The UK plastics industry is highly motivated by the challenge to recycle more and proposed in 2009 to double the rate of plastic packaging recycling (from 24% in 2007) by the year 2020.
This is a very ambitious target, taking the UK to a position which no EU country has yet achieved, but essential if we are to achieve the vision of wasting no plastic on landfill by the year 2020.
But to achieve it there are essentially four distinct but interrelated barriers to overcome.
Standardise waste management procedures and processes: As we stand waste collection and management is best described as a postcode lottery. Half the authorities in the UK still do not have kerbside plastics collection, even for bottles. Substantial progress on achieving plastics recycling targets will not happen until best practice processes and procedures are adopted nationwide.
Limited infrastructure: There is not enough infrastructure in place to deal with a huge increase in plastics recycling as the technology is still evolving and the commercial models still need work. This requires further concerted action from both the public and private sectors working in unison.
Develop the market for recyclate: Creating a higher demand for products made from recycled plastics is essential. The greater the demand the more this will “pull through” the supply chain and stimulate activity. This will take considerable investment in infrastructure, innovation and encouragement from both the private and public sector.
Increase consumer awareness and understanding: We know that consumers are generally willing to recycle, when it is made easy for them to do so but getting them to be fully efficient and motivated demands education. By increasing the level of consumer awareness and understanding we can ensure households are encouraged to take advantage of exiting and new recycling processes and procedures as they become available.
Contrary to popular myth all plastics used in consumer products and especially in packaging can technically be recycled, given access to the right infrastructure, sufficient amounts collected and a market for the recycled.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that it is not always environmentally and economically beneficial to do so. There are a number of reasons for this:
- several types of plastics in a product, which cannot be separated
- remaining food or other materials makes cleaning environmentally and economically difficult
- long transport of small quantities make recycling non-beneficial
The industry is working to reduce these limitations and look for solutions.
The UK plastics industry is an advocate for achieving world-class standards on recycling. To achieve this everyone involved from the raw material producers, through to manufacturers, retailers, consumers and recyclers need to all play their part in the solution.
To help with this objective we have posted on the site brief video commentary from many of the key opinion formers on this issue, from right across the spectrum of views and opinions. Please open them up to better understand the issues from all sides.
You will see that opinion formers and stakeholders don’t always agree on the facts or the solutions, but we believe it demonstrates the need for an open debate on this essential subject.
We value your opinion as it all helps us to identify the key topics – so why don’t you join the debate and tell us what you think by posting a comment?
14 Comments to “The Recycling Debate”
-
14
-
39
-
9
-
5
-
11
I like the video pages – good way to get the message across.
This is an interesting campaign. I would agree with the first point about standardised procedures and processes in particular.
Currently I live in Islington where we are able to separate our recyclables in green boxes, but this is entirely an optional scheme. Green boxes are provided upon request, rather than as standard.
However In the borough I previously lived in, recycling was made compulsory by the local council. Each household was provided with three large wheelie bins (for recyclables, organic waste, other household waste). If a household did not correctly sort their rubbish in this way, their rubbish would not be collected. While it could be argued that this in a rather paternal/ penal system, it did provide the capacity and the incentive to recycle.
What scope is there for standardising practices nationally and is it the soft touch, optional approach or the more rigorous, compulsory approach that should be advocated?
Hello RM
Your observation is shared by many people in the UK. Whilst there is a recognition with national politicians that standardisation is beneficial they are not willing to involve directly in local politics.
Hence we have a catch 22 scenario which needs to be unlocked. Experience from other countries – I myself live most of my time in Sweden – is that high recycling rates is only possible if you operate a very low number of different options for collection and the downstream infrastructure has then been geared up to deal with the collected streams.
One step on the standardisation journey is for local authorities to team up in waste partnerships and you can certainly contribute to this by talking to your local politicians and urge them to do this sensible thing if they are currently on their own.
And you are absolutely right there is no reason why we should not collect plastics bottles, pots, tubs and trays as well as the carriar bags and bread bags – we only need to ensure we have an infrastructure which can deal with the collected products.
Because if we dont have such infrastructure there is a big risk we clog the system and cause quality problems with the products currently being recycled.
Again a waste partnership can contract to a municipal recovery facility (“MRF”) which has such capability – or influence them to acquire the needed hardware.
I am a keen reducer, reuser and recyclist but rather despair at the paucity of facilities available to do this. In my experience, a consumerist society will not bother to recycle if it’s not made easy and does not have the right incentives. I think a change in the mindset of society is what is needed for more fundamental change to be achieved.
I applaud this move, having seen the recycling in other European countries I feel ashamed at how far behind we are in many ways. I have travelled and worked in Sweden, Denmark, Holland, France, Germany, and Portugal, and whilst we are ahead of most on recycling at 27%, Germany and Sweden are all ready in the 40% band and increasing.
So what sets these countries apart from us?
1)Standardize Waste collection: the Postcode lottery is correct, I live in the same city as my Mother, only 10 miles away, and we have completely different systems.
2)Waste Management should first be a Service, then an Environmental Concern, and finally a profit making Endeavour.
3)Deposits: who remembers 10p deposit on Pop Bottles; it worked, and still does in Europe. Sweden has a deposit on all plastic bottles, and it works. This can be further invested in a collection infrastructure, or the use of more friendly plastics, such as Oxo-biodegradables.
4)Penalties should be fixed and totally transparent, and apply to the whole country, and then we all know where we stand.
5Manufactures/Supermarkets etc should think a little more about the material and a little less about profit: there are lots of more environmentally friendly plastics and other materials available, but if they cost just 1% more, they are often rejected.
I think we all agree that collection standardisation and producer responsibility issues need addressing but are we over looking the simplest barrier of all- keeping recovered resources in the country? Profit may indeed be the main driver but the current recycling market is completely led by export.
Export allows local authorities to meet recycling targets but in doing so reduces the margins for recycling companies in the U.K. Less responsible recyclers abroad can recycle low quality materials but pay inflated prices and to my knowledge they seldom return any highly contaminated loads.
This seems initially a weak complaint regarding the opportunity to make money but If all U.K. recycling companies could make profit and guarantee sustainable good quality supply from industry and consumer alike then we would invest more into projects as they would be lower risk. Then we could pay more to the council who could in turn invest in segregation, naturally improveing UK recycling.
When we discuss standardisation do we also standardise a new waste hierarchy reduce, re use, recycle in U.K. recycle abroad?
Hello John,
I agree that developing recycling and means for efficient use of resources is a business opportunity
for the UK which should be on all stakeholders agenda. Other countries are busy doing this
and unless we do something we will be on the back foot on developing green jobs for our own
country as well securing competitiveness on the export market.
Having said that we are where we are and I believe it is better to recycle abroad than landfilling
plastics – a view that is shared by WRAP.
We are living in a global market and this means we need to improve the competitiveness
of the UK value chain – something that we should all contribute towards achieving.
It is clear that certain types of plastics in packaging applications, such as PET and HDPE used to make bottles and containers have a positive value. At the same time, given the number of grades of the most popular polymers for other types of packaging, the cost of separation, washing, recycling and final use of the recyclate in a product application make the commercialisation uneconomic.
Unlike plastics the aluminium, steel, paper, glass and cardboard used in packaging are helped enormously by the ability of the original manufacturers to recycle their own material recovered from the waste stream. Polymer manufacturers are unable to offer such a low cost route because of the multiple variations in grades of the different types of polymer produced. The recycling is therefore carried out by companies specifically set up for this purpose. In most cases this leads to recyclate being produced, which then has to compete with the highs and lows of virgin polymer prices. Great when these are high, but when low recyclers often struggle to survive.
For more than 30 years mixed plastic recycling has allowed a number of niche product markets, in the form of fencing, bollards, street signs, etc., to grow, but has been limited due to their initial higher price compared to the wood substitute products they replace. In other countries the broader picture has been accepted, whereby the lack of maintenance, durability and divorce from the volatility of polymer prices has enabled sustainable use of this otherwise problematic waste fraction. Here in the U.K. however the initial price factor has deterred market development.
The way to overcome this problem is to find a way to recycle the “unrecyclables”, at lowest possible cost. By finding a way to use this *mixed fraction* avoiding separation, washing and dramatically increasing the limited throughputs achieved allows products to be made that compete directly with the traditional products they replace. Using this technology developed here in the U.K. , will enable products to be made that can economically and sustainably replace many wood and concrete end uses, allowing the improved environmental and physical performance factors to be treated as “free benefits” to the end user.
* Plastic bags, yoghurt pots, multi-layer films, metallised snack packets and drinks pouches, egg cartons, hamburger boxes, , meat and fruit trays, cling and shrink film and up to 10% non-plastics in the form of paper labels, aluminium foil, organic and inorganic residues.*
The technology has been developed here in the U.K., is ready to roll out and has a market potential greater than the amount of plastics being landfilled.
It is time to modify the following statements made on the Recycling Debate web page regarding plastics used in consumer products , especially in packaging:
• several types of plastics in a product, which cannot be separated
No need to separate when several types of plastics in a product are present!
• remaining food or other materials makes cleaning environmentally and economically difficult
No need to clean or remove remaining food or other materials!
Reading the comments so far, it too easily degenerates into lists of difficulties.It infuriates me every time that I have to throw away a good, presumably directly recyclable, container
. I am sure that many people would be prepared to remove residual food, margarine.etc waste IF they knew that the container would be recycled.
Many people, like myself, have one or several cupboards of sorted and cleaned food containers of the types used every year in their individual-plastic millions per year (per month?) purchased in shops and supermarkets..
In other words stop thnking initially about mixed plastics but instead specific ones produced in huge numbers that could be collected on a standardised local authority basis to repace the use of yet mor plastic on new containers. There would be immedate downstream usage and very little sorting required.
To get a new system started a small cedit could be offered, on a computer-account basis, for every ten identical containers (or of identical plastic) that are returned.
“Thanks Norman for a set of good ideas. We in the plastics industry believe more plastics can be and shall be recycled. Trays, tubs, containers must join the bottles in kerb side or bring stations. But it is important that we do this in a structured way i.e. with adequate infrastructure not to destroy the value of the current bottle stream.
We encourage you to speak to your local authority and urge them to broaden the bottle recycling to also the above products – and team up with an operator of a material recovery facility capable to sort the plastics. The content of your cupboards would be excellent feedstock for the plastics reprocessing industry who can turn this into useful new products.
When cleaning your used packaging you should use the left over water after a hand dish and not run your dishwasher or take clean hot water for the cleaning of the dirty packaging. This would much reduce/eliminate the environmental benefits of the recycling.
Your idea of crediting good behaviour tune in well with a proposal from the new government. We agree it is better to encourage good behaviour than penalise bad.
Good luck in spear-heading your ideas in your local environment. Let us know how you succeed.
It is clear that certain types of plastics in packaging applications, such as PET and HDPE used to make bottles and containers have a positive value. At the same time, given the number of grades of the most popular polymers for other types of packaging, the cost of separation, washing, recycling and final use of the recyclate in a product application make the commercialisation uneconomic.Unlike plastics the aluminium, steel, paper, glass and cardboard used in packaging are helped enormously by the ability of the original manufacturers to recycle their own material recovered from the waste stream. Polymer manufacturers are unable to offer such a low cost route because of the multiple variations in grades of the different types of polymer produced. The recycling is therefore carried out by companies specifically set up for this purpose.
In most cases this leads to recyclate being produced, which then has to compete with the highs and lows of virgin polymer prices. Great when these are high, but when low recyclers often struggle to survive.For more than 30 years mixed plastic recycling has allowed a number of niche product markets, in the form of fencing, bollards, street signs, etc., to grow, but has been limited due to their initial higher price compared to the wood substitute products they replace. In other countries the broader picture has been accepted, whereby the lack of maintenance, durability and divorce from the volatility of polymer prices has enabled sustainable use of this otherwise problematic waste fraction. Here in the U.K. however the initial price factor has deterred market development.The way to overcome this problem is to find a way to recycle the “unrecyclables”, at lowest possible cost.
By finding a way to use this *mixed fraction* avoiding separation, washing and dramatically increasing the limited throughputs achieved allows products to be made that compete directly with the traditional products they replace. Using this technology developed here in the U.K. , will enable products to be made that can economically and sustainably replace many wood and concrete end uses, allowing the improved environmental and physical performance factors to be treated as “free benefits” to the end user.* Plastic bags, yoghurt pots, multi-layer films, metallised snack packets and drinks pouches, egg cartons, hamburger boxes, , meat and fruit trays, cling and shrink film and up to 10% non-plastics in the form of paper labels, aluminium foil, organic and inorganic residues.*The technology has been developed here in the U.K., is ready to roll out and has a market potential greater than the amount of plastics being landfilled.
It is time to modify the following statements made on the Recycling Debate web page regarding plastics used in consumer products , especially in packaging:
•several types of plastics in a product, which cannot be separated – No need to separate when several types of plastics in a product are present!
•remaining food or other materials makes cleaning environmentally and economically difficult – No need to clean or remove remaining food or other materials!
It is unfortunate that over the years local councils have taken on recycling functions for materials such as plastic packaging. Historically, this happened because of “green votes”, but it let industry and retailers off the hook and had the effect of introducing vast amounts of public subsidy in the system which now act as a disincentive to developing really effective industry funded recycling systerms.
Hello Tom,
We strongly support increased responsibility from both industry and the public with regards to litter. However, we believe that a deposit-based scheme is a sub-optimal approach, as the cost of forcing behavioural change runs the risk of creating price inflation. Instead, we as an industry believe that we should be focusing on prioritising waste prevention in the first instance, and are working with waste companies and local authorities to promote waste reduction and recycling and recovery as part of the waste hierarchy. This work is combined with more practical measures, such as tightening packing, transport and shipping procedures, and working together with all interested parties and strakeholders to reduce the amount of litter in our environment.
How much PET recycling is actually occurring in the UK? ie How much food grade recycled PET was converted from UK bottles last year and made into food grade PET? After all, the chemistry of polyethylene and polypropylene is far more straight forward than PET. Also, as a finished product, PET is far far more versatile and therefore useful to all