We have to put the argument about recycling and recovery for industrial use into perspective. Our industry has allowed a Western European industrial economy perspective to channel thought processes about its future. This is a failure.
By David Newman, President of ISWA at time of going to print
Firstly, waste recycling is a rich man’s game. Apart from minimal economies based upon scavenging and the often forced use of child labour in developing countries, recycling is highest where incomes are highest. But not even all high income countries recycle - Japan was at a 19% recycling rate in 2013, while even the declared highest recycler, Germany, actually burns one third of its household waste.
Dumping is prevalent globally, with around 70% of all waste tipped into the environment and with 40% of our population without minimum collection services. So let’s get our recycling analysis into perspective – it interests a small minority of the world. So when we discuss the Circular Economy (CE), we should be aware that the discussion is EU driven, intellectually, politically and economically. (Yes, I know China is involved too, but has yet to catch up.)
Secondly, in many industries the idea of Circular Economy is not new. All metals, much paper and board, many textiles and even glass, have been collected and sent to recovery for centuries now. Industrial recovery circuits are well established and don’t even get onto the radar of most waste companies and experts.
So let’s not think we have invented anything new – we have simply extended the concept to a wider waste economy. If we want to extend the concept, the CE faces many challenges and some of these we know. ISWA’s report, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and many others, have highlighted how much we need quality collection, secure markets for secondary raw materials, international cooperation, redesign for recycling and, of course, prevention.
All of these are achievable, in time. The market for energy and current commodity prices of course work against greater circularity, but whilst Antonis is right that there is a structural change in act, what is also evident is that if we throw enough money at recycling and renewable energy subsidies (through taxes, EPR, landfill and incineration taxes, bans and penalties) we can recycle 70+% of most waste streams and get energy from them too.
The Netherlands does, Belgium does. But it costs a lot, and current economic models for greater recycling rates fail in that 70% of the world which doesn’t recycle, because they cannot support those costs.
The Unknown Challenges
The known barriers to greater circularity are minor compared to the unknown barriers. Here are four:
Energy: Renewable energy is now competitive more or less at $50-$60 per barrel – above all wind power, but also solar, are generating huge and totally unforeseen percentages of energy in industrially developed nations like Germany, Denmark, UK, Portugal, Italy etc. This challenges the waste to energy model, whether through burning or digestion, and as I wrote two years ago, forces consolidation into large scale plants. The industry is not ready yet and seems to ignore the challenge.
New materials, data and consumption: Graphene, carbon fibre, bioplastics, 3D printing, the internet, are all changing the materials being used in new production and consumption patterns. Teenagers are not getting driving licences; shopping malls across the US are closing; printed paper is still in rapid decline; cardboard (packaging for all those home deliveries) is increasing; sharing will wipe out many business models; 3D printing will localise production.
The waste industry was not ready for new streams like WEEE (80% is still disgracefully exported to developing countries) and we are not ready for carbon fibre. But PCs, cars, airplanes and bicycles, among others, are now being made from it.
Nanoparticles are in many waste streams and in our wastewater now. Graphene is coming. We are not ready for the challenge and it will hit us hard. Not one person raised his/her hand to the question I asked in three conferences in the US, Finland or Norway: Are you thinking about recovering these new materials? Data usage and robotics are also a major opportunity for waste systems and the clever use of data will drive down collection costs, improve GHG performance, improve market access for materials, enable greater industry consolidation.
Demographics: Despite population growth globally, in developed countries we have mostly declining or ageing populations. Whilst the UK will grow, Germany is in decline, and all of Eastern Europe faces a dramatic decline of up to 30% by 2050.
How can we design collection, waste plants, industrial reconversion around falling populations, falling workforces and falling markets? And a person over 65 consumes and wastes 50% of that of a 40 year old. Declining waste volumes will be the norm in most developed nations.
International cooperation: International trade agreements are tending towards the reduction of environmental protection. As Greenpeace revealed, the trade negotiation between Europe and the US would allow US corporations, in some cases, to sue over what they consider unreasonably protective policies.
GMO might be one of these, hormones in beef another. In this sense, how is it possible to think about redesigning products to achieve greater circularity? Do we levy import duties against products that are not recyclable and will the trade agreements allow this? How do we get Apple to pay its taxes as well as pay EPR schemes? By banning its iPhones? Or introducing import duties? Within the free trade agreement are these being discussed? International cooperation to promote clean production, greater circularity and recovery, is absolutely vital as we live in a globalised market. But will this need to be translated into law? Or will laws be shaped in favour of corporations and against the environmental challenges?
The waste industry is totally silent in this whole discussion and seems unconcerned, unaware, uninterested. It is a terrible mistake.
So, the industry is facing challenges beyond the structural change to recycling which Antonis points out. We can continue with our current models for only some time. Then the economic reality of new consumer economies, the challenges of energy costs, new materials hitting our waste streams, and falling demographics, will start to hurt.
How we put this into a global context in which recycling is a rich man’s game, and in which corporate power can overcome government policies, needs to be analysed and the waste industry needs to step up its game and participate in the debate.
