Press reports threaten the hard work of the UK public

29 January 2009

I have been both disappointed and frustrated to see media reports over the last few days that are misleading and factually incorrect about the environmental benefits delivered through recycling.

Suggestions that recycling adds to global warming rather than helping to tackle it have the potential to threaten the excellent progress and environmental benefits currently being delivered by the public through UK recycling schemes.

Let us be clear. Recycling is good for the environment, it saves energy, reduces raw material extraction and helps combat climate change.

So how do we know this?

Our independent research carried out by internationally recognised experts has shown across the board that recycling is the best environmental option.

In the last year, the UK recycled 8.6 million tonnes paper, saving the equivalent of 11 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. That’s the same as taking 3.6 million cars off the road.

More energy is saved from recycling plastics than is gained from burning them. For every tonne of plastic recycled back into plastic goods, one tonne of virgin plastic does not have to be manufactured. Recycling 1 tonne of plastic saves 2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions in comparison to incineration with energy recovery.1

Media commentary suggesting that shipping our waste for recycling to China is worse for the environment than employing energy from waste incineration here in the UK is also unfounded. On the contrary, selling the UK used plastics bottles and paper for recycling in China actually saves carbon emissions.

The research also shows that exporting paper for recycling in China provides approximately five times the savings in carbon emissions compared to sending it to waste for energy treatment facilities in the UK.2

In 83% of circumstances, recycling paper, card, glass, plastics and metals was preferable to any other waste management option.3

It is when recycling is not an option that recovery of energy from waste can contribute to a balanced energy policy.  In fact the Waste for England 2007 strategy, supported by WRAP outlines that waste to landfill should be reduced to 25% by increasing recycling to 50% and energy from waste to 25% by 2020.

We all have a responsibility to ensure the public has the facts to be able to make an informed decision about recycling.   Around two thirds of households now recycle as a way of life.

The message to householders is very clear – recycling is delivering environmental benefits and there is absolutely no reason to stop.

 

References

1. Life Cycle Analysis of Management Options for Mixed Waste Plastics (916 kb) [pdf]
2. CO2 impacts from exporting recyclates to China (919 kb) [pdf]
3. Environmental Benefits of Recycling - Full Report (2136 kb) [pdf]
Posted in:
|Research |Climate change |Downturn |Households |Collection |Achievement

11 comments

Comments

  • Alexandra Bone

    February 03 2009

    I agree wholeheartedly - I am saddened that the hard work of waste professionals is under threat by the actions of some sections of the media, who cannot even present a balanced case of even get their facts straight. I am going to add you to my blog... www.wastefreealex.blogspot.com

  • John Costigane

    February 09 2009

    Hi Liz, The problem seems to be the EfW incinerator lobby who are trying to sabotage better alternatives. We should resist this motley crew and back UKWIN in their push for sustainable alternatives.

  • g.osborne

    February 10 2009

    Please just poke your nose out of our business.It is none of your business what we eat or what we do with our waste.Let us live our lives how we see fit. I understand that you are going to recruit people to visit people and offer unwanted advice about eating and waste disposal.For christ sake get a proper job and do something useful .

  • Dorothy Skrytek

    February 11 2009

    Its great to see WRAP promoting recycling. However this will be undone - particulalry regarding plastics - by the draft RO Order about to be set before Parliament - Spring 09 - the draft RO order - regarding Renewable energy and what a renewable is, the following link http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file49197.pdf pg 5 that states the incredible following... "Waste as a renewable source (1) For the purposes of sections 32 to 32M of the Act and this Order, the term "renewable sources" includes waste of which not more than 90 per cent is waste which is, or is derived from, fossil fuel. this is at odds with BERR doc on ROCs - table on pg 13 on gasification/pyrolysis http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46838.pdf "This band does not however include electricity generated from such fuels in a calendar month in which the generating station has generated electricity partly from fossil fuel' So who is right or is it a typo on the draft Order?

  • Shlomo

    February 12 2009

    So, who stands to gain by discrediting recycling? The incinerator operators perhaps??

  • Liz Goodwin

    February 13 2009

    Hi John, As outlined in the Waste for England strategy 2007, there are clear targets to divert waste away from landfill by increasing recycling rates to 50% and waste treatment facilities to 25% by 2020. This increase in treatment facilities includes energy from waste (EfW) incineration, so it is no great surprise to see an increase the development of and interest in energy from waste incineration. The important thing to remember is that recycling will almost always be a better environmental option for waste management than incineration, because it ensures fewer raw materials need to be taken from the environment[PM1] . In the hierarchy of waste management, landfill is in general the last option, and when waste can’t be reduced, re-used or recycled, we should look to energy recovery options such as incineration. That's why we are working hard to ensure that we minimise waste, then ensure it is re-used or recycled and only after that should it be considered for recovery or disposal.

  • Liz Goodwin

    February 13 2009

    We did some detailed research showing people were unaware of how much food we threw away and wanted some tips on how to waste less food. That led to the launch of our Love Food Hate Waste Campaign. We launched a website offering tips on making better use of food and last year 500,000 people visited it. No one forced them to - they must have thought it was a good idea. I completely agree with you that no-one should be forced to reduce waste. Yes, there’s a trial going on in the West Midlands offering people advice on ways of reducing food waste if they want it but if the advisors get the answer “no thanks”, then they simply walk away. The advisors are under strict orders never to go into someone’s home. And why are we spending so much time on food waste – well, we threw away £10 billion worth of food last year which is a huge waste of energy as well as money. People seem to care about that- all we are doing of offering tips on ways of cutting down on that waste if people want it.

  • Liz Goodwin

    February 13 2009

    g.osborne, Those press stories about “fridge police” poking around in people’s fridges sounded terrible and if true would have been completely unacceptable. But they were not true. Let me explain what’s been happening.

  • Liz Goodwin

    February 18 2009

    Dorothy, The UK needs to encourage the production of more renewable energy to minimise our CO2 emissions. Producing energy from waste is part of that energy strategy and is recognised as part of the mix in of the England’s Waste Strategy too. Residual wastes after recycling will inevitably contain fossil fuel derived materials such plastics that cannot be recycled economically, for example when they are highly contaminated or a low volume polymer types. Such wastes are considered as renewable wastes for energy recovery even if they contain up to 90% fossil fuel derived materials. This is the thrust of the first document you mention. However, the second document outlines that these wastes will only qualify for the ROC incentives for the biodegradable portion of this waste if specific technologies are used such as combined heat and power energy recovery, gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. Mass burn incineration will not qualify for ROCs.

  • Rob Whittle, NAIL2, Vice Chair

    April 04 2009

    John Costigane and Shlomo Dowens are right, the problem is with EfW/CHP incinerators, and consultants/companies lobbying for these. The UK needs to look more at a layered residual technology treatments, not EfW/CHP incinerator direction. Recycling needs enhancing to capture 60%; including Univeral council and commercial food waste to CHP food digesters. Peter Jones highlighted the CHP benefits of limited and decentralised plasma gasification (50,000TPa modules) of difficult to recycle residual materials and the many future and flexible benefits over white elephant centralised EfW/CHP incinerators; after mechanical sorting and recovery technologies such as MBT/AD and Mechanical autoclaving.

  • GIngram

    February 04 2010

    In all the debates about waste and waste management the topic of recycling comes up. It is interesting to see how much of an impact recycling does have and in an article written for the Future Agenda Project by Professor Ian Williams, Head of the Centre for Waste Management at the University of Central Lancashire (http://www.futureagenda.org/?cat=16), he states his belief in the need for “further legislation and / or economic disincentives on excessive packaging; and higher involvement of both big business and the third sector in re-use and recycling. Also [the] need to accelerate the willingness of individuals and organizations to buy products made from recycled materials and / or sustainable sources”.

Leave a comment

Personal reflections from the staff at WRAP on waste, recycling, resource efficiency, climate change and the environment.

Who is WRAP?

BROWSE CATEGORIES

RECENT ENTRIES

BLOG ROLL

ARCHIVE

Subscribe to our RSS feed