Thank you for the question.
From our perspective, we advocate reducing waste at source and looking at packaging alternatives as part of the materials management hierarchy. Source reduction is at the top, so we have to be talking about it. It's certainly not going to get you to a 50% recycling rate or a circular economy, but it is incredibly important. We work alongside a number of consumer packaging and goods companies headquartered in the region—such as Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati, Ohio, and SC Johnson in Racine, Wisconsin—that are doing tremendous innovations in their own packaging at that large-scale company size.
I just came back today from a sustainable packaging conference in Chicago, where there were 600 participants from the U.S. I can tell you that there are a lot of innovations happening that will allow for source reduction, including bio-based materials using seaweed, for example, which has almost the same properties as flexible film. Innovations are happening that are going to allow for source reduction.
Also, a final point I would make is this: We have to look at things on a life-cycle basis. I know that when we look at different choices, it might seem obvious that these are better than plastics. However, when you look at it from cradle to grave—GHG emissions, use of water and energy, or how many times consumers use that alternative product—the environmental performance isn't always better. Whatever the alternatives, we have to look at them through the lens of cradle-to-grave life cycles. Truly, what are the better-performing products we could be pushing consumers towards?