skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A WRAP study has found that selling the UK’s used plastic bottles and paper for recycling in China actually saves carbon emissions. Shipping these materials more than 10,000 miles produces less CO2 than sending them to landfill at home and using brand new materials.The transport issue is just one factor in assessing the environmental impact of exporting materials for recycling. However, it has become increasingly important to understand, as over the last ten years exports of used paper have risen from 470,000 tonnes to 4.7 million tonnes. Exports of used plastic bottles have gone from less than 40,000 tonnes to half a million tonnes over the same period.This increase reflects the huge rise in household recycling in the UK from 7% to over 30% during that time.We collect more paper than we can recycle, but there is strong demand for it from growing economies, such as China, where there are not enough trees to make paper.Plastic bottles are also much in demand from China’s manufacturing industry and there is currently insufficient capacity in the UK to reprocess them here. This study shows it is environmentally less harmful to send that material to China for reprocessing than sending it to landfill in the UK.This study sought to answer the specific question of whether the CO2 emissions from the transport outweighed the benefits of the recycling. It quantifies the CO2 emissions from transporting one tonne of recovered mixed paper or recovered plastic (PET/HDPE) bottles to China. It assumes that the carbon savings of recycling in China are similar to those identified in other countries, including the UK.The study showed that the emissions caused by transporting the material to China account for only a small amount - on average less than a third – of the CO2 saved by recycling. However, due to the imbalance of trade between China and the UK, the majority of container ships head back to China empty and they are producing CO2 emissions whether or not they are carrying cargo. If you take this into account, the transport emissions are even smaller - less than one-tenth of the overall amount of CO2 saved by recycling.This study is not a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), although it forms a necessary part of the evidence base to demonstrate that exporting the material to China is environmentally sustainable. To answer this question in full, further work on the relative environmental impacts of recycling processes in China and the UK would be required.“It may seem strange that transporting our unwanted paper and plastic bottles such a distance would actually be better for the environment but that is what the evidence from this study shows. As more and more of this material is being sold to China we wanted to know the impact that was having on the environment, and specifically whether the CO2 emissions from the transport outweighed the benefits of the recycling. Although this study is only part of the environmental impact story, it is clear that there are significant CO2 savings that can be made by shipping our unwanted paper and plastic to China. In some cases, we just aren’t able to reprocess everything we collect or there isn’t enough of it to do so. In these cases, shipping it to China, which has a high demand and need for material, makes sense in CO2 terms. WRAP will continue to build both the environmental and economic case for domestic recycling.”
Liz Goodwin, CEO, WRAP
The study was carried out by Oakdene Hollins and critically reviewed by ERM. Related ArticlesFood Waste Scheme Hailed SuccessMoving Forward From Zero GrowthRobinsons Shave Two Grams off a BottleDelivered Milk is Cleaner, Greener and Easier to SwallowH2O ... Tap into it
Liz Goodwin, the chief executive of the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), has something to celebrate, zero growth. Historically, the amount of packaging used for grocery products has grown every year. However, in 2007 the same amount of packaging was put onto the market by the major retailers and brands as they used in 2006. This is despite increased sales. This is the first reported occurrence of zero growth achieved anywhere in Europe.From the WRAP blog, Moving Forward From Zero Growth;"This is a fantastic achievement but what I really want to see is actual reductions - that is going to be even more challenging. Our next target under the commitment is to see real reductions by 2010.
If you're thinking that you haven't seen much evidence of this work to reduce packaging, it's possible that you're not aware of it. There are lots of examples of products now being packaged in lighter bottles or cans and things being wrapped in thinner films. Much of this is very difficult to spot. However, there are other changes which we can see - for example:
the move to concentrates for washing liquids; or even
some new cleaning sprays which include a refill sachet.
As we move to some of the more visible changes, we as householders are also going to need to change the way we do things. Are we going to remember to use the refills or will we forget and just go and buy a new container? If we want to see real reductions in packaging then we are all going to need to engage and adapt. I hope we will - the gains are certainly going to be worth it.
The other area covered by the Courtauld Commitment is food waste - we need the retailers to help us all waste less of the food that we buy. We waste a staggering 6.7m tonnes of food waste every year. The retailers can help by giving us more advice on storage, working on portions sizes and giving us recipe ideas. I'll write more about our work on food waste in a future blog.
I want to ensure that WRAP continues to work closely with the retailers over the coming years to build on the progress already made so we can make an even greater difference - achieving real reductions in the quantity of packaging we use as a society and the amount of food we waste.
And I, for one, am looking forward to seeing far less packaging in my bin."
Related Articles
The Food We Waste
Lush Protest Packaging in the Nude
Reduce Plastic Bag Use by 70%
As the Summer heatwave continues, we are all searching for ways to stay hydrated in the basking Summer sun. Before we all grab a branded PET bottle of the shelf of our local convenience store, in these times of the "credit crunch" remember that in the majority of cases you are simply paying for the plastic bottle, which I found out when looking at a B2B price list from Coca Cola, a 250ml bottle of water with sports cap costs more than a standard 500ml bottle, and a 750ml bottle with sports cap, is twice that of a 500ml bottle.So simply if you want to reduce your spending, waste, energy consumption and environmental impact as well as reap the benefits of hydration can bring to your body. Simply get a water bottle, and carry it everywhere, of course you can reuse your old PET bottle, even if it says you can't (like Volvic bottles did, or maybe still do, its been a long time since i have seen one).In the USA, 2.5m bottles are thrown away every hour, so what options are there to reduce? Buying a reuseable bottle such as that of Platypus bottles, which are in the league of premium water bottles, and shown above. Even more expensive are SIGG water bottles, which have a strong environmental focus on their website, and an eco-chic "I am not plastic" water bottle for $21.99.
There are symbols which show you that an item is made from recycled material or that it can be recycled when you have finished with it. Buying recycled products, and recycling your waste helps to save vital resources and energy.
Plastics
Plastics often carry a number inside a Mobius Loop. View our post "What do the Numbers on Plastic Mean?" for more information on plastic logos.
The Recycling Symbol
This symbol, called the Mobius Loop, simply means that a product or part of it can be recycled where facilities are available. The inclusion of a number shows the percentage of recycled material that has been used to make the product.
The Green Dot
The Green Dot is a registered trademark. It means that a financial contribution has been paid to an authorised packaging recovery scheme. The UK is not a participating Green Dot system country, but you will see it on things which have been imported.
Leading international high street retailer Lush have gone onto the streets in the UK stripping off to protest against unnecessary packaging of products, the UK nude protest is part of the stores worldwide campaign in 55 cities. Staff from Lush stores around the UK wore only a white apron with the words "Ask Me Why I'm Naked" emblazoned across their fronts covering their most intimate parts.Lush is one of the few companies that have extensive environmental merits far beyond its competitors. The majority of their products come unpackaged, those that do are minimal and only used if absolutely necessary. All their ingredients are 100% natural and sourced in the country they are produced. Their products are never tested on animals.Lush co founder Mark Constantine recently presented a Channel 4 documentary leading the public on a revolutionary insight into the consumer power over packaging, the effects, and cost packaging has on our pockets and the environment. You can watch the documentary on You Tube. (Part 1, 2, 3)On 16th January 2006 Lush was taken to court in the UK by the Environment Agency. The offence was a technical one of not registering under The Packaging Waste Regulations 1997. This action to bring one of the most environmentally friendly companies in the UK on a technicality was not well received by the public. There have been 3400 new pieces of legislation on average each year for the last 5 years. Lush started in 1995 and the new law came in during 1997 however Lush did not need to register under the Packaging Waste Regulations until the rules were changes in 2000 and to make it even more difficult the Environment Agency only put the rules on their website in 2005. Even allowing for this Lush has always recycled as well as offering packaging free alternatives to your every day products.As soon as Lush were informed about the regulations they complied and attempted to make good any fees or charges that we had not paid. They say attempted because the Environment Agency tried to stop them so they could prosecute even though Kevin Parsons, Senior Environmental Officer, South West Region said ‘I agree Lush has been open and honest and that the environment has not suffered as a result of their action’.He also said ‘It is very difficult for local officers as the scope for discretion is extremely limited. It causes us great difficulty in cases such as Lush as it is fully accepted that Lush is a company recycling on a very comprehensive basis.’The magistrates took some time to discuss matters amongst themselves. They asked when the Regulations first came in as opposed to when the company first registered. The Lush barrister pointed out that there was no liability until the year 2000, which was when the limit came down from £5m to £2m. He also noted that there were two further small points that he had been asked to put forward to the magistrates. The first was to make clear explicitly the methods of recycling had been carried out since well before the year 2000. Secondly, that the Regulations had been placed on the Environment Agency’s website during the course of the last year and not before.The magistrates retired for all of 15 minutes. They then said that the offences were ‘at the lower end of the scale’ and ‘having taken the mitigation into account’ that the compensation was the penalty.It's a shame that genuine companies with positive attitudes towards making a beneficial difference to the environment are prosecuted over a technicality where those that flout the law are not brought before the courts.
Posts
A WRAP study has found that selling the UK’s used plastic bottles and paper for recycling in China actually saves carbon emissions. Shipping these materials more than 10,000 miles produces less CO2 than sending them to landfill at home and using brand new materials.
