4 ms·

From the article: "70% of the soft plastic that reached a known destination was burnt, not recycled". That doesn't seem too bad. That means 30% got recycled, w

From the article: "70% of the soft plastic that reached a known destination was burnt, not recycled". That doesn't seem too bad. That means 30% got recycled, which is more than I expected given the general cynicism around plastic recycling. 30% definitely seems worthwhile. For the plastic that got incinerated, it is presumably more efficient to burn products for energy reclamation that are already separated by type. Having these recycling pathways set up is a necessary step towards improving recycling rates. We should be able to improve on that 30% over time.

BlackFly 1y ago
What fraction of all total soft plastic is collected by supermarket take back schemes compared to road side curb collection (where only 10% of municipalities "support" its recycling)? I have a strong prior that they can achieve such high numbers only because they only capture a small amount of the total amount of soft plastic waste. If they had to deal with it all there wouldn't be enough demand to burn or recycle and it would end up buried. This is somewhat supported by the fact that by official definitions supermarket take back schemes are not counted in official recyclability numbers: > Soft plastic collected via supermarket collection points does not satisfy this definition [of working at scale] and therefore was not counted towards WRAP’s UK Plastics Pact recyclability target.
- masfuerte 1y ago
  Supermarkets collect carrier bags and bread bags. Road side collection doesn't, at least not anywhere I've lived. I'd guess that close to 100% of the soft plastic collected is collected by supermarkets.
ars 1y ago
That's even better than you describe, it means that 70% is burned which is even better than recycled, and more than I expected.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  How better? It contributes to global warming and air pollution directly.
GeoAtreides 1y ago
In a world of climate change, best bet is too keep the carbon out of the air. That's why the landfill is the best place for plastic, where it won't bother anyone and definitely won't contribute to increasing the global average temperature.
- alwa 1y ago
  In fuel pellet form, isn’t it a more-or-less direct substitute for oil or coal that would have been burned anyway? So until the grid fully eliminates other petroleum products from the mix, isn’t this more or less a similar carbon cost, with the added benefit of less landfill impact? What’s wrong with recycling the plastic into energy?
  - zdragnar 1y ago
    How energy-positive is incinerating the plastic when it needs dedicated collection, sorting, processing into pellets, and specialized incineration to scrub waste gasses, compared to collecting natural gas and burning it? The difference is what determines whether burying or burning the plastic is better from a C02 emission standpoint. Also, if we don't have enough plastic to completely offset the need for natural gas energy production, then the biggest cost of natural gas- the drilling and transporting- isn't a part of the equation.
    - morsch 1y ago
      On the other hand, dumping garbage isn't free, either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44
    - abe_m 1y ago
      Natural gas wells go dry eventually, and new sites need to be developed. Slowing down the consumption is still a win on reducing the environment disruption of both land filling, and running new facilities to get to new natural gas deposits. For a CO2 emission stand point, there is still a lot of trucking of waste if it is getting land filled, plus land filling needs to burn a lot of diesel for creating and operating landfills. Burning plastic also likely more energy positive than going through the washing cycle to get food residue off containers to get them clean enough to use. You can just burn the food residue.
lm28469 1y ago
I mean if you frame it like that sure. I'd frame it like: we extract dino juice that's hundred millions of years in the making, process the shit out of it to make an item that will be used once, and which we probably could get by without, then burn it
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  It's tree fern juice that exists today because fungi weren't around to turn it into CO2 back then.
bagacrap 1y ago
No, the other 30% was "down cycled". 0% were recycled into something that had as much value as the original material.
- advisedwang 1y ago
  Yes, but it's not reasonable to expect these bags to be recycled in the same value level - the bags are dyed, contaminated with additives and other recyclables etc. Plus, if they are recycled into fabrics that prevent the use of virgin plastics of fabrics, it still has reduce eco footprint vs landfill or incineration. All of which to say is "downcycled" is still better than nothing. Although, in a sense the real nothing - not having a wasted bag in the first place - would be the real solution.

BlackFly 1y ago

What fraction of all total soft plastic is collected by supermarket take back schemes compared to road side curb collection (where only 10% of municipalities "support" its recycling)? I have a strong prior that they can achieve such high numbers only because they only capture a small amount of the total amount of soft plastic waste. If they had to deal with it all there wouldn't be enough demand to burn or recycle and it would end up buried. This is somewhat supported by the fact that by official definitions supermarket take back schemes are not counted in official recyclability numbers: > Soft plastic collected via supermarket collection points does not satisfy this definition [of working at scale] and therefore was not counted towards WRAP’s UK Plastics Pact recyclability target.

masfuerte 1y ago
Supermarkets collect carrier bags and bread bags. Road side collection doesn't, at least not anywhere I've lived. I'd guess that close to 100% of the soft plastic collected is collected by supermarkets.

ars 1y ago

That's even better than you describe, it means that 70% is burned which is even better than recycled, and more than I expected.

IAmBroom 1y ago
How better? It contributes to global warming and air pollution directly.

GeoAtreides 1y ago

In a world of climate change, best bet is too keep the carbon out of the air. That's why the landfill is the best place for plastic, where it won't bother anyone and definitely won't contribute to increasing the global average temperature.

alwa 1y ago
In fuel pellet form, isn’t it a more-or-less direct substitute for oil or coal that would have been burned anyway? So until the grid fully eliminates other petroleum products from the mix, isn’t this more or less a similar carbon cost, with the added benefit of less landfill impact? What’s wrong with recycling the plastic into energy?
- zdragnar 1y ago
  How energy-positive is incinerating the plastic when it needs dedicated collection, sorting, processing into pellets, and specialized incineration to scrub waste gasses, compared to collecting natural gas and burning it? The difference is what determines whether burying or burning the plastic is better from a C02 emission standpoint. Also, if we don't have enough plastic to completely offset the need for natural gas energy production, then the biggest cost of natural gas- the drilling and transporting- isn't a part of the equation.
  - morsch 1y ago
    On the other hand, dumping garbage isn't free, either. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRx_dZawN44
  - abe_m 1y ago
    Natural gas wells go dry eventually, and new sites need to be developed. Slowing down the consumption is still a win on reducing the environment disruption of both land filling, and running new facilities to get to new natural gas deposits. For a CO2 emission stand point, there is still a lot of trucking of waste if it is getting land filled, plus land filling needs to burn a lot of diesel for creating and operating landfills. Burning plastic also likely more energy positive than going through the washing cycle to get food residue off containers to get them clean enough to use. You can just burn the food residue.

lm28469 1y ago

I mean if you frame it like that sure. I'd frame it like: we extract dino juice that's hundred millions of years in the making, process the shit out of it to make an item that will be used once, and which we probably could get by without, then burn it

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
It's tree fern juice that exists today because fungi weren't around to turn it into CO2 back then.

bagacrap 1y ago

No, the other 30% was "down cycled". 0% were recycled into something that had as much value as the original material.

advisedwang 1y ago
Yes, but it's not reasonable to expect these bags to be recycled in the same value level - the bags are dyed, contaminated with additives and other recyclables etc. Plus, if they are recycled into fabrics that prevent the use of virgin plastics of fabrics, it still has reduce eco footprint vs landfill or incineration. All of which to say is "downcycled" is still better than nothing. Although, in a sense the real nothing - not having a wasted bag in the first place - would be the real solution.