Environmentalism Has Defined the Destination. Now It Must Coordinate the Journey.
As California debates AB 2253, the harder question is not whether we need a circular economy. It is how we govern the messy transition required to get there.
Plastic pollution is real. Climate change is real. Biodiversity loss is real. The environmental crisis demands ambitious action, and I believe the destination is clear.
We need to move from a linear economy, where resources are extracted, used, and discarded, to a circular economy where materials are designed to stay in use for as long as possible. We need source reduction. We need reuse. We need better product design. We need less virgin material. And we need producers to be held accountable for the products they place into the world.
That is why Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, matters so much. EPR is one of the most important policy tools we have to move toward a circular economy because it places responsibility back on producers to reduce waste, design better products, and invest in recovery infrastructure.
I support that vision wholeheartedly. But I also believe there is a question our movement has not fully answered. It is not where we want to go. It is, how we get there.
That question is becoming urgent in California as SB 54, the state’s landmark EPR policy, begins implementation and AB 2253 moves through the Legislature. AB 2253, a California bill that would restrict how advanced recycling can count recycled content through mass balance accounting, has become a much bigger conversation than one piece of legislation.
And if terms like “advanced recycling,” “recycled content,” or “mass balance accounting” feel technical or confusing, that is exactly the point. The transition to a circular economy is not only about passing ambitious laws. It is also about building the public understanding, accounting systems, verification processes, and trust needed to make those laws work.
What struck me most while reading the positions on AB 2253 was not how different they were, but how similar their long-term aspirations actually are. Nearly every organization involved, from environmental NGOs to many companies and industry groups, speaks about the need to transition to a circular economy.
The disagreement is not about the destination. It is about the bridge.
Too often, environmental debates quickly become binary: protecting the planet on one side and protecting industry on the other. Environmental organizations line up on one side with industry associations on the other. We know this David versus Goliath plot: good versus evil, right versus wrong. All we have to do is pick a side, right?
But complex systems rarely work that way. The transition to a circular economy is not only an environmental challenge. It is an engineering challenge, an infrastructure challenge, a market challenge, a policy challenge, and ultimately a coordination challenge.
That is why I believe environmental movements need something we rarely talk about. A better framework for transition.
I say this with some discomfort, because many of the environmental organizations raising concerns about AB 2253 are organizations I respect. I have followed them, learned from them, and agreed with them more often than not. So when I find myself asking a more complicated question, I fear being misunderstood. I fear being seen as drifting away from the environmental movement or, worse, as someone who has “gone to the other side.”
That is exactly why the missing middle matters. There has to be space for environmental advocates who remain fully committed to ambitious environmental outcomes while also asking how we realistically move from the system we have to the system we want. I call that position the Pragmatic Environmentalist.
A pragmatic environmentalist does not lower environmental ambition. They insist on achieving it. But they also recognize that progress is not linear, coordination is messy, and real transitions require more than saying what should happen. They require understanding what is possible now, what needs to change next, and how to hold everyone accountable along the way.
Every major transition has an imperfect middle where the old system is no longer acceptable, but the new system does not yet fully exist. We are living in that middle.
With plastic, many forms of packaging, especially flexible films and multi-material packaging, cannot currently be recycled at scale through mechanical recycling alone. Collection systems remain fragmented, processing capacity is limited, product redesign is ongoing, and markets for recycled materials are still developing.
Pretending these constraints do not exist does not eliminate them. Acknowledging them does not diminish our environmental ambition. It simply recognizes operational reality.
The question is not whether today’s system is good enough. Because it isn’t. The question is how we responsibly move from today’s imperfect system toward tomorrow’s better one.
The bridge toward that destination may require transitional tools. Those tools should not become permanent excuses. They should not justify more unnecessary plastic. They should not be accepted without scrutiny. But they should also not be dismissed simply because they are imperfect.
They should be evaluated according to one question: Do they measurably accelerate the transition toward the system we actually want? If the answer is yes, they deserve rigorous oversight. If the answer is no, they should be phased out.
Environmental organizations are right to worry about greenwashing. Mass balance accounting, if poorly regulated, could absolutely create opportunities for misleading claims. Those concerns deserve serious attention.
But accountability is not achieved simply by prohibiting every imperfect tool. Accountability is achieved through transparent measurement, independent verification, clear standards, public reporting, and enforceable consequences.
That is the conversation California should be having. Not whether transition technologies should exist without oversight. Of course, they should not. The question is how they should be governed so they support the transition rather than undermine it.
Over the past decade, I have found myself working with communities, environmental organizations, companies, scientists, policymakers, and local governments. The pattern is almost always the same. Everyone agrees on the broad goal. Almost nobody agrees on the path. People bring different incentives, different information, different constraints, limited budgets, and different timelines.
Progress rarely comes from everyone suddenly agreeing. It comes from learning how to coordinate despite those differences. That is why I keep coming back to coordination.
The hardest part is not convincing people that pollution is bad; most people already know that. The harder work is coordinating people who agree on the goal but disagree on how to get there.
That is what the circular economy requires. Infrastructure must be built. Technology must improve. Markets must adapt. Consumers must change. Policy must evolve. Businesses must innovate. Producers must be held accountable. Environmental advocates must stay vigilant.
All of these things have to happen together, on different timelines, with different incentives. That is why perfection can stop progress. And why progress requires discipline.
AB 2253 is ultimately about more than advanced recycling or mass balance. It represents a question we will face repeatedly as we build a circular economy.
Do we reject imperfect tools because they fall short of the future we envision? Or do we regulate them rigorously, measure their performance honestly, and require them to accelerate progress toward that future?
That question will shape plastic policy, carbon reduction, energy transitions, material innovation, reuse systems, and many environmental challenges still ahead.
If environmentalism is going to lead society through these transitions, it must become more than a movement that defines the destination. It must also become a movement that understands the journey.
The future will not be built through polarization. It will be built through accountability, innovation, transparency, coordination, and systems thinking.
That is the environmentalism I believe the next decade requires: ambitious about the destination, honest about the imperfect middle, and disciplined enough to coordinate the journey.
Written by: Julie Andersen, CEO of Plastic Oceans Internation