So the issue is market failure. Time to begin thinking outside that box?
3 Likes
Sure the true cost of the item should determine the real price it is sold at. True cost here meaning the lifetime cost of the product including the effect it has on resources and it’s disposal or effect on the environment after usage eg plastics and their pervasiveness in every environment after they are disposed of should have a cost at manufacture that reflects this (they wouldn’t be so cheap if that cost was imposed).
4 Likes
Which brings us to:
4 Likes
An article regarding how the Qld container deposit scheme has been an outstanding success with over 1 billion containers returned for some $100 million in refunds in the first year.
And an article regarding a Qld couple who are using the scheme to pay for their wedding, and who have raised $9,000 so far.
Great stuff.
1 Like
An article regarding making recycling mandatory in Australia.
Wow. Imagine that we might actually catch up with the rest of the world.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Nice to ban it but the Countries we had been sending it to were already rejecting it…banning sending it sure works when the potential recipients are already rejecting it…lol
3 Likes
There is still a large amount of good quality recyclable materials exported (glass, paper, metals) which there is a strong international market/appetite for and many countries seeking such materials for their own local industries. These materials haven’t been banned and are still happily received overseas.
China, Indonesia etc rejected principally the mixed plastic stream, paper/card and other plastic streams that were contaminated with a wide range of materials. If the streams which were exported were uncontaminated, they would have been accepted and the current issue would never have surfaced.
Some countries have been tightening up with ‘recycled materials’ they will accept. The tightening is the level of contamination which is acceptable. Anything above the contamination thresholds is rejected.
For example, China National Sword policy provides strict ‘contamination thresholds’. Materials can still be exported to China if they have a contamination rate of 0.5 per cent or less. The challenge is that collecting recyclables in he the yellow bins can’t meet this as individuals (esp. domestic and some commercial) don’t seem to know how to recycle and contaminate the whole of the stream.It is worth noting that even the container deposit programs run out in various states can’t achieve this if they accept plastic bottles with lids in place (the lids result in contamination levels greater than 0.5%.
From discussion in the industry, the clean recyclables which have never been an issue will potentially continue to not be an issue if they are able to be recycled in Australia…the contaminated materials (inc. those rejected by other countries) which can’t be sorted by existing technologies (or any in the pipeline) will still be an issue as any enterprise in Australia using recycled content will most likely refuse to take such materials (hence the negative value for the materials outlined in an earlier post). Such materials are unlikely to be recycled and will be disposed of by other means (waste to energy or landfill).
The contaminated streams were exported to developing countries as the labour was cheap and there were ‘entrepreneurs’ which took contaminated shipments and hand sort the material. The unfortunate side effect of such practices is that the materials which couldn’t be recycled (contaminated materials) became fugitive wastes or burnt. The fugitive wastes having a potential to enter waterways and thence oceans…the principle driver for the government’s policy action.
The risk with the proposed policy is that one particular recycled materials stream produces more materials that can be handled by the domestic market…creating a collapse in recycled material prices and the same problem occurring in the future…no home for all the recycled materials.
3 Likes
If only our councils and governments could learn how to communicate with each other, and have a common stance. Logic is sometimes lacking.
If it has a recycle symbol on the packaging it goes in the bin, right/wrong?
If it had food in it the container needs to be cleaned, or placed in the bin as is, right/wrong?
Container lids, metal with plastic liners, metal bottle tops, plastic screw tops are ok, right/wrong?
Wine casks are fine, including the bladder in the box, right/wrong?
Pizza boxes go to recycle, as they are cardboard, right/wrong?
I’m sure I still get it wrong with some items?
All I want is a 100,000 waste item look up dictionary. Or simply the rule that if it has a recycle symbol and number it goes in the yellow bin (recycle). All else goes to landfill. Japan was easy in comparison, for those who know, although you need to learn to pre-sort. All else gets combusted!
In the end it becomes overwhelming for too many of us. The rest try and do their best, but it sounds as if it is not good enough.
2 Likes
Wrong.
Each local collection system is different…and collects different recyclables. One needs to check to see what local requirements are.
Maybe.
Any loose food needs to be removed. For example, a half eaten jar of jam goes mouldy, the mouldy jam is to be spooned out but slight residues left within the jar after a good scraping is not an issue.
Leaving mouldy jam in the jar means it could contaminate other items such as paper/card or cause vermin (flies/rats) to infest the bin/recycling stream.
Lids (and corks) also need to be removed.
Wrong…the bladder can’t be recycled in a yellow bon and contaminates the paper card stream.
Bladders with valve and its hard plastic mount removed should be able to be recycled in a soft plasric recycling system.
Right, as long as any left over pizza is remove.
Milk or juice containers with metal foil/plastic liners, check with loocal recycling scheme.
Metal and plastic bottle top no. Must be removed unless the local scheme says okay to leave on the contasiner. Anything smaller than a fist in the bin can’t be recycled as it comes out in the initial screening/trommelling as waste. Leave it out or use for craft/art activities. Some schools/kindies will take them for such purposes.
It is very easy, just follow local requirements and don’t throw any thing else in the recycling bin hoping that it could be recycled. These hopeful items contaminate the recycling stream and devalues the work done by others doing the right thing.
3 Likes
Thanks for taking some time @phb to provide the clarifications. I’ve included two versions of our local council guides for interest.
I proposed the general questions because the Council guides leave some things open to the householder to decide. There are regularly items that are not in the Yes or No examples.
These are two of the better guides we’ve received. Ok in as far as they go.
Firstly they offer no advice on items with a recycling code and symbol. They seem to ignore their existence.
Rather farcical given they are used both domestically and internationally. Why bother? It is only confusing that an item that can be recycled cannot go in the yellow bin
Right!
But being responsible, the rest of the world uses these recycling symbols and numbers, so it must be ok. I even remember vaguely some advice to that effect way back.
- There is no advice on how clean containers need to be.
- There is no advice on wine casks (they seem similar outwardly to screw top cardboard juice containers). Personally I do separate the bladders and put them in the general bin.
- There is no advice on lids, removal or what to do with them. Surely metal lids are easily separated just as for cans. While a plastic lid is a similar plastic to containers.
True, I looked at the council list literally as perhaps many others might. Hopefully what we do personally is ok, but evidently for what ever reason, as a community it does not work well despite all the good intentions.
I have previously been told not to put paper coffee cups to recycle because they are coated, but so are cardboard juice containers and many glossy paper or cardboard products.
And there is no mention of minimum sizes for what to recycle. Previous comment that there is a screen that dumps to waste/landfill all items under a certain size would surprise many.
While consumers may need to step up, it would seem manufacturers/suppliers, retailers and government need to do more. The responsibility is with them to only provide products or materials that can be recycled. And to put in place recycling streams for all types of materials.
Still farcical! not getting any better. 
P.S.
As the other and wiser one in the household says, “not to worry, what they don’t want goes to landfill anyway.” I might agree given what the council waste depots instruct us to place in the recycle bins. All plastics go to landfill. Clean Cardboard is recycled as are metals, batteries and oils. There is a separate spot for mattresses and one for electronics.
2 Likes
If they are not a definite yes, then treat them as a no.
Using any discretion is likely to result in contamination…and it is better to leave out if unsure.
Most hard plastics can be recycled…but some shouldn’t be placed in the recycling stream (such as some black plastics).
The packaging industry is slowly starting to roll out the Australian Recycling Labels (ARL) which better provides information on the recyclability of various parts of the packaging. This overrides any recycling symbol which may be found on the bottom of plastic containers.
One needs to follow the ARL where they exist and not the generic recycling symbol with plastic type descriptor (number within the symbol).
For the ARL, individuals need to read these and recycle in accordance with this label.
BTW, the photos of containers in the Sunshine Coast example shows all lids/caps removed. It is a shame they hadn’t included lid/cap removal on the brochure.
This isn’t often communicated, but has been covered by msinstream media…
One of the problems is that if one searches to see what the minimise size is it whether something can be recycled, invariably websites like this one are read…
Individuals then think that they can then put finely shredded paper, holes from hole punches etc into tbe recycling bin. All such does is result in either the contamination of other things (shredded paper in plastic container) or bind up screens at the recycling facility making them less efficient and incresing the level of fine contaminants going through the plant and ending up in the separated products.
This is why it is very important not to rely on blogs or information from ‘zero waste’ champions, but to rely on information from your local recycling service provider. And follow the rule of ‘When it doubt, leave it out’.
1 Like
Which is a good initiative, but does not directly address the majority of packaging which comes with our mostly imported retail products. Perhaps the retailers need to affix a printed sticker, mandatory on all items larger than a blister pack which directs what to do with each part of the packaging?
I still would prefer to bundle it all up and return to the seller. Mandatory for the retailers to provide the service. Although many might not see this as convenient.
1 Like
Make beneficiaries (manufacturers, distributors and retailers) pay for recycling through the taxation system. Most of what needs recycling ends up in the waste stream, so the “service” of collection is provided by the public sector (albeit usually with private sector contractors these days).
I wonder whether separation of materials by consumers is worth the effort, given the complexities and failures. Would we be better off treating a mixed waste stream like an ore body - to be processed en masse.
1 Like
Hopefully this is actually some light at the end of the tunnel.
Interesting to note that a great many of the bottles in the photo still have their caps attached.
Yes, which is unfortunate as it devalues and reduces the recycling opportunities for the material which has been collected. In some countries they accept caps on bottles, but the use of the recycled plastic is far more limited.
I have just checked Brisbane City Council recycling guide and it clearly states… Remove the lids from containers and bottles before you place the bottles in the recycling bin and lids in the rubbish bin. Something simple that many have difficulty in doing.
I anticipate that many other council collection programs will be similar and leaving lids/caps on it a concern.
There is a use for the bottle caps, they are melted down to be used in making prosthetic limbs
Sadly at the moment Envision Hands has had to cease accepting caps until they have processed them & then they will require them again. They do want people to keep collecting them until they require them again. However this does not need to be the only “business” using these caps and if there are any budding businesses out there who could use this material they should put their enterprising “caps” on and re-purpose the caps into useful products.
4 Likes
The fact that that’s a problem indicates shortcomings in the processing. The process must be able to handle the stream that it’s likely to get. Relying on getting what the processors would like is a recipe for failure.
1 Like
I have to disagree. If we take this approach, why have any separate recycling schemes and let the processers deal with one bin that all materials (waste and recyclables are placed)…since it is their problem. Consumers create the waste and need to contribute to the solution (just like the packaging, manufacturing and resource recover industries), rather than creating an avoidable problem. The system is only as good as the weakest link, which at the moment are the domestic consumers (and possibly some commercial operations such as the food industry).
Not only does caps devalue the recovered plastic if left on, the bottles when collected can’t be compacted by the recycling trucks (if they could be compacted, the energy required to pop the bottles/lids off bottkes would cause other problems… items like glass containers would break as well causing no end of problems as broken glass shards would spread through everything). A simple experiment at home is see how much energy it takes to compact a plastic bottle with and without a lid.
Not being able to compact increases the volume of air in the trucks bins when full meaning more emptying events, more fuel used (trips to and from recycling centres to empty truck contents) and making collection far more inefficient. This results in more CO2 emissions. While it is easy to think that the recycling companies should accept lids on or develop technologies to remove lids, the compaction problem and unnecessary CO2 emissions will still remain. This is why it is critical to remove caps and lids, rather thinking it is someone else’s problem.
1 Like
No, producers create the waste. Producers and retailers profit from selling what becomes waste. They make and sell products from which recovery of materials is needlessly difficult.
In the final analysis, it’s their responsibility. If they are left with the costs, then there’s incentive to make and sell products that are more readily recyclable. They should not be permitted to “externalise” any cost.
3 Likes
