Slashdot Mirror


There is No Guarantee That the Products You Recycle Are Actually Recycled, the UK Watchdog Warns (bbc.co.uk)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The National Audit Office (NAO) says over half of the packaging reported as recycled is actually being sent abroad to be processed. As a result, it says, the government has little idea of whether the recyclables are getting turned into new products, buried in landfill or burned. While an illusion of success has been created by the UK's system for recycling packaging, the NAO says, the reality may be quite different. Its report finds that: The government has turned a blind eye to underlying problems with the waste system. Firms may be over-stating the amount they are recycling. The Environment Agency has only carried out 40% of the recycling checks it planned to.

23 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because to economically recycle plastic, it has to be source sorted by recycling # (which reflects chemistry).

    Which means you need to have a half dozen plastic recycle bins, imputes a value of $0.01/hour to your time.

    Also colored glass and paper is almost never actually recycled.

    The bastards do this, because the sorting time looks free to them. They should be kicked square in the balls/cunt.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I still hold that we should be separating plastic from other waste and burying it. In 50 years when crude oil is more expensive, we can invest in developing processes to use the buried plastic waste as feedstock for new petrochemicals.

      This.

      I've always felt that recycling is a disservice to future generations.

      When humans have exhausted Earth's natural resources, they'll be able to dig up all the beer cans I've conveniently concentrated in my local landfill and refine them into new products.

    2. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you saying that's an argument for recycling theater?

      Nobody is ignoring the cost of landfill, it is just the cheapest, by far. Making people sort and wash their trash into 32 streams that all end in the landfill is just the _stupidest_ of all outcomes. Unless you're just trying to train people to do as they are told.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's been cheaper to burn paper/cardboard since the day environmentalists started screeching that paper kills trees and plastic is better. Welcome to 1979 by the way. To recycle paper you have to deink, rebleach, and break whatever it was into base fiber then re-gunkify the entire mess all over again. Even then, most places avoid it because rebonding the fibers makes for weaker paper or requires resins to stop it from degrading quickly. W2E facilities are a better option in many if not all cases. Again, thank environmentalists for their rabid bleating that said facilities are really really really really really bad. Never mind that the heavy ash can be used a clinker(for cement and drywall) or anything. Just don't let them know that we burn nearly all the tires in use for clinker and fuel for cement plant kilns or anything, or they'd go brain dead stupid.

      Which reminds me of an example of environmental stupidity from here in Ontario. Pipeline running from Sarina to Montreal, oh there was no problem with the pipeline being used currently. The problem came from them wanting to reverse the direction of flow, and reduce the operating pressure because of it's age. It was replaced with a newer pipeline about a decade ago, so having two redundant pipelines flowing in the same direction was a waste of money. The response? Endless screeching by environmentalists about how it was an environmental catastrophe and would poison all of southern ontario, not exaggerating on that one. It was pushed heavily by environmentalists as true. But razing a stand of old growth maples, oaks, and other broadleafs to put up gigantic fucking windmills? Perfectly okay. It was the hunting associations that blocked that one, because they'd been reintroducing wild turkey, pheasants and hawks to the area.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Glass recycling is more about preventing broken glass bottles from littering the streets and parks. The deposit on most bottles (paid when you buy the beverage, refunded when you return the bottle at a recycler) encourages people to dispose of the bottles properly, instead of just chuck them out the car window. And even if you do chuck them out the window, some homeless person will probably clean them up for the deposit. Glass is just sand that's been melted, and is one of the more innocuous things you can put into a landfill (doesn't degrade into other nasty chemicals). So it winding up in landfills instead of being recycled isn't really a problem.

      Likewise, paper buried in landfills is sequestered carbon. The tree pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere, used energy from sunlight to break off the O2, and locked up the Carbon in the form of cellulose. We chopped the tree down and turned that cellulose into paper. Burying the paper represents putting the carbon back underground, the reverse of what we do when we dig up and burn fossil fuels. In theory the paper could eventually biodegrade (converting the C back into CO2). But core samples drilled into landfills have come up with bits of newspaper over a century old, indicating not much biodegrading goes on. So burying paper in a landfill instead of recycling it isn't a problem either. (You don't really save trees by recycling paper - it's in the logger's best interest to re-plant any tree they chop down, so they'll have another tree to chop down in 20-40 years. So in developed countries, the number of trees remains fairly constant.)

      Metals usually cost enough to refine that it's worth recycling them.

      It's the plastics that are the problem. When I asked my garbage hauling service how they sort plastics, they claimed they hired inmates at below-minimum wage to do it for them.

    5. Re:Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I pour it down the storm sewer so it can go back underground with the rest of the oil

    6. Re: Recycling theater is ubiquitous. by pots · · Score: 2

      screeching by environmentalists ... [contrasted with] ... It was the hunting associations that blocked that one

      You know how I can tell you consume too much right-wing media? You talk about "environmentalists" as though they were evil, and hunters as though they were good, as though those were two distinct groups. Your story is about two groups of environmentalists who had a disagreement about how best to care for a certain parcel of land.

      It's a weird kind of double-think that allows for this. Been happening a lot lately.

  2. People do what you inspect (not expect) by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a result, it says, the government has little idea of whether the recyclables are getting turned into new products, buried in landfill or burned.

    If you don't know then the answer is that they are being handled in whatever manner is least expensive and/or most profitable. Most likely that is either burning or landfill with the chances increasing the lower the energy inputs required to make new. To presume otherwise is to be naive. Steel and aluminum are probably recycled because the energy required to make new is enormous versus recycling. Plastics are probably just buried or burned or dumped in the ocean.

    There is a saying that people don't do what you EXPECT, they do what you INSPECT. If you want to be sure it is being handled appropriately then you need to inspect the process to be sure. If you don't inspect then you won't get what you expect.

    1. Re:People do what you inspect (not expect) by Wookie+Monster · · Score: 2

      The cheapest thing is almost certainly also the greenest.

      It's pretty trivial to come up with counter arguments. It's cheaper for me to dump the engine oil from my car down the storm drain than it is to collect it and transport it to a proper waste oil processing center.

  3. Nothing new here by mi · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is a known problem in the States too. NYC, in particular, sends over half of its "recyclables" to landfill anyway. But, not to worry, they still fine people for failing to sort their trash — whether it helps environment or not, whatever increases the government's power over the subjects is a good thing, is not it?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Nothing new here by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Emphasising good behaviour in the most difficult to manage

      When fines are issued, it is no longer mere "emphasizing", but forcing.

      Nor are we talking of "good behavior", but rather of obedience. Manually separating trash, which will be mixed back together, is not "good behavior" — it is a patently stupid one. Only an authoritarian — like yourself — would insist on forcing a known stupidity for the sake of obedience...

      What do you suggest

      I suggest, the government stops pretending to be a parent, who knows better, and stops punishing people for failing to separate, what will be mixed back together anyway.

      then they fix their problem and you get to spend your tax dollars

      Oh, wow, a genuine concern for tax dollars. Very simple: when (if!) you fix the problem, then you can start issuing fines again.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  4. Same thing in Seattle. by briancox2 · · Score: 2

    Seattle sends its unsorted recycling to China.

    Maybe it's time for a real ecological study on the real effects of recycling vs. simply burying everything. Our oceans deserve more than a good feeling we get by putting things in the blue bins.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    1. Re:Same thing in Seattle. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Seattle sends its unsorted recycling to China.

      Not any more. Around a month ago China announced they were done receiving unsorted recycling from the US (and other places), Although, the ecological impact of shipping it was probably nil, as China still ships more to the US than vice-versa, and empty ships use almost as much fuel as full.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  5. Re:thats why i don't recycle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's why i don't recycle because there safer in the landfill. At least its contained and cheaper for myself.

    That doesn't make any sense. So, some fraction of the plastic sent to recycling doesn't actually get recycled... but it doesn't make sense to say it's "safer" to send it directly to landfill, instead of recycling some of it and then sending what's left to landfill.

    Actually, in many cases it is safer, cheaper and better to just throw things in a landfill. In theory, recycling is a really great idea. But in actual practice, it often causes more pollution and environmental damage, not less.

    For example, the process that is used to recycle paper involves various chemicals and as a by-product, generates many tens of thousands of tons of toxic sludge that has to be disposed of -- by dumping it into a landfill. It would be far less harmful to just throw the paper away and dump it into a landfill.

    It's the same for recycling many other things as well. In many cases, the recycling process generates air, water or ground pollution that wouldn't be generated if you just throw stuff away and don't try to "recycle" it.

    Recycling is also extremely expensive and just simply not economically viable. That's why the U.S. and EU export all their trash to various third world countries. The only way that recycling can even come close to be economically viable is to do it in a situation where people are paid pennies a day and where there are little or no environmental regulations.

  6. Welfare recepients by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

    Make the people on welfare do it. Are you able to work and getting government money? Well looks like you're going be sorting recyclables.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  7. Not exactly news. by rnturn · · Score: 2

    I was working late one night and discovered that the cleaning crew was routinely emptying the blue trashcans with the recycle logos on the side into the same bin as the non-recyclable waste. This was back in the later-'90s and I can easily imagine this happening all over. Even today. [sigh]

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  8. It's been a sham for decades by bussdriver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always been in support of recycling even when I knew as a student all the dumpsters went into the SAME garbage truck (I saw it after school.)

    Multiple parts in the process have to ALL be addressed. If you get everybody but jerks recycling that is just the 3rd part of the process. 1st part is regulating what's made, we don't hardly do that.... 2nd part is not buying stupid cheap disposable shit we do not need in the 1st place (that won't ever happen.) + more steps...

    China had all those boats full of junk we bought and since they took over, we had nothing to ship back to them so they made $$$ taking our UNSORTED trash without any accountability when they got it back home. Now they don't want our trash, it's not more profitable than just buying the gas for the boat.

    If we want recycling to work, we have to not be so LAZY and presort again. Then we have to BAN mixed materials because nobody seriously sorts by looking at those 1-7 labels on the plastic... That isn't even the big thing-- banning stupid things like straws is finally being done. Things like BOTTLES should have remained glass (clean and reuse) like they always were-- it's entirely corporate conspiracy to slander consumers for not recycling their forced TRASH because they want to save pennies on containers (because their competition is cheaper... hence the NEED to regulate a level playing field. just like regulations stop your business from assassinating your competition.)

    Government WORKS only if YOU collectively inspect/regulate it same with corporations and the assholes that make up 1/3 of society. We get what we deserve.

    1. Re:It's been a sham for decades by swb · · Score: 2

      I'm all in for packaging regulations that eliminate hard/dubious recycling. There's way too much packaging and way too much stupid choices that create more packaging -- like shiny plastic surfaces that come with a square yard of cling wrap on top to keep them shiny.

      Presort is a lost cause beyond 2, maybe 3 categories total. I can't help but think it's just transferring the cost savings from manufacturers to consumers. They get to save fractions of a cent on packaging, consumers pay the cost of sorting a zillion different materials.

  9. Re:thats why i don't recycle by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the States in some areas we have Single Stream Recycling.
    Where you put in all your recyclable (Paper, Some plastics normally the thick plastic, and Metal) materials into one bin. Then it goes and gets sorted out.

    Only about 1/3 of the material actually gets recycled. However the amount of material sent over to be recycled has increased 5 fold. So overall we are better with a less efficient process, because the convenience makes it easier to increase your output.

    For some reason there is a reaction if something isn't working as well as it should, we should just stop it all together. While the net benefit outweighs the cost.

    I have also heard a similar type of argument against LED traffic lights. Because in a rare weather condition snow can cover the lights, and be hard to see, while incandescent bulbs create enough heat to melt the snow.
    Because of this perhaps once a year occurance, people are using this to prevent LED lights, which use less energy, are cheaper to maintain, offer better viability, as well often will not die at once.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  10. Example for Plastics by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    All CD/DVDs are poly-carbonate - it's industry. But the law could say you have to PICK a standard and stay with it. So say all food containers must be PP #5? no mixed caps made from #2 or #4. All PVS must be white and all ABS must be black... kind of already happens in plumbing pipe. exceptions for classes of products... Think of it like HID class drivers. Sure some will bitch that they can't make their product different by confusing the situation-- well, tough, you can't make your bike out of radioactive materials so it glows either.

    Tax the exceptions to cover the burden those things impose; that creates incentives to innovate around the taxes.... nothing seems to motivate capitalists more than avoiding taxes... we should capitalize upon that!

    Obviously, globalization is a huge huge problem and tariffs need to be done... stronger than in the past and the WTO and our treaties do all seem to totally suck... Trump is right on that; but we need intelligent new ones and he appears unable to beat the bad ones we have already.

  11. Re: thats why i don't recycle by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

    When LEDs were first used for stop lights, they were being covered by ice and snow in northern areas during winter under some conditions. Since that time, manufacturers have modified designs so that there are heaters that activate automatically. This guy talks about how the overall benefits of LED traffic lights far outweigh the disadvantages of them in their early deployment.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Re:thats why i don't recycle by datavirtue · · Score: 2

    China, who was taking most of our recyclables, has stopped. Newsprint, which was going for $100 per ton, now sells for $5 a ton on the market. Recycling has failed in the US. Your recycling is going to the landfills right now.

    However, there are people developing new plastic recycling techniques using chemicals instead of the standard mechanical methods. No word on if this chemical method will have an environmental impact or if it will be economically feasible. It is being developed to recycle the plastic that is floating in the ocean. There is a project underway to gather the plastic and recycle it using the new chemical method. The chemical method still requires sorting.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  13. ha! by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    Everything can be called indoctrination; did you grow up on a deserted island all by yourself? If not, then you were indoctrinated. It's all a matter of WHAT is to be indoctrinated not whether or not it is going to happen. My tribe good... better tribe than you tribe...

    Does everybody question and think about everything on their own? Hell no! I wish. Most the planet is religious; oh yes, religion is fundamentally indoctrination. Is it bad? sometimes. Is it good? Well, i don't want to argue with everybody I meet to convince them it's a bad idea to kill me and take my stuff... Surely, you'd want some indoctrination and LAWS that align with that. Some laws go too far some not far enough; where you get upset is when it doesn't align with your values. Oh, BTW, where did you get your values? (hint: topic is indoctrination.)

    Stupid people need simple directions to follow with simple reasons. God said so ;-)

    Seriously, even us smarter educated people have plenty of stupid moments; to be stupid sometimes IS to be human...arguably it IS the normal human state; after all, cognitive psychology keeps proving that point further.