It Works—But It's Not Free: The Full Story of Vermont's Recycling Program
While Vermont’s system is a clear operational success, the idea that recycling pays for itself is a myth. The system is sustained by a complex funding model, not just by selling materials.
Vermonters may have seen statements from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) countering the national narrative that recycling is “broken.” While many national media reports paint a picture of a failed system where recyclables end up in the trash, Vermont officials insist the state’s system works.
They are, in fact, correct. But this simple statement obscures a more complex and important story.
The truth is that Vermont’s recycling success isn’t a miracle, and the national system’s failures aren’t a media fabrication. The state’s resilience is the result of deliberate policy choices, major investments, and a public that—for the most part—recycles correctly.
For residents who have ever wondered what really happens to their recycling, why Vermont’s system is different, and what “working” truly means, here is the complete picture.
Is Recycling a Lie? The National Picture
First, it’s important to understand why so many people believe recycling is a “broken system.” For much of the country, it is.
The national recycling and composting rate was just 32.1% in 2018, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A more recent 2024 report from The Recycling Partnership found that only 21% of recyclable materials generated in U.S. homes are actually captured for recycling. The rest is lost.
There are three main reasons for this national crisis:
Contamination: The EPA estimates that nationally, one in every four items placed in a recycling bin is contamination—things like food waste, plastic bags, or items that simply aren’t recyclable. This “wishcycling” cripples the economics of recycling by ruining good materials and increasing costs.
Market Collapse: For decades, the U.S. exported vast quantities of low-quality, contaminated recyclables to China. In 2018, China’s “National Sword” policy banned these imports, leaving U.S. programs with nowhere to send their materials. Many were forced to landfill or incinerate recyclables, as they had no domestic markets.
The Plastics Problem: Plastics are the most challenging. A 2022 Greenpeace report found that the U.S. plastic recycling rate had fallen to a mere 5-6%. The reality is that only two types of plastic—#1 (PET, like water bottles) and #2 (HDPE, like milk jugs)—have mature, viable markets. Most other plastics are not effectively recycled.
How Vermont Built a Better System
Against this backdrop, Vermont’s claim stands tall. According to the DEC, when residents recycle accepted materials correctly, those materials are successfully sorted, baled, and sold to established markets.
This claim is well-supported. About 70% of Vermont’s blue-bin recyclables are handled by two large Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in Rutland and Williston. The Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD), which owns the Williston MRF, reports that all its blue-bin materials are sold to markets within North America. Casella Waste Management, which operates the Rutland MRF, commits that 100% of the non-contaminated recyclables it processes are sold to end markets.
The key difference is contamination. While the national average contamination rate is as high as 25%, Vermont’s main MRFs report a “residue” rate of just 7% to 10%. This means the state’s material is cleaner, more valuable, and more attractive to buyers.
This isn’t an accident. It’s the direct result of state policy.
The Secret Sauce: Act 148 and the Bottle Bill
Vermont’s success is built on two key pieces of legislation:
The Universal Recycling Law (Act 148): Passed unanimously in 2012, this law systematically re-engineered the state’s relationship with waste. It banned “blue-bin” recyclables (in 2015) and food scraps (in 2020) from landfills. To make this work, it mandated two critical programs:
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT): This requires towns to make residents pay for trash by the bag or pound. This creates a powerful and direct financial incentive for households to reduce waste and recycle more.
Parallel Collection: This rule requires that any hauler who picks up trash must also offer collection for recyclables and food scraps, ensuring access is not a barrier.
The “Bottle Bill”: This program creates a separate, highly effective system. The 5-cent deposit drives a high redemption rate—69.6% in 2024. More importantly, it produces an exceptionally clean stream of aluminum, PET plastic, and glass. This high-purity material is far more likely to be used in “closed-loop” manufacturing, turning old bottles and cans directly back into new ones.
The Hard Truths: What “Working” Leaves Out
While Vermont’s system is a clear operational success, the simple “it works” message leaves out several crucial details. To fully understand the issue, Vermonters should be aware of the whole story.
Truth 1: It’s Not Free
The idea that recycling pays for itself is a myth. The system is sustained by a complex funding model, not just by selling materials.
According to CSWD budget documents, the revenue from selling commodities is highly volatile and difficult to forecast. The system’s financial stability actually comes from user fees (or “tipping fees”) charged to haulers, a statewide solid waste fee, and, in some places like Burlington, a Solid Waste Generation Tax.
What this means: Resident fees and taxes are what make the system resilient, especially when global commodity prices are low.
Truth 2: “Recycled” Can Mean “Downcycled”
The phrase “processed into new materials” hides a critical distinction. This is most obvious with glass.
According to state and district sources, the glass bottles and jars from residents’ blue bins are very unlikely to be turned back into new bottles. In the single-stream system, glass shatters and mixes. Instead, it is crushed into a sand-like material called “Processed Glass Aggregate,” or PGA.
This PGA is used as a low-grade construction material, such as road base. While this is a beneficial use that keeps it out of the landfill, it is not a circular outcome—it’s “downcycling.” In fact, the Chittenden Solid Waste District reports that it pays a fee to have this material hauled away.
Truth 3: It’s Not a Perfect Process
Even in the state’s high-performing system, not everything put in the bin makes it. That 7-10% “residue” rate at the state’s MRFs is material that must be sent to the landfill.
A 2023 Vermont Waste Composition Study found that while most of this residue was non-recyclable items that shouldn’t have been in the bin, about 7% of it was mandated recyclable material that was likely too contaminated with food or liquid to be recovered.
The Path Forward: Actions and Solutions
Understanding the full picture can empower Vermonters to make better decisions. The path to a truly circular economy involves both individual action and support for larger, systemic changes.
1. The Role of the Resident
The state’s call to action is clear. Residents have two primary jobs:
Recycle Right: The single most important thing residents can do is keep contamination low. “Wishcycling”—tossing questionable items in the bin—must be avoided. When a resident throws a plastic bag, a food-soiled container, or a Styrofoam cup in the bin, they are actively increasing the cost of the system and lowering the value of the good materials.
Buy Recycled: Recycling is a supply chain. It’s not complete until someone buys the end product. Consumers can look for products and packaging that contain “post-consumer recycled content.” This creates the market demand that pulls materials through the system and gives those materials value.
2. The Systemic Solutions
Individual action is essential, but it’s not enough to fix the fundamental design flaws in the materials economy. To truly “solve” recycling, bigger policy levers are needed.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): This is a policy that shifts the financial and managerial responsibility for recycling from taxpayers and towns to the producers—the corporations that design and sell the packaging. This would create a powerful incentive for companies to design packaging that is simpler, safer, and more economical to recycle.
Expand the Bottle Bill: Vermont’s deposit return system works incredibly well, but according to the Bottle Bill Resource Guide, it only covers about 46% of beverages sold. Expanding it to include water bottles, sports drinks, and other non-carbonated beverages would capture more high-value material.
Recycled Content Mandates: These are laws that require manufacturers to use a minimum percentage of recycled content in their products. This policy would create a guaranteed, stable market for recycled materials, insulating local programs from global volatility.
An Informed Perspective
Vermont has successfully built a recycling system that is a model for the nation. The state has proven that with smart, sustained policy and public cooperation, it is possible to divert materials from the landfill and get them to market.
But “working” does not mean “perfect” or “economically self-sufficient.” The state’s system faces the same challenges as everyone else: volatile markets, the high cost of processing, and the persistent problem of plastics. Its success is a testament to a framework that manages these risks.
The future of recycling depends on residents continuing to be diligent at the bin, while also engaging in the larger conversation about who should pay for waste and how to create a system that is not just resilient, but truly circular.