Thought this an interesting reading, and decided to share with the IS blog audience. Cheers, Inês
In September 1900, a Sanitary Engineers’ conference declared that “we should no longer regard sewage as a waste but as a resource from which to derive energy to power local communities”. Even after all this time, environmental issues are still at the forefront of mainstream political agendas and society, driven by the combined impacts of climate change, global warming, energy security, the Stern Review, resource conservation and effective waste management.
Our present rate of consumption is unsustainable and the concept that we need “three Earths” to support developed country lifestyles is widely known. Given these impacts, can we allow or afford another 107 years to go by before we tackle head-on our energy and resource issues?
In my view, we need to change not only our behaviours, but to modernize our processes too: recycling technology is a key part of the solution equation. In effect, we need to create the equivalent of an “environmental clunk-click” campaign – similar to the successful promotion that encouraged seat belt wearing among car users in the 1970s – among industry and consumers alike.
Environmental targets and profit targets go “hand in glove”. For example, banks have signed up to the Equator Principles for ensuring sound environmental management of projects that they finance, and a number of the UK’s biggest companies have a corporate responsibility agenda, such as Marks & Spencer’s Plan A.
But what’s in it for the consumer? At present, consumers incur environmental costs for their waste disposal, and if the supply of raw materials becomes scarce for whatever reason, then prices will have to rise as a result of the economic impact of demand and supply.
Aiming for self-sufficiency in energy and resources management minimizes the risk impact of being wholly reliant on one or two key suppliers. So, from a government and policy perspective, this makes sense too.
I would also add that the use of the word “waste” distracts from the business potential of the resource stream on offer. So while a newspaper has an intrinsic value to the consumer on the morning train, the paper is then left on the train, discarded as a worthless item – why?
I would submit that waste is merely another form of resource to be mined as any other. Arguably, it is more challenging to do so, but it’s a resource none the less, and in some cases can be in a much more homogenous form compared to its raw material counterparts. The key components of this resource are metal, paper, glass, plastics and wood. Markets for these exist already providing that the quality and price components are right. Recycling is an enabler and recycling technology the operational facilitator.
For recycling to work effectively, we need to close the loop between the consumer (“end of pipe”) and industry (“start of pipe”) for these resource commodities.
So what exactly is recycling? Let’s consider this question by way of an illustration. Is a company involved in glass production, using recovered or recycled glass, a glass manufacturer or a glass recycler? And does it matter? If we accept this philosophical principle, why is recycling technology viewed in a different light?
Each piece of recycling machinery or technology will be designed to achieve a specific objective and to this end, recycling can be viewed as a manufacturing process in all but name. There are a wide range of recycling technologies available from the humble “kerbside collection box” through to shredders, bailers and Eddy-current separators for metals separation and extraction. However, all of this effort will be to no avail if markets for the recycled or recovered materials do not exist.
Regulatory and policy statements must support this evolving agenda and, in my view, be risk-based. Quite rightly, the key focal points must be to mitigate any impact on human health and/or the environment. Yet we have the same regulatory regime, in parts, for hazardous material as for non-hazardous material.
Waste is currently defined as “any substance or object the holder discards, intends to discard or is required to discard” under the European Union Waste Framework Directive. So, in effect, once a substance or object has become waste, it will remain waste under that definition until it has been fully recovered and no longer poses a potential threat to the environment or to human health.
For example, a glass bottle is manufactured and filled with milk before being delivered to the consumer on a milk round. The milk is consumed and the bottle then cleaned out and left outside to be collected again, refilled and probably redelivered to the same consumer again and again. Is this, in itself, not a perfect market and a driving principle for the recycling sector as a whole?
Under this scenario, is the milk bottle that is left on the doorstep “waste” under the strict terms of the definition above? One day, the bottle is broken and in the interest of safety, wrapped and placed in a kerbside collection bin. It is now viewed as discarded and subject to the full weight of regulatory impact. Yet, when it was unbroken, this may or may not have been the case depending upon the view adopted by the reader.
It goes without saying that regulations and policies are important. I would argue that not only should they be fit for purpose, but they should also be flexible in adoption.
In the past, landfill was the primary choice for waste disposal and was relatively cheap. Even today, gate fees can be as low as £15⁄tonne for certain types of materials. Recycling by its very nature is going to be more expensive as a process and if this pricing difference is allowed to remain, then there will be no adoption of the technology. In effect, this will constitute a market failure and regulatory and policy intervention will be needed to address it. In the UK, the recent rise in the landfill tax escalator by £8⁄tonne from next year is already having a profound impact on industry, local authorities and consumers alike.
Talking technology
Technology is defined as “the application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives”. Technical risk is a key consideration and I believe we need to sit back and reflect upon exactly what we mean by this. Technology can be separated out into three categories:-
- New new technology that is operationally unproven;
- New to a nation but with an operational track record abroad;
- Operating in the nation already.
The risk profile diminishes between categories one and three. That said, we are beginning to see technology in category two being adopted as a matter of course.
New technology is a challenge to develop both financially and technically. The diagram above illustrates these stages more clearly. Even as a new technology is being de-risked by the developer, there are no guarantees that it will ultimately be commercialized. There are a number of reasons that could be the cause here – technical issues, economic issues (i.e. too expensive) or a lack of clear market need.
In conclusion, resource efficiency, not waste disposal, must be the ultimate goal with clearly defined end-user markets so that the recovery loop is complete in its entirety, and unless another three or more Earths are discovered in the foreseeable future, I expect that this resource management aspiration will soon be realized. Even today, we heard news from one airline that it plans to start collecting in-flight waste at 30,000 feet for recycling!
About the author
Peter Calliafas is chairman of EnviroBusiness, a UK-based membership organisation focused on helping environmental enterprises within the south east region to secure greater competitive advantage in the emerging global market for environmental technologies and services.
Labels: efficiency, recycling, sufficiency
