fights

(12:12 - 17:43)

Discussion turns to SB343, which limits the use of the recycling symbol to items actually recycled at a 60%+ rate.
Milk cartons are highlighted as an example: while seemingly eco-friendly, their low recycling rates (<2%) pose existential problems for the dairy industry under the new rules.
July 2026: A judge issues a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of SB343, siding with industry arguments about vagueness and free speech.

Notable Quotes:
“They look more environmentally friendly because they look like cardboard, but they are not. They're actually made of several layers of plastic and metal and paper...once the state started going and looking at what rates are these different materials being recycled, they found out really abysmally low levels, like milk cartons, I think are less than 2%.”—Suzanne Rust (13:09)

“The judge agreed with him on the free speech thing. And so he granted a preliminary injunction, which means California can't enforce the law right now.”—Suzanne Rust (16:43)

4. Mutual Disappointment: No One is Happy

(17:43 - 20:39)

Lawsuits, ambiguity, and exemptions have frustrated all stakeholders.
Environmentalists hope legal appeals will overturn industry wins, while producers/dairy/ag prefer the status quo or further dilution of requirements.
Even innovation-focused entrepreneurs—hoping the laws would open markets for sustainable packaging—are left in limbo.

Notable Quote: “In the effort to make everyone happy, they've made essentially nobody happy.”—Miranda Green (19:14)

5. Voices from the Frontlines: Sustainable Packaging Innovation

Guest: Will Lorenzi, Smart Planet Technologies

(24:32 - 37:03)

The Problem: Common “paper” cups are lined with plastic and unrecyclable in most US facilities.
Innovation: Smart Planet’s “Earth coating”—a mineral-infused, recyclable inner layer for cups that preserves function but enables successful recycling.
The Onramp Problem: SB54 lacks any innovation “on ramp”—new products can't qualify as recyclable unless there are already widespread recycling systems for them.
European Contrast:
- In Europe, lab-based recyclability testing is accepted for new products, letting innovators quickly prove (and label) their products as recyclable.
- In California, regulatory barriers mean companies like Smart Planet are focusing their growth abroad.

Notable Quotes:
“SB54...doesn't have an innovation on ramp. So you could have a perfect cup that solves the entire problem. But you're in a category that isn't collected yet...You have a chicken and egg problem here.”—Will Lorenzi (29:52)

“So we put all of our time and effort here in Europe, and we don't put it into California because the regulations are written that there is no incentive for sustainable products in California.”—Will Lorenzi (32:54)

“Europe has it right...they figured it out. I was so thrilled...what'll happen is different places will try different things and then everyone is going to share their notes and say what worked and didn't.”—Will Lorenzi (35:32)

Memorable Moments & Quotes (with Timestamps)

Suzanne Rust: “And it's these same fights that have been happening for years and years over plastic itself and is over like, you know, climate change. And you just feel like you take a step forward and then you go two back...” (02:16)
Miranda Green: “California seems like it really wanted to take the lead...But as you're mentioning here, it kind of seems like we haven't gotten very far in that argument and it's kind of devolving into this back and forth on the legality all of a sudden.” (10:49)
Suzanne Rust: “Nobody likes it, which is kind of weird. Right, because everybody loved it when it was first introduced.” (19:03)
Will Lorenzi: “It would be nice if one day there's a plastic free solution. But what we're doing is we're cutting the plastic amount in half. But it no longer acts like a plastic in the recycling system. So it doesn't see a baggie that clogs the system. What it sees is clay, clay coating.”— (27:00)
Miranda Green: “You're a California local, you're based in California normally, but you're essentially saying there's no place for your products on the market there. Even though you know, you would say California is a state that really wants to be the leader on these issues. Why are you finding it to be so much easier to sell products in Europe?” (33:26)

Important Timestamps

05:41 — History and compromise of plastics legislation in California
07:24 — Implementation challenges and exemptions
12:37 — Dairy, packaging industries fight the laws; milk carton recycling rates
15:38 — July 2026 lawsuit: Truth in Recycling injunction
17:59 — Stakeholder frustrations and the stalling of laws
24:32 — Will Lorenzi's innovation: earth-coated, recyclable cups
29:52 — The innovator’s dilemma: SB54 stymies new, sustainable products
33:44 — European policy comparison; why innovators are leaving California

Conclusion: Where Does California Stand?

While California’s ambitions to lead on plastics reduction and recycling remain high, bureaucratic bottlenecks, legal challenges, and a lack of incentives for new technologies have created a landscape of frustration. Innovators are looking abroad, environmentalists are disillusioned, and industry groups are fighting back—leaving the future of plastics policy, and California’s role as a climate leader, ever more uncertain.

Loading summary

Transcript51 lines

[00:01]
Suzanne Rust
This is an la times studios podcast.
[00:08]
Miranda Green
There's a debate raging in California and it's over the future of plastics. In the 1950s, there was a post war boom of plastics products in everything from Tupperware to toys. But more recently, there's been a recognition that plastic derived from fossil fuels isn't the miracle product it was once hailed to be. Conversations have largely converged around plastics recyclability or really how unrecyclable so much of it is. Just 5% of all plastic in the US is recycled. Two new bills passed in California in the past couple years aimed to change that. SB343, the truth in Recycling bill, limits what products manufacturers can label with the Recycling Aero logo. The Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility act, more commonly and succinctly known as SB54, focuses instead on putting the onus on producers to only sell plastic products that are truly recyclable in California. Innovators and scientists saw these two laws as landmark legislation that that could catapult the state and non plastic alternatives into household names.
[01:24]
Suzanne Rust
It was gonna inspire and incentivize new material research and development. It was a glimmer of hope.
[01:34]
Miranda Green
But as so often happens with legislation, both laws are facing legal pushback from both sides. Environmentalists are calling them too weak and producers and other manufacturing groups say they overstep their authority. The result is a state good intentions but an unclear direction on how to best regulate the plastic waste. And it's leaving some business founders who have good ideas for solutions without a way to get their foot in the door.
[02:05]
Will Lorenzi
There's no on ramp for new products within the bill that says we're going to encourage innovators to come up with new materials and incentivize the brands to use those materials.
[02:17]
Suzanne Rust
And it's these same fights that have been happening for years and years over plastic itself and is over like, you know, climate change. And you just feel like you take a step forward and then you go two back and you know, are we actually moving forward? I don't, it doesn't feel like it sometimes.
[02:33]
Miranda Green
One step forward, two steps back. The legislative cha cha. But where does this leave California when it comes to its goals to eliminate plastic waste in landfills? From LA Times Studios, this is Boiling Point. I'm your host, Miranda Green.
[03:08]
Southern California Edison Announcer
During one of the most severe windstorms Southern California experienced in more than a decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires ignited, leaving heartbreaking losses in our communities. Now as we build back, we're building stronger, cleaner and more resilient in communities most vulnerable to dangerous weather conditions and wildfires, Southern California Edison is placing power lines underground, hardening the electric system by installing wires with protective coating and adding advanced technology to help keep communities safe. The work is underway as communities rebuild across the region. And if you were impacted by the Eaton fire, support may be available through Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Claims can be filed directly through the program. No legal fees, no lengthy litigation. Payment in months, not years. To file or explore the program, visit sce.com directclaims Communications funded by ratepayers.
[04:09]
Brooke Gladstone
I'm Brooke Gladstone, CO host of WNYC's on the Media. Information doesn't just inform us. It shapes how we see the world, what we fear, and who we trust. That's where OnTheMedia comes in each week. We investigate how information flows, who controls it, and what that means for our democracy. It's not about the headlines. It's about the hidden structures behind them. Don't be a passive consumer. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.
[04:41]
Miranda Green
This week I'm speaking with Suzanne Rust, a Los Angeles Times reporter who is essentially a newsroom expert on plastics. Hi, Suzanne. Thanks so much for coming on the podcast today.
[04:52]
Suzanne Rust
Thank you for having me. It's nice to be here.
[04:54]
Miranda Green
So you've been covering this landmark plastics law that was signed into law in California back in 2022. It's called the Plastics Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. Quite a mouthful. When it passed, it required plastic and packaging companies to ensure that by 2032, all food packaging is either recyclable or compostable. And then this past May, the final regulations were released, essentially putting this law into effect. But it seems that not everyone is happy. Actually, it seems like almost no one is happy here. Both sides of the aisle, environmentalists and plastics producers have been very upset with the way that this law has been implemented. So can you walk us through the history of how we even got here?
[05:41]
Suzanne Rust
Oh, yeah. I mean, it's quite a history. So in 2022, there were environmental groups in California who wanted to put a ballot measure onto the November ballot, right when we were all going to vote. And it was going to pretty much say, like, no more single use plastics in the state. We're gonna really reduce them. And any single use plastic that is brought into the state, there's gonna be a $0.01 tax on it, and so on and so forth. And not surprisingly, industry got really concerned and upset about this and began a huge lobbying campaign and they were able to convince some legislators to create legislation that would sort of do the same thing, but it wouldn't be an outright ban on this stuff. And the legislation would incorporate, incorporate or include the industry, the packaging companies, companies like agricultural companies, the dairy industry, and have them sort of police this whole plastic law. So they created what's called a producer responsibility organization. And all the companies that sell these products in the state have to join it. At the time, it felt to everybody like, okay, here is, here is a law that's going to do what this ban would have done, but in a way that everybody can kind of stomach. Right. But not surprisingly, as things got closer and closer to, you know, go time, different forces began to chip away at it, beginning with the governor.
[07:21]
Miranda Green
This has actually been passed, but now they're trying to figure out how to actually implement this.
[07:24]
Suzanne Rust
Correct. Right. So in 2022 we signed it. And then CalRecycle had to sit down and figure out, working with industry, figure out how they're actually going to make this happen. And as it got close to the time where they were going to release final regulations, the governor stepped in and suddenly there were these huge exemptions for like any product that the USDA or FDA might oversee. Right. And so that pretty much includes anything in the produce aisle, anything, you know, cereals. There was this huge exemption. And he also sort of opened the door to allowing chemical recycling to occur. And so one of the things about this bill was not only was it going to reduce single use plastic, it was going to reduce pollution. And there are real concerns about chemical recycling. It requires a lot of energy, it can create toxic air. And so in the way the law was originally written, and there was an addendum written to it, chemical recycling was not supposed to be in there. But suddenly the door was open to it. Then the environmental groups got really angry and the final regulations were finally released. And the environmental groups were really upset because they felt like now the law isn't going to do what they had been supporting and had been promised. But also the industry didn't like it at all because suddenly they were having to look at their packaging, maybe change their packaging spe on packaging, pay fines if they were bringing things into the state which aren't supposed to be in the state. And so the most recent development is 17 attorneys general from a variety of states, all red states, sued California and said this law is basically illegal. It was going to compromise interstate commerce. That's where we are. And it feels just like this whole thing is crumbling apart. And the people I had spoken to back in 2022 who were about this ballot measure are like, yeah, we knew this was going to happen and we told everybody and if we had just done this ban, we wouldn't be where we are today.
[09:41]
Miranda Green
Thank you for that incredible backstory here. I mean, I think what's so interesting about this is it feels like the people who are obviously interested in this ballot initiative and maybe who also put together this law had the intentionality of getting at this very like deep seated question, which is who's responsible for plastic pollution? And it's this question that I think everyone has been grappling with and both sides wants to point the finger at the others. Environmentalists claim that it's the producers who should be responsible for this, the end life cycle of the plastics. They should be paying for the plastics that are not recycled. They should be paying for what goes in the landfill. Or they should, as this bill was, I think intended to do, keep binding them and saying, if you cannot prove that this is recyclable, you should not be producing this to begin with and you should be really responsible. And then on the other hand, the producers are saying, you know, if we don't have these products, then you're not going to have your beloved plastic water bottles, you're not going to have your milk jugs. And that cost is ultimately going to get passed down to the consumer who's not going to be okay with kind of big jugs and refill stores or maybe paper products instead. And it's been this back and forth kind of argument that's been happening for quite some time. California seems like it really wanted to take the lead on figuring out this solution. But as you're mentioning here, it kind of seems like we haven't gotten very far in that argument and it's kind of devolving into this back and forth on the legality all of a sudden.
[11:06]
Suzanne Rust
Yeah, and I think you really articulated that. Well, just this really does boil down to this question of who is responsible for this, who should be paying for this? And you know, the law was intended to protect consumers. Right. They shouldn't have to pay for this anymore. Every month I get a bill that shouldn't be going up because our, you know, recyclers can't have, they have to send stuff off to landfill and then they fined for that. Right. So yeah, it was a real issue about that. And of course these industries don't want to have to pay for it. And part of the way the law was written, it was the companies will get fined, but it should not go back on The California consumer. But of course, if they're having to pay more, they're going to figure out a way to do it. And what they've been saying is the California consumer is going to have to pay more. And yeah, we're now in this place where it is not looking good. If your goal is to reduce plastic in California, single use plastics, that's not looking like it's achievable right now.
[12:12]
Miranda Green
So, I mean, the country is dealing with a major recyclability issue here. And we know all plastics are not created equal. There's a preference for clear plastics that are easily meltable and can be made into more products versus milk jugs. And I do find it really interesting that one of the groups that's pushing back so hard against this is actually the dairy industry. What are they arguing and what are they asking for?
[12:37]
Suzanne Rust
The dairy industry is really interesting here. So I've written about this a bit and it gets into a different law that I think we're going to also talk about, SB343, which is like the truth and recycling law. And so the state has started to look at what products are actually recycled and at what percentages. And if you go into the dairy aisle in your grocery store, you will notice, yes, there are plastic milk jugs, but there are a whole lot of milk cartons. And basically you can't recycle a milk carton. They look more environmentally friendly because they look like cardboard, but they are not. They're actually made of several layers of plastic and metal and paper. And so a recycler gets it and they're like, what the hell can I do with this? Right? And it's really weird, like when I learned this because I used to always take the paper because that looks way better than the plastic, but in fact it's not. It's actually much worse. And so once the state started going and looking at, you know, at what rates are these different materials being recycled, they found out really abysmally low levels, like milk cartons, I think are less than 2%. The dairy industry just, they realized that this would be a big problem for them, right, if, if the law was to, was to actually run the way it's supposed to operate, the way it was supposed to. They couldn't sell these cartons anymore. And that would be huge, right, because that's the biggest sort of delivery vessel for milk right now. So they just sort of see an existential threat with the law there that they wouldn't be able to sell that product. They would have to sell it in a different kind of plastic or in, God forbid, glass. And so the dairy industry is sort of like the biggest of all of those, but there are others as well. I mean, I think, like, if you're looking at people who. The industry that sells strawberries. Right. I think they are concerned that if you took those little, like, green boxes away, which are kind of rigid, that strawberries might get crushed. Right. Or they wouldn't have as nice a looking product, and they would have to figure out something different. So they're all just very concerned about what this actually means for their business. With SB3343, the truth in recycling law. If recycling levels are less than 60%, basically, you can't call it recyclable. And if you can't call it recyclable, then you suddenly won't meet the requirements of SB 54, which require that by 2032, any plastic packaging you sell in the state is compostable or recyclable. And so they're fighting, fighting back hard.
[15:25]
Miranda Green
Yeah. I mean, and it looks like the most recent developments, just in mid July, another lawsuit came down. And this one was actually a judge just ruled against the Truth and Recycling Law. So can you walk us through what his ruling was and kind of where we are with that one right now?
[15:39]
Suzanne Rust
Okay, so in that it was a coalition of, like agriculture, food, packaging companies sued the state over this Truth and Recycling Law. And what they argued was it was unconstitutional in two ways. One, under Article 14, they said that the law was vague. So one of the things that the law requires is that the companies can show that the product is being recycled and recycled in an environmentally friendly way. But they say they don't know what that means. And once their product comes into the state and a recycler picks it up, a recycler can send it to Mexico, they can send it to Canada. Canada. Right. They don't know what the end point is. So therefore, how can they create a product when they don't know what the end is going to be? And then the second thing that they said was that it violated their Article one right, their right to free speech. And their argument there was basically, theoretically, almost anything can be recycled. But to meet the requirements of California was sort of a different level. And their right to say something is recyclable should be just truth. It can be recycled versus having to meet what they see as sort of arbitrary standards from California. And the judge agreed with him on the free speech thing. And so he granted a Preliminary injunction, which means California can't enforce the law right now. So it doesn't mean that this is over. The trial is still going on. The other thing that can happen is our attorney general, Rob Bonta, can appeal, and then it would go to the 9th district and go in front of a different court. But anyway, that's where we are right now. So SB343 right now cannot be enforced.
[17:44]
Miranda Green
Based off of the shareholders that you've been talking to and you're reporting kind of on all spectrums, what is the general feeling about how these lawsuits are going to play out and ultimately impact both of these laws and how they're implemented in California?
[18:00]
Suzanne Rust
I mean, I think there's discouragement on both sides. Right. And I think everybody, though, is hopeful that their vision of what it should be will ultimately prevail. So environmentalists think the judge's ruling, for instance, on the truth in recycling law is ridiculous. And they think if it's brought to a different court, a different court will see it a different way, that free speech does not mean you can say what you want, because something could happen. They need to follow the state's laws. And I think industry and the agricultural producers are hopeful that they will continue being able to sell the products that they have sold to Californians for so long at a particular price. And same for SB54, I mean, I think. Well, that one is more like nobody's happy with that law right now. Nobody likes it, which is kind of weird. Right, because everybody loved it when it was first introduced. And I think they're gonna be in
[19:15]
Miranda Green
the effort to make everyone happy. They've made essentially nobody happy.
[19:17]
Suzanne Rust
Exactly. Exactly. And for a while there. There was this acknowledgement that nobody loved the law. Right. It wasn't like the. What environmentalists wanted, and it wasn't what the industry wanted, but it was a nice compromise. Now it's just they really don't like it. So I think there's just a lot of frustration. And we're in a particular environment right now where I do think there probably is more like the thumb on the scale is more on industry side right now, and we're just going to kind of have to see how this all shakes out. But of course, of course. I just want to say on the other side of this, there are those who, beginning in 2021, 2022, saw that these laws were coming. And we've had a huge growth in startup companies in California and elsewhere who are waiting for this law to happen because they do have the products that would enable these companies to sell their products to us right in packaging that actually would meet the requirements. So of course they're furious about everything that's been happening because they've so much money over the past few years and getting to this point to be able to make mint on that.
[20:39]
Miranda Green
After the break. More on one business that viewed these laws as a door opening and tried to create new products to meet their standards.
[20:58]
Southern California Edison Announcer
During one of the most severe windstorms Southern California experienced in more than a decade, the Palisades and Eaton fires ignited, leaving heartbreaking losses in our communities. Now, as we build back, we're building stronger, cleaner and more resilient in communities most vulnerable to dangerous weather conditions and wildfires. Southern California Edison is placing power lines underground, hardening the electric system by installing wires with protective coating and adding advanced technology to help keep communities safe. The work is underway as communities rebuild across the region. And if you were impacted by the Eaton fire, support may be available through Southern California Edison's Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. Claims can be filed directly through the program. No legal fees, no lengthy litigation. Payment in months, not years. To file or explore the program, visit sce.com directclaims Communications funded by ratepayers.
[21:59]
Brooke Gladstone
I'm Brooke Gladstone, co host of WNYC's OnTheMedia. Information doesn't just inform us. It shapes how we see the world, what we fear, and who we trust. That's where OnTheMedia comes in each week. We investigate how information flows, who controls it, and what that means for our democracy. It's not about the headlines, it's about the hidden structures behind them. Don't be a passive consumer. Listen wherever you get your podcasts checked
[22:30]
Environmental Defense Fund Announcer
out, your thermostat and your electric bill. Lately, both are rising faster than we'd like, and students and teachers are feeling the heat, too, while they sit in uncomfortable classrooms and breathe dirty air. California is sitting on nearly $200 million in funds set aside to upgrade aging school heating and cooling systems. By freeing hoarded school H vac funds, students and teachers can get cooler, cleaner air. And by putting the interest on these funds to work, families can access cheaper and cleaner energy when temperatures climb instead of relying on the most expensive, dirty sources of power. Before leaving Sacramento, lawmakers must extend the California school's Healthy Air Plumbing and Efficiency Program, or CalShape, and finally release funding for cooler cleaner classrooms. At the same time, legislators must set aside the 70 million in interest earned to reduce electricity costs for families through the Demand side Grid Support Program. Learn more@edfaction.org that's E D F A C-T I O N.org Once again, edfaction.org paid for by environmental Defense Action Fund.
[23:38]
Miranda Green
An estimated 3.1 million tons of plastic ended up in California landfills in 2024. When it comes to recycling paper, even more ends up there, roughly 4 million tons every year. There are companies whose products attempt to directly fix this. And as consumers, we've seen them on shelves. There are compostable forks and disposable straws made from avocado rinds and bamboo plates. Will Lorenzi is one innovator who saw the need for more sustainable packaging in California. He's the founder of Smart Planet Technologies and their main product is an alternative to the plastic lining placed inside paper cups. His product, called Earth coating, is instead made with minerals and it's recyclable. Will, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
[24:33]
Will Lorenzi
Pleasure to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
[24:35]
Miranda Green
So, Will, let's talk a little bit about your backstory. You're originally from Orange county and you got the idea to develop something called Earth coding. Can you walk me through what that is?
[24:46]
Will Lorenzi
Yeah. Earth coding is what we did was we looked at a way. Is there a way that we can have all the needs that you need for paper packaging, which is the heat sealing? Because when you form a cup, you've got to basically seal it against itself. You also need to have the barrier because paper absorbs moisture. So you need to have something between the paper that's going to keep the moisture or of the food from touching the paper. Can we do it in a way that basically meets the goals of the packaging industry, but at the same time meets the goals of the recycling industry? So they can actually recover these great fibers and use them over and over again like uncoated paper.
[25:26]
Miranda Green
I want to take a step back here. I have a cup and it looks like it's paper. But you're telling me that most of these paper cups actually have a plastic coating on the inside that makes it much less recyclable than I realize, right?
[25:39]
Will Lorenzi
Yes. It's not compatible. If a bale of paper cups showed up at a paper recycling system, they can't recycle it. The plastic will go into the screening process and clog it and they can't recover the fibers. So you really have to keep out these plastic coated materials because the paper recycling wasn't designed to handle them. And what we did was, is the industry did it went a lot of direction down the path of the path of coming up with New plastics. And what we did was we said let's mix in minerals which are already used in paper making, but put that into the plastic. Now if you add enough, you satisfy what the recycling industry wants or the packaging industry, but you cover what the recycling machine wants and they can recycle it like uncoated paper. And that's what we created. So it solves the whole plastic coated paper problem in a way that is as elegant as possible. Mixing in something as low cost as calcium carbonate.
[26:38]
Miranda Green
So how did you come up with this idea? When did you realize that there was plastic on the inside of cups and that there was a solution at hand here and that you were the right person to do this?
[26:50]
Will Lorenzi
Yeah, we actually, it's. The inventor's name is Chris Tilton and he's absolutely brilliant. It's not his first invention. He has many like inventors, they often have a long list of incredible ideas. And he just continues to come up with ideas like that. He came up with this idea to basically put this in, put minerals in and to basically and to get the performance that the packaging industry needed and to get the recyclability that the recycling industry wants and find that sweet spot where both how much minerals do you put in that you get the effect on both sides. And the industry hadn't seen that before. They didn't expect that. So it came out of nowhere and kind of shocked everybody. The whole industry was going down the path of compostable resins. We're going to, we're going to find a way to bury all this waste in the compost and instead we came up with a way of mixing in plastic. Now it would be nice if one day there's a plastic free solution. But what we're doing is we're, we're cutting the plastic amount in half. But the, it no longer acts like a plastic in the recycling system. So it doesn't see a baggie that clogs the system. What it sees is clay, clay coating. And most paper is coated with clay coating. So it just goes right to the bottom. Like with your staples and your paper clips. It goes down instead of floating with the fibers. So it's a very elegant solution that works with the existing equipment.
[28:09]
Miranda Green
Your idea of earth coating came about around the same time that a bill was proposed, is that correct? It was Senate Bill 1167, which would have required chain restaurants in California to provide non toxic reusable cups for dining customers. How did that spark this idea?
[28:25]
Will Lorenzi
Once that legislation popped up, we said, oh, here's our opportunity Because I'd like to think that companies will just switch over because they care about the planet and do what's right. But they have bottom lines, they're trying to be profitable. And their goals of why I might have started the company is not maybe aligned why they're interested, they're going to be. One of the best ways to move things forward is government regulations that are properly done that incentivize the right behavior. And when that happens, the entire industry can switch and you can solve an entire problem. So we were thrilled that that bill came up because it allowed for us to step in the middle and say, you don't have to be without paper cups. If these paper cups are recyclable and made into new paper products, then everybody is satisfied because it never turned into waste.
[29:14]
Miranda Green
How much are bills like these important to innovation in the industry? That bill ultimately did not pass in 2024, but two other plastic laws have recently been signed into law in California. I'm talking about SB and SB 343, which both regulate plastic producers and what they must do to make their products recyclable. But they're also both proving to be pretty controversial. There have been a lot of lawsuits. I guess I'm wondering what does that mean for people like you who are trying to pass these products and are looking to these bills as a chance to get more sustainable products on the market?
[29:53]
Will Lorenzi
Yeah, it's. I'd have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the execution on SB54. It's well intentioned and every play everywhere should be doing EPR and trying to put in proper policies to encourage the use of sustainable materials, to reduce the amount of plastic and to basically be. And to reduce the landfill waste and get into circular economies. The challenge that we've had with SB54 is that it doesn't have an innovation on ramp. So for example, you have a paper cup that's fully recyclable and the recyclers can turn it into any product it recycles, just like uncoated paper. Yet because there still exists paper cups that aren't that way, then it's a race to the bottom. Everybody stays, everyone gets a failing grade no matter what your material is. So you could have a perfect cup that solves the entire problem. But you're in a category that isn't collected yet. And the reason why is because your product isn't on the market yet. So you have a chicken and egg problem here is that we would recycle all the paper cups if they were recyclable, and you've got the recyclable cup, but it's not currently being recycled, therefore you can't label it as recyclable. SB54 assumes that no new product will come along that innovates. It just assumes, let's get the current materials at higher recycling rates. It's a bit of a simplistic view. Other countries and regions have evolved their EPR programs to make sure that the result is that innovation is prioritized. Because it's certainly a lot easier to innovate new materials than it is to build out an infrastructure with systems that don't exist yet that will somehow take materials that, that you haven't recycled in the past, and now they're valuable to recycle. The infrastructure costs on that are enormous and it's very, very difficult. And it's processes that don't exist yet.
[31:52]
Miranda Green
I've heard from a couple innovators like yourself that they had hoped that the implementation of this law would make more of a market for their products, that there would finally be a need for more recyclable goods because it would inhibit some of the other products that just are ultimately not recyclable, even though you might think they are. But instead, the rollout of this bill has been so delayed and also so heated that no one really seems happy. And these innovators are ultimately feeling pretty disappointed with what this means for their products.
[32:25]
Will Lorenzi
SG54, the approach they took, which is different than other places it was, is it's not recyclable unless it's already being recycled. And when that. So you come up with a new idea, a new innovation, and you start out of the gate not recyclable. Now, the recycling industry has laboratory tests that they clearly know where there's value and where there's not value, but that's not being used here. Other places like Europe and other areas, they're using that. And so we have great opportunity here in Europe to move our products forward. But we're a California company and I have no way to move our products forward in California. So we put all of our time and effort here in Europe, and we don't put it into California because the regulations are written that there is no incentive for sustainable products in California.
[33:12]
Miranda Green
And Will, I know you keep on saying here because I know you're currently in Switzerland, but talk to me a little bit more about what you just said that's so interesting to me. I mean, you're a California local, you're based in California normally, but you're essentially saying there's no place for your products on the market there. Even though you know, you would say California is a state that really wants to be the leader on these issues. Why are you finding it to be so much easier to sell products in Europe? Do you have hopes that eventually there will be a place for you in the US market?
[33:45]
Will Lorenzi
So the way Europe goes about creating regulations, they had it wrong too for a while on their regulations. About three years ago I said this is not going to go well for us in Europe. And then they went and they spoke to the recycling industry and so they had these regulations that first were created by the packaging companies and the brands. They said this is what we'd like it to be. And they ran with that and that's what the regulations looked like. Then they went back and they checked with the recycling industry and said, is this going to work? And the recycling industry was no, this is not going to work. It's not going to. And they said, well, what would work? And they said we have testing procedures and lab results. We know what works and doesn't. You got to hold the packaging accountable and the materials so that we get quality materials to recycle. So they elevated the materials and said they have to pass the industry's lab results, which already exist. But that's what we're going to use as the basis for deciding what's a recyclable material versus saying that the only things that are recyclable are things that are already recyclable. So that gave us the opportunity here to let our products shine and said our paper cups, our takeout trays, all of our materials are classified and qualified by a like the industry laboratory testing has uncoated paper. So in Australia we make gift wrap for Hallmark copy paper for Australian paper can make anything with it because it's classified and treated as ordinary paper. And the reason why that happened was, is because we were allowed to put the word recyclable on the package and brands will pay for that. But right now with SB343, we can't put the word recyclable, no matter how much the industry would love to see our product.
[35:23]
Miranda Green
If you could read the tea leaves about the future of plastic recycling and innovation around single use products, what do you think is going to happen in the next two or three years?
[35:33]
Will Lorenzi
My view is that Europe has it right. They pivoted a few times on their once they went to the recyclers and figured out what actually works and what doesn't work. Their EPR legislation and the regulations are coming in are really good. It really fits. When I saw the change that they did, I said, oh my God, it couldn't be better. It's like they figured it out. I was so thrilled and I spoke to some of the people in the industry and I said, did they get this right? And they said, they sure did, didn't they? I said, I know, it's amazing. Now I would love for them just to straight away just say, let's solve the paper cup problem tomorrow. 25 cents per paper cup unless it passes and solve it overnight. That's a tall ask. UK almost did it. It was close. That would have been great. But absent that, their legislation, they did a really good job of pivoting it. And I think what'll happen is different places will try different things and then everyone is going to share their notes and say what worked and didn't. Then everyone's going to figure out, because this is very complex, but they're all going to figure out what process worked the best. So eventually we'll all get there. But I hoped that SB 54 was written for innovation, especially California is the state of innovation. Everyone looks to us for innovation. So to see us not putting anything into the regulations that foster innovation is disappointing.
[37:00]
Miranda Green
Will Lorenzi, thank you so much for joining me on the podcast.
[37:04]
Will Lorenzi
Thank you for inviting me.
[37:09]
Miranda Green
While the lawsuits challenging California's two plastic laws are continuing to play out, there is positive momentum across the pond. Will told me that he actually moved to Portugal last year to get his product ready for market. That's because on August 12, the European Union's packaging and packaging waste regulation will fully take effect across all 27 member states. It's a rule that in part aims to inspire most businesses to create and sell plastic alternatives. Thank you for listening to Boiling Point. I'm your host Miranda Green. Special thanks to LA Times investigative reporter Suzanne Rust for joining the show today. My producers are Mary Knoff and Jonathan Shiflett of Studio Phonic. Additional production help from Audrey Ngo. Sound design by Jonathan Shiflett, Monty Morin and Ingrid Lobet are our editors. Director of Post production is Patrick Stewart. Senior Sound Recording engineer is Nick Norton. Our podcast Marketing manager is Bryn Jora, our senior Media manager is Kelsey Rodriguez, and our Director of Marketing operations is Nicole Adderholm. Special thanks to LA Times Studios president Anna Migzonian. President and Chief Operating Officer of the Los Angeles Times is Chris Argentieri. Executive Editor of the Los Angeles Times is Terry Tang. Boiling Point is executive produced and co created by Darius Derek Shawn.
[39:12]
Brooke Gladstone
I'm Brooke Gladstone, CO host of WNYC's on the Media. Information doesn't just inform us. It shapes how we see the world, what we fear and who we trust. That's where on the Media comes in each week. We investigate how information flows, who controls it, and what that means for our democracy. It's not about the headlines, it's about the hidden structures behind them. Don't be a passive consumer. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts.