Archived press release

Recycle more, says new economics report: Government urged to resist dash for incineration

14 March 2000

Substantially increasing the money available for household recycling schemes makes environmental and economic sense says a new report into the economics of recycling published today by Friends of the Earth, Waste Watch and UK Waste [1]. The report suggests that boosting recycling should be a priority, with 20 per cent recycling producing an environmental benefit of around £200 a tonne [see attached table and summary].

According to Friends of the Earth research, the UK has one of the worst recycling rates in Europe[attached tables]. Later this month the Government is expected to announce how it is going to improve on this record when it publishes its waste strategy. The strategy is expected to set a non-statutory target for recycling 30 per cent of household waste by 2010.

However, it is anticipated that the strategy will not include any new money for local authority recycling schemes. And it seems highly unlikely that any new money for recycling schemes will be included in this year's Budget - even though last years announced increase in the landfill tax is expected to raise an extra £45 million for the Treasury [2].

The report, which was written by Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd, looks at new data on the costs of running kerbside recycling schemes, which it compares with the estimated cost of environmental damage of failing to recycle. This includes examining the environmental damage caused by mining to obtain resources to replace materials landfilled or incinerated.

Mike Childs, Senior Waste Campaigner, Friends of the Earth said:

“ The UK has one of the worst recycling records in Europe. This report provides more evidence, if more evidence were needed, that recycling makes good economic and environmental sense. What local authorities desperately need is money to enable them to provide people with decent, convenient recycling facilities. The Treasury is raising tens of millions of pounds with the landfill tax. It should release some of this to help the UK improve on its appalling recycling record.”

Doreen Fedrigo, Projects Manager at Waste Watch said:

"The report sheds more light on recycling, and shows that it provides substantial economic as well as environmental benefit. It sits well with recent findings from research we did into the employment potential of recycling - that meeting the current recycling target of 25%could provide over 25,000 jobs, and this figure would be nearly doubled if the 30% recycling by 2010 target were met [3]. Both reports build a strong economic, social and environmental case for increased recycling."

NOTES TO EDITORS:
[1] Beyond the Bin, the economics of recycling. A final report to Friends of the Earth, UK Waste and Waste Watch by Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd. Available from Waste Watch doreen@wastewatch.org.uk. To be made available free of charge on the Internet at the end of March(www.wastewatch.org.uk, www.foe.co.uk).
[2] Treasury Press Release, Government Support for Sustainable Waste Management, 9th March 1999.
[3] "Jobs From Waste: Employment Opportunities in Recycling" published in December 1999.Available for £20 from Waste Watch, 13-17 Ironmonger Row, London EC1V 3QG.

The study has looked at a number of kerbside recycling schemes in the UK and also at recycling operations in the Netherlands. It looked at both the financial costs of recycling as well as environmental costs and benefits (although these are impossible to fully quantify). The recycling schemes studied were only achieving recycling rates of between 10% and 15% through the collection of paper, aluminium, steel, and glass (although in some parts of the schemes, rates were much higher). This compares badly with rates achieved in other countries, such as the Netherlands which recycles more than 40 per cent of household waste.

However, the study suggests that given that some participant households are already recycling in excess of 200kg of dry recyclables per year (out of total waste of around 1100 kg per household per year), it does not seem fanciful to consider recycling rates of 20 _ 25 per cent in the UK (collecting dry materials). In addition to this, home or centralised composting could further increase rates considerably. Composting schemes in the UK (for example in North Lincolnshire) have shown that authority wide collection rates in excess of 200kg per household are achievable. This could boost recycling rates to 40-50 per cent at minimal or no additional costs (and potentially significant benefits). Further increases, to perhaps 60 per cent or more may be achieved through reuse and recycling of bulky goods, such as furniture and fridges.

The study suggests that the key to increasing recycling is through increasing participation in recycling schemes(through education, or incentives, or even formal or informal sanctions). Higher participation rates will reduce gross costs per tonne of material collected for recycling (since the density of collection increases). Transport-related externalities per tonne of recycled material collected would also fall, whilst transport-related externalities associated with residuals collection would be expected to increase (although these may already be internalised to some extent due to road fuel duty).

The attached table details environmental and economic costs of recycling, incineration and landfill. It also details what environmental impacts have been looked at and which haven't (most research reports fail to detail this when presenting results). It also details the large range of values placed on environmental damage, which is due to the huge difficulties is assigning costs to impacts such as climate change. Again most research reports fail to do this.Interestingly it suggests that a system involving a recycling scheme and landfill is preferable to incineration only or even incineration combined with a recycling scheme. However, given that not all costs of environmental impacts have been included these figures need to be interpreted with caution. The results do suggest however that the public are right to demand much higher recycling rates and oppose a shift to large-scale incineration (see summary table below). The authors of the study suggest that including “missing” externalities is likely to show an increased benefit for recycling, but importantly they suggest that weaknesses in this type of analysis makes these decisions political in nature and that politicians should recognise that the public want increased recycling with reduced roles for landfill and incineration.

Note: incorporating a recycling scheme to recycle 21 per cent of wastes costs £11-18 and brings benefits of ££9.74-£225.98

Externalities included (positive and negative)
Incineration
Some emissions to air from incineration, including greenhouse gases and some toxics;
Avoided externalities from use of bottom ash if bottom ash is used to displace aggregates;
Transport-related externalities other than litter, dust, and road damage;
Avoided externalities from recovery of steel (60% of input) and aluminium (assumed at 33% of input);
Avoided externalities from energy generation (on basis that coal is the marginal energy source);

Landfill
Emissions of CO2 and methane;
Avoided externalities due to carbon sequestration;
Avoided externalities from energy generation (on basis that coal is the marginal energy source).

Kerbside recycling scheme
Avoided transport-related air emissions from sea transport of imported newsprint and iron ore;
Avoided externalities from processing secondary materials instead of primary ones, some air emissions only;
Net transport related emissions from recycling

Missing externalities (positive and negative)
Incineration
External costs associated with engineering and construction;
Emissions from on-site use of vehicles;
Some emissions to air;
All emissions to water and land, including landfill-related external costs from landfilling of fly ash and (where not used to displace aggregate) bottom ash;
Emissions associated with energy and other pollutants resulting from extraction and washing materials recovered (bottom ash, steel, aluminium);
Transport of recovered materials to reprocessors;
All externalities associated with disamenity (including some related to transport);

Landfill
External costs associated with engineering the site;
External costs associated with on-site vehicle use;
Some emissions to air (e.g. CFCs);
All emissions to water and land, including landfill-related external costs from leachate;
All externalities associated with disamenity (including some related to transport of waste), non-use values associated with specific sites;
Any post-closure benefits (leisure, recreational use).

Kerbside recycling schemes
All avoided externalities from recycling of textiles;
All emissions to air and water (both those from primary materials extraction and processing which are avoided, and those incurred in secondary materials processing);
Avoided externalities associated with land/habitat disturbance from primary materials extraction;
All externalities associated with avoided transport of primary materials other than air emissions associated with sea transport of iron ore and newsprint.

EUROPEAN GLASS RECYCLING 1998
Source: FEVE

EUROPEAN STEEL RECYCLING 1998
Source: APEAL

ALUMINIUM CAN RECYCLING 1998, Source: European Aluminium Association

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust