The Core
Why We Are Here => Economics & Investing => Topic started by: ergophobe on November 28, 2018, 07:35:32 PM
-
https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2018-11-27-recycling-crisis-china-extinct
“All of a sudden, material being collected on the street doesn’t have a place to go,” Pete Keller, vice president of recycling and sustainability at Republic Services, one of the largest waste managers in the country, told the New York Times. Keller noted that Republic has diverted more than 2,000 tons of paper to landfills in the Pacific Northwest since the Chinese ban came into effect.
-
Imagine how things would change if the producers were made responsible for the cost of recycling -- at least for the product packaging.
-
We're headed for a crisis at warp speed. Oh, I know, we'll just dump it in the ocea ....nevermind, it's full.
Twenty-thirty years ago, I read an article about the Japanese compressing non-food trash, then encasing it in concrete to make large, lego-style blocks for highway retainer walls. I wonder how that's going?
-
highway retainer walls.
We don't have enough highways to make a dent in that.
Imagine how things would change if the producers were made responsible for the cost of recycling -- at least for the product packaging.
That's crazy talk!
Fundamentally, though, it's the same idea as a carbon fee. It's basically a waste fee on the front end.
And BTW, rumours that Sweden is running out of garbage are greatly exaggerated
https://www.treehugger.com/energy-policy/no-sweden-does-not-recycle-99-percent-its-waste.html
-
>We don't have enough highways to make a dent in that
I know. I was thinking we'd build an island in the South China Sea.
-
That's an excellent idea, but the Japanese might complain. I hear they don't like it when other countries do that.
-
So what is the answer, increase domestic demand for recycled products, thereby increasing demand for domestic processing of recyclables?
-
Deposits would help a lot. It worked for Pepsi bottles. But they need to be specific, targeting problematic items like plastic water bottles. Otherwise, we'll just end up with mixed trash which nobody wants. EG & I have discussed the mixed trash problem somewhere around here.
-
So what is the answer, increase domestic demand for recycled products, thereby increasing demand for domestic processing of recyclables?
Solution 1. Eliminate single stream recycling. Most of the problems with contamination flow from that. It only ever worked because China was willing to take our low-grade supply. We have to sort.
Solution 2. Go to single-stream refuse. No separating recycling from trash, then have processing at the receiving end that *expects* there to be lots of trash mixed in.
China will still take recycling, but they went from allowing 5% contamination to setting the limit at 0.5% and we are unable to supply that from the US.
Anyway, I've often said that the main purpose of recycling is to alleviate middle-class guilt over our consumption habits. It's a measure that often achieves little, but lets people think they are eco-friendly, thus resolving the cognitive dissonance.
Now, my friend Jorge is trying to go zero waste in his household... that's another matter. That really does make a difference
-
>zero waste
Though that would be great, I don't think it is completely binary. There is something in between. We've been separating our trash for many years.
We have:
Compost Bin - yard waste, coffee grounds, soiled paper products, food waste
Recycling Bin - glass, tin, plastics, foils, clean paper/cardboard
(we'll wash items that need to be washed, we also separate out the for cash stuff and collect that for $)
Trash - everything else
Our trash bin is about half the size of our compost and recycling bins. We've also been using reusable bags for about 12 years. Doing things like getting your coffee in a reusable cup adds up too. None of this is really that hard to do.
https://www.recology.com/recology-san-francisco/your-three-carts/
-
>zero waste
Though that would be great, I don't think it is completely binary.
He hasn't achieved it yet, but he's getting close. He is also trying to implement a zero-waste plan for the hotel we work at. The actual "zero waste" standard allows for some small amount of waste, as it turns out. So he's trying to meet the standard, not actually get to the point where nothing gets thrown away. I think you're considered zero waste if you divert 95% from the landfill, but "5% waste" is not a good marketing term.
But the main thing he said is that the key is always on the consumption end. So he does a lot of looking at the supply chain and making his purchases based on the plan.
And though this is a propos of nothing... today he had his US citizenship interview. I'll be proud to have him as a fellow American!
Recycling Bin - glass, tin, plastics, foils, clean paper/cardboard
This works in CA because the state subsidizes the costs so municipalities do not have to. Not that long ago, clean paper/cardboard fetched $95/ton and so it actually paid for itself to be carted away. Now it's under $10/ton (around $6.50 currently). That doesn't come anywhere close to paying the costs.
In places where the state is not subsidizing, most of the paper in recycle bins is actually going to landfill, because there's no market for it. It's expected that will happen for plastics too.
Outside/In did a great episode back in March on the limitations of single-bin recycling (or a "three bin system" like you have in SF)
http://outsideinradio.org/shows/onebintorulethemall
The situation has gotten much worse since that episode aired.
-
>CA
https://www.recology.com/about-us/where-we-serve/
Looks like parts of Oregon and Washington are doing similar with the same company.
I guess it's (mostly) a left coast thing.
-
So far, not many companies are landfilling recyclables, but they interviewed some recyclers. Some are struggling, some have subsidies. I don't know about Recology specifically.
The thing is, just because they *collect* recyclables in Oregon does not mean they *recycle* them.
As of May 29 in the NYT:
In the Pacific Northwest, Republic has diverted more than 2,000 tons of paper to landfills since the Chinese ban came into effect, Mr. Keller said. The company has been unable to move that material to a market “at any price or cost,” he said. Though Republic is dumping only a small portion of its total inventory so far — the company handles over five million tons of recyclables nationwide each year — it sent little to no paper to landfills last year.
But for smaller companies, like Rogue Disposal and Recycling, which serves much of Oregon, the Chinese ban has upended operations. Rogue sent all its recycling to landfills for the first few months of the year, said Garry Penning, a spokesman.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html
Another big problem is "aspirational recycling." People want to feel good about their consumption, so they put all manner of things in recycling (notably, food-contaminated carboard). We have spent a lot of time educating people to recycle, but what we should have been teaching is:
If you are 99% sure it goes in recycling, then put it in the trash.
I've had this discussion with people all the time. They say "Oh our community is great. They recycle all plastics, even #7." The thing is, #7 means "other" which means there is no defined resin, which means there has *never* been a recycling market for all the #7 we use. Municipalities did this because the "catchment" was so poor on #1 and #2, which are the only ones anyone actually wants.
But now that China has raised the bar on contamination and has outright banned post-consumer plastic and paper, it means that single-stream recycling general won't work and thus...
After China banned used plastics this year, many municipalities in the United States no longer accept plastics numbered 3 to 7, which can include things like yogurt cups, butter tubs and vegetable oil bottles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-wrong-mistakes.html
The really surprising and interesting thing that I got from the Outside/In episode is that many people are now saying that the only two viable options are:
1. separating everything into separate bins for glass, plastic, office paper, cardboard and only accepting #1 and #2 plastic like we used to
2. not separating anything (that was the surprise). Trash and recycling in the same stream, and then build high-tech plants that do the separating at the end.
#2 has a few advantages
- plants designed from the outset to handle trash, so handling "contamination" is built into the system and doesn't break the works
- doesn't confuse people with the rules, so there is potential for much higher catchment
- only one set of trucks, so big savings on labor, fuel, carbon footprint, etc.
I haven't looked into this and they didn't say a lot about it, but it seems that the big disadvantage is simply the capital cost. They implied the tech was actually pretty good already.
Being somewhat pessimistic about human nature, based in part on what I see in the park garbage cans in our rental recycling, I think #2 is the future of recycling.
Ever since I was a little kid, before we even recycled much, I always wondered when we drove by the city dump whether someday there would be robots that would "mine" landfills for all the recyclable buried there. It seems like we're almost there. I guess it will be a matter of ROI in the end. If the process is low cost enough, there has to be a lot of precious and semi-precious metals in the landfills of America.
-
From the Recology site you linked to
Our latest engineering effort has been in planning, designing and implementing a system constructed to collect and recycle “film plastics” – which are used to make items like grocery bags.
That sounds promising. The more innovations like that, the more likely it is to get recycling to work.
I suspect part of it is that so much of the plastic that gets used in manufacturing gets used in China, without that market, there's always a struggle.
-
Now, my friend Jorge
Jorge the Peruvian ? If so a fine Gent.
-
Very small NC town:
Recycling costs drive up solid waste bills
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2018/11/30/Recycling-costs-drive-up-solid-waste-bills.html
Officials say dramatic changes in the recycling market are driving Waste Industries’ request for the higher rate increase. Not too long ago, solid waste disposal firms could make money from collecting recyclables like aluminum cans, glass, plastic and paper. The revenue usually was enough to prevent county and town governments from having to pay landfill fees.
Today, recycled aluminum and steel still have some value, but the other materials do not, waste officials say.
The bottom has fallen out of the recycling market largely because China, once an importer of foreign recyclables, has all but banned them. China said it’s done so, particularly with recyclables from the U.S., because they claim the materials are contaminated with other waste.
-
Now, my friend Jorge
Jorge the Peruvian ? If so a fine Gent.
That's the one. I think you'll agree - the US is lucky to get him.
-
Recycling costs drive up solid waste bills
This was one of the main points of the Outside/In episode. When recyclables had cash value and actually lowered the cost of carting off solid waste, people could feel eco and also save money.
As we move, at least in the near term, to a world where it costs money to cart off recylcing, it is going to test people's values
-
UK: Waste plan floats bottle deposit scheme - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46594380
-
Companies in England to pay packaging waste costs under new proposals | Reuters
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-waste-idUSKBN1OH00J
-
Plastic bag fee 'to double to 10p' and include every shop - BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46689684
-
Oregon Bottle Deposit System Hits 90 Percent Redemption Rate
The rate has jumped from 64 percent just two years ago and the total number of bottles recycled reached an all-time high of 2 billion in 2018.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-bottle-deposit-redemption-rate-2018/
-
>90 Percent Redemption Rate
That's impressive.
>Companies in England to pay packaging waste costs under new proposals
We really need to do that in the States.
A few years back we had a conversation about reusing glass bottles -- that would be a good start. All that plastic leaching into beverages isn't healthy anyway.
-
A few years back we had a conversation about reusing glass bottles
Many years ago I met a guy who was involved in launching the Sunny Delight product for P&G (I think it was P&G). He said they looked into reusable glass bottles because one of their mandates was to reduce the energy footprint (we would now say carbon footprint).
The problem with reusable glass bottles was they used a lot more petroleum than plastic bottles made from petroleum! They were heavy to ship, so trucks used more fuel for a given amount of product. Then you had to collect them and ship them back to the bottling plant, which also took more fuel than an empty truck. Then they needed to be washed and sterilized, which also took a huge amount of energy.
So reusing glass solves the landfill problem, but it makes the carbon footprint worse. Obviously, that equation changes if you switch to electric trucks and washing machines fed with solar power. But in most places, we're many years from that.
And thus one of my mottos: For every solution, there's a problem.
The real answer is that people should drink more tap water and less stuff from bottles, plastic or otherwise. As ,uch as possible, people should use powders that you reconstitute at the point of use, whether for laundry soap or beer (just kidding! For every solution, there's a problem)
-
OTOH - https://www.outdoors.org/articles/amc-outdoors/dehydrated-beer-now-available
Probably takes a huge amount of energy to dehydrate it though... so its carbon footprint is probably as bad or worse than real beer.
-
> few years back we had a conversation about reusing glass bottles
It was about recycling glass and the problem centered around weight. Being heavy and cheap, it cost more to ship it than its salvage value. The solution for some counties was to buy an expensive machine to grind & pound it back into sand, which the counties *could* use for their own construction projects. (And, per Rupert, the world is running short on sand.)
-
I met a guy who was responsible for reducing the footprint of Sunny Delight when it was launched. They determined the energy cost of reusable glass bottles was way too high.
And this
When Recycling Isn't Worth It. Sometimes a landfill is a more benign option
https://digital.sierramagazine.org/publication/?i=598322&article_id=3418100&view=articleBrowser
Pay attention to the organization that published this article! The article even questions their own efforts to support laws eliminated single-use plastics.
That article is a sidebar article to the main piece, which I haven't read yet, that basically details what we've been talking about here
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-4-july-august/feature/us-recycling-system-garbage?mostpopular=true