Recycling - Does it work
Have you ever considered why we recycle, what are we attempting to acheive? Are we trying to save the planet, slow down the flow of unwanted packaging and artefacts to land-fill, or a combination of all of these?
I thought it would be useful to stimulate the debate in Christchurch as we are contemplating how to proceed with the next phase of recycling in the borough and throughout the county.
Government targets are weight based so high density items such as glass or paper take precedence over plastic. taking paper, cardboard and green waste, which are all biodegradeable to be recycled is very laudible, but what about the residuals that go to landfill; if, and it is a big if all the above was recycled, then the landfills would comprise plastic. Is that right? Turn the argument around, put biodegradeables to landfill and recycle the plastics would that be better for the future?
We currently send lorries around the borough, collecting about 20% of the permitted recyclables (a requirement by Dorset County Council and the contract they have with SITA). The vehicles in my opinion (untested scientifically) produce more pollution than the environmental savings derived from the recycling process. So what are the gains?
Would it be better to collect efficiently and then separate the rubbish into constituent components, thus minimising the pollution effect of the process?
Do you think that all our collected garden waste should be sent for recycling? It currently goes to landfill!
I could go on, but am seeking an indication of feeling before developing the various options available. But before I finish, a final point - Do you feel it is a good thing for trade waste to be collected with domestic waste and disposed of in the same process? The council has not mandate for doing this, but taking a holistic view, there is only one land and one set of roads!
Colin P Jamieson
April 18th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Yes yes yes! The council should encourage us to do as much as we can to reduce and recycle the waste we produce. My comments in this reply do not really answer your macro question as, like most of your constituents I am looking at most of the recycling issue in terms of what’s in it for me?
The recycle bins in my council area are just not big enough for a start and there are only two of us in our household. The recycle collection is every other week. In our case a weekly collection would be much more appropriate (cart pollution aside).
If density is an issue ask households to crush aluminium cans and plastic bottles. Plus we want you to lobby for clearer recycle stamps on products – sometimes it is difficult to see whether something is recyclable or not.
As much garden waste that can be recycled should be. Last year our local land fill allowed you to take away the left over soil but for some reason they have stopped doing that this year. Also you could have a small council tax rebate for those who have water butts and compost bins.
Some of these things may not be cost effective but sometimes you have to think of the loss leader effect on improving peoples thought process on global sustainability.
It would be good to know how much of the residual waste is stuff that could be recycled in other ways? For example, things that could taken to charity shops, thrift shops or sold on eBay?
April 18th, 2007 at 2:45 am
I ‘dump’ waste at Verwood. It is an interesting place and well worth a visit. I’d like to know more about it’s recycling success (or otherwise). Sorting waste from people’s cars is no mean feat, but there is a strong presence to achieve that.
Sorting waste generally seems to be a big/expensive problem which is why we separate in our houses, right? It makes a mess of my kitchen and I’d like help with that, but I believe there is no alternative right now.
I’d recommend looking at the macro problems and I have no data to go on, but I’d have guessed that food packaging which is supposedly recyclable, but for which we have no local recycling mechanism is a huge issue. Also the question whether recycling operations ever want cardboard etc which has had food associated with it - Mac Donalds etc.
Garden waste? Guess that could mean rubble and soil. A separate site to sift/sort that would seem possible.
Household and trade? Yes, I’m all for sharing that, but think that means separate sites for different stuff.
Education, education, education, (facts and leadership) that’s what we all need.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:13 am
I am a serving local government officer with almost twenty years experience in waste management, most a senior level. The views that I will express here are my personal opinions and not those of my employers. Before getting into some of the specific questions asked, let me deal with the central question which is ‘Recycling - does it work’? Of course it works, not simply because it makes feel smug about doing our bit to save the planet, but because it has to work. The alternative e.g. the continued use of landfill is unacceptable. Nevertheless, there will always need to be a place for a limited amount of landfill, if only to dispose of the residue that cannot be recycled or recovered. One thing that does concern me and other waste management ‘professionals’ greatly is the bad press that recycling is currently getting in the national tabloid media. The net result of this will ultimately be to corrode the public’s belief in recycling and discourage participation. The only interests that are likely to benefit from this are those who seek to promote municipal waste incineration. It must be recognised however that the way in which some local councils appear to be setting about promoting recycling seems hard to reconcile with the critical objective of encouraging and maintaining public support. In fact, a recently published study by Oxford University’s Said Business School found that lots of people are becoming increasingly confused and disenchanted by the supposedly well-intended efforts of some councils to encourage them to recycle more. The lesson clearly is that councils must make recycling easier and less confusioning than it presently is, they must communicate better with the public and, possibly, collect fewer materials. Turning now to the question of the impact of recyclate collection vehicles on the local environment, in fact the new generation of refuse and recycling vehicles are mostly powered by Euro 4 diesel engines that, mile for mile, produce less pollution than the average white panel van. Moreover, in certain parts of the country, councils are experimenting with vehicles powered by a mixture of recycled vegetable oil (chip fat) and ethanol, usually referred to as bio-fuel. Finally - yes, we should be collecting garden and also kitchen waste. The reasons for this are more to do with the economics of recycling than with the environmental benefits derived. There is a good argument for separating trade (i.e. commercial) waste from ordinary domestic waste and concentrating on cost-effective ways of recycling and recovering value from both waste streams.
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:13 am
Nice post Roy. If you were to give us one specific suggestion on how to make councils make recycling easier and less confusing, what would it be? I’m guessing it would be something to do with communication, or possibly collecting few materials, but I’d prefer your actual thoughts!
Well done, Colin, blogging (or a website?) on recycling could make a cheap communication option to all, rather than produce expensive leaflets. (Wasn’t there some recent discussion on a incinerator proposal not too far away from C’church ? (Someone must have all the information gathered from that, which could be precis’d! )
April 25th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Deskcoach, thanks for the comment. I suppose, on a technical level, councils should aim for collection systems that are, if possible, at least as convenient for the public to understand and operate as their normal refuse collections. If this means collecting fewer materials using fewer bins then so be it. Councils should be aiming for quality not quantity. This would guarantee higher value products that can be reprocessed in the UK. However, none of this will make any difference to recycling performance if the message isn’t getting across - good communications are the key to most successful recycling schemes in the UK and continental Europe that I have studied.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Ah, Roy, thank you for responding! I’m interested in all ways of reducing waste (my business is founded on making most effective use of time!) I’m smiling as you’ve still managed to keep your options open even though I was hoping for your single specific suggestion! (You probably excel in strategic thinking!).
This is a complex world; we all want and need leaders and experts to tell us what to do. So, which option would you vote for, if the council had to vote on which action to take first?
1. Communication: what the most recycling activity right now, what’s the worst, what the next goal is, good news stories etc
2. Making recycling more convenient for people, so we get the best quality service on what we can recycle today!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Deskcoach, Communication first and foremost. This has to be done by experts though. In my experience most lay people, and I include local government officers (myself included) in this group, are not particularly good communicators. We tend to either patronise or confuse with jargon.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Ah,excellent. Colin’s FSB experience and contacts should come in handy then as the business environment must have some communication experts buried within!
Over to you Colin! How well do you agree your/the council’s priority is (two-way) communication?
May 6th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Wow, there are some real issues emerging!
Back to basics and look at what we need to recycle; packaging that our produce is wrapped in, the articles themselves that reach the end of their life for us, the by products of our day to day activities.
Wrapping, we have no choice here, or do we? Can we leave the packaging at the supermarket? They would soon get the message.
Passing on no longer needed artefacts and objects to charity shops is really shifting the monkey
by products of activities such as kitchen waste and garden waste and diy activity leftovers.
The current systems are inefficient and creates their own carbon defecits
We need to raise the awareness of our activities to enable us as communities to reach government targets
We need to change the rationale behind the government targets, become more creative and sophsticated in our thinking
We need to challenge authorities to be more demanding on sections of our communities who think it is ok not to care.
We need to audit our initiatives to ensure that we are benifitting from our efforts.
In Christchurch we will be looking at these issues and contributing to the Dorset wide consultations
regards
cj
May 14th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Starting with the Landfill Directive it is the biodegradable waste that we have to divert - why? because that is the portion that generates greenhouse gasses and leachates. LAs collect domestic, but also much commercial (catering waste from hotels and restaurants) biodegradable waste. This is the most noxious and unhygienic portion of the waste stream; separate collection of this high-density low volume stream leaves the more voluminous dry recyclables far easier to collect. Most LAs have gone for green waste collection and composting, but this is a portion of the waste stream of which little hitherto was consigned to landfill - we have therefore to date diverted little of the target material (wet biodegradable waste) from landfill.
The biodegradable residues can be recycled naturally, through composting, or through anaerobic digestion (AD) to produce biogas (and thus local energy). They can be thus recycled locally, generally within the community in which they are generated thus mimimising transport emissions. If procesed locally the compost (and also the digestate from AD) can also be reused locally in the next growth cycle. This is perhaps the closest we can get to “sustainability”. It also has tha advantage of reducing mineral/chemical fertiliser requirements, improving soil structure, increasing soil organic matter, increasing soil biodiversity, sequestring C in the soil etc., etc.. The winning “hits” on the C-balance are multiple.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
This has been a most successful blog. What progress in Christchurch’s thinking?
July 11th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Saw this great article on the BBC news web site and thought of you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6223538.stm
July 17th, 2007 at 3:59 am
Yes, and this new club started on Ecademy - members can see it at least
http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=list&lid=66452