What does the brief argue?

The Baker Institute has released a policy brief titled "Opening Schrödinger's Box: Rethinking Carbon Beyond the Binary in Plastic Recycling," targeting the either/or logic that governs how producers, brands, and regulators attribute carbon to recycled versus virgin plastic.

The title's invocation of quantum superposition — a particle existing in multiple states until measured — frames the analytical argument. Conventional mass-balance accounting asks producers to assign each kilogram of polymer to one bucket: avoided emissions tied to recycled feedstock, or process emissions tied to virgin production. The Baker Institute paper questions whether that forced binary distorts both investment decisions and emissions disclosure, and whether the boundary between "recycled" and "virgin" polymer is an artifact of accounting rather than a fact of chemistry.

Which regimes does this touch?

That question lands on a sector already under conflicting carbon accounting rules. California's SB 54 sets recycled-content thresholds of 25% by 2025 and 50% by 2030 for beverage containers, with CalRecycle implementing the reporting infrastructure. Washington state's EPR law phases in producer responsibility starting in 2025, with the Department of Ecology setting recycled-content benchmarks for covered packaging. The EU's Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation establishes minimum recycled-content thresholds for contact-sensitive packaging beginning in 2030, with delegated acts still in development at DG ENV. Each regime relies on a shared accounting logic the brief argues is flawed at the foundation.

Why does the unit of accounting matter commercially?

For recyclers and resin buyers, the unit of accounting flows directly into the PCR-versus-virgin price spread. Recycled PET and HDPE spot pricing in major U.S. and European markets typically trades at a premium to virgin prime, and that spread reflects the carbon savings buyers credit to verified recycled content. If standard-setters adopt the brief's reframing — moving from per-kilogram-of-resin avoided emissions toward per-molecule, per-functional-unit, or per-avoided-tonne-of-CO2e metrics — the price signal embedded in recycled-content certificates and ISCC PLUS or RCS certifications could shift accordingly.

What happens next?

The brief's contribution is conceptual rather than data-driven: it invites standard-setters to reconsider the categories before the next compliance cycle locks in metrics that may misallocate capital, misreport emissions, or both. The next twelve months will see CalRecycle publish SB 54 reporting guidance, the Washington Department of Ecology issue its first EPR rules, and the European Commission finalize delegated acts under the PPWR. Each rulemaking will hardwire an accounting choice that runs for a decade of investment and procurement decisions.

The affected material streams are precisely those where recycled-content mandates bite first: PET beverage bottles, HDPE dairy and personal-care containers, and PP food-grade thermoforms. Each tonne of recycled-content credit on those streams trades against virgin prime at a premium the brief argues may be wrongly calibrated.

The regulatory milestone to watch is whether the U.S. EPA, CalRecycle, or the European Commission cite the brief in upcoming rulemakings, and whether ISO 14067 or the GHG Protocol Scope 3 standards for purchased goods adjust their treatment of recycled-content carbon credits before the next SB 54 and PPWR compliance deadlines.