by Chris Cullen
6 minute read
Last month I attended a conference on mixed plastics recycling sponsored by Nestlé, the major food producer. They had reached a plateau in their efforts to increase the recycled content of their plastic packaging. The problem, as they saw it, was that there was insufficient UK infrastructure to sort and reprocess mixed plastic packaging, forcing then to rely primarily on virgin plastic.
The aim of the conference was to understand the reasons behind the lack of domestic capacity and what could be done about it. Unfortunately, while informative, the day ended with no real solution presented. To my mind, this is a clear example of a market failure and I left the conference convinced that it will take government action to clear the impasse.
Chickening out?
Mixed plastics are a major waste stream. At the conference they were broadly defined as non-bottle plastic waste, including packaging waste such as pots, tubs, trays and film. Some definitions include post-consumer plastic goods, such as the plastic components of WEEE, vehicles or toys. In 2008, over 2.1 million tonnes of plastic packaging was placed on the UK market, the vast majority of which consisted of virgin material. This figure may well have fallen due to the recession, but can be expected to increase again once economic growth returns.
The use of plastic has environmental impacts on a number of levels, including CO2 emissions resulting from its manufacture, and the disamenity resulting from landfilling or incinerating plastic waste. A closed loop economy of plastic packaging would significantly reduce these impacts. For example, using a tonne of recycled plastic packaging has a net saving of over a tonne of CO2-equivalent emissions when compared to the same amount of virgin plastic material. As the UK strives to reduce its CO2 emissions, an increase in plastics recycling could make a valuable contribution.
Nevertheless, the recycling of plastic packaging remains at a relatively low rate (compared with, for example, paper and card), although local authorities are increasingly adding it to the list of materials that households can recycle at kerbside. But if Nestlé wants more recycled plastic, why isn’t the market able to supply it?
At its heart, this is the age old puzzle: which came first, the chicken or the egg? Manufacturers may want the chicken of domestically reprocessed mixed plastic, but reprocessors cannot attract investment in UK reprocessing capacity without the egg of guaranteed end-markets. For collectors, the opportunity remains to sell often low-grade bales of mixed plastic overseas, at prices that are anything but chicken feed, so their interest in a risky investment in UK-based reprocessing facilities remains limited. While demand from China has reduced in recent few months, plastic recyclate is now a traded commodity and the international market massively influences its availability and price.
Egging on processors
It could be argued that oil prices will take care of the problem. Virgin plastic prices rise with the cost of oil, which over the last 10 years has been on an above inflation upward trend. Demand continues to increase while reserves in established oilfields diminish and new, more difficult to drill supplies require ever larger investment to access them. But the cost of reprocessed plastic waste is already lower than producing virgin material – it hasn’t yet had the desired effect on investment, and I suspect it will take a pretty big price differential to inspire change.
There have been some examples of manufacturers teaming up directly with reprocessors to bridge the investment gap (e.g. the Joint Venture between Coca-Cola and ECO Plastics), but this has not become a widely adopted model. For anyone other than the biggest players, the level of investment involved is pretty intimidating. Were it not, the penny would have dropped in a conference like the one I attended – manufacturers would have started talking about where the reprocessing investment opportunities were for them.
Where the market is failing and the result is environmental damage and the loss of raw materials for the economy, there is a case for government to step in and compel responsible behaviour. Recycling targets, landfill tax and fuel duty are examples of the government legislating to require or encourage a move away from environmentally damaging activities.
In this case, if all plastic packaging placed on the market in the UK was required to contain a specified percentage of recycled content, producers would have a strong incentive to ensure they could source the required recycled material. The motivation to offer guaranteed contracts would stimulate investment in the necessary collection and reprocessing infrastructure – perhaps in some cases backed by the manufacturers themselves.
Such a system would see manufacturers and importers having to prove that the packaging material of items placed on the market meets the minimum requirement for recycled content, or face financial penalty. There are of course some technical issues regarding the use of some types of recycled plastic, especially for food grade packaging; but a carefully designed scheme might allow manufacturers to balance a higher recycled content in some products with purely virgin content in others. The overall percentage of recycled content required could be increased over time, ensuring continually increasing demand for reprocessed plastic and an incentive to innovate.
This approach would have the benefit of driving investment from industry in a direct and purposeful fashion towards a clear goal. It would be more effective in this than alternatives such as placing a tax on virgin plastic material. While a tax could have an impact, like fuel duty it would be complicated by its interaction with the variable price of oil.
The introduction of targets for recycled content in packaging could initially result in an increase in the price of recycled plastic and a spike in imports; however this would most likely be short term, and swiftly counteracted by UK capacity coming on-line. Any costs would ultimately fall to the consumer; but industry may actually be able to make savings, as reprocessed plastic appears set to be lower and more predictable in price than virgin material which depends on the oil market.
However, despite the opportunity to save, I fear that only when government provides the necessary prompt will we see business do more to build a mixed plastics infrastructure in the UK. Until then we’ll be waiting in vain for much in the way of either chickens or eggs.
A very interesting idea to mix plastic ( Pet etc.) with ash from HES ( Heat Electrical Station)and produce new constructive materials( ashconcrete).
Interesting discussion and good article.
We have developed a technology for economically recycling mixed waste plastics including dirty plastic film but to reach the nirvana of true recycling i.e. retaining polymer types to be recycled back into a form to replace the original virgin polymer, is a costly game and in our opinion not currently commercially viable. There are many applications where producing new compounds from mixed waste plastic and film can be used. Many consider this “downcycling” but often, once in new compound form, these materials can the be recycled on a like for like basis at this new level. In many cases, existing products need minor re-design to allow the use of these new compounds.
Anyone who wishes to discuss this or are considering any developments is welcome to get in touch on
info@salvtech.com
I think as usual in the waste minimisation discussion, there exists a huge failure in our understanding of the best way forward, and the real issues underlying problems. Using an unsustainable resource, and then complaining about the lack of cradle to cradle solutions available means only one thing.
The solution to packaging waste is to only use bio-degradable materials, that way, AD technology will have further merit for introduction, nutrients can be recycled in a natural way, emulating natural processes, and there is less energy use, having to transport and process materials, which incidentally have little value (that is why they aren’t recycled).
Plastic recycling of packaging waste is a losing battle. We need to heavily reduce our reliance on non-biodegradable resources and start utilising industrial ecology as an influence for sustainable operations.
Lets enforce take=back schemes. Make the producers responsible by placing high taxes on unsustainable packaging. They will soon realise that an extra 3p per package for biodegrable materials to be used, is worth it.
So as with many environmental problems, the solution people are seeking is in the wrong place. Its not the ‘waste’ thats the issue, its the ‘design’, its the product legislation that is wrong. There is absoloutely no reason why any packaging should even need ‘recycling’. Composting is the best solution, lets stop filling the oceans with poison and use materials which can support life, not take it away.
Living systems don’t create waste, so why should we?
Chris
I agree that Courtauld has not so far gone into this particular territory but there is no reason why it couldn’t.
One reason why Courtauld has worked is that a relatively few powerful players at the top of the supply chain have used their market muscle to make suppliers provide particular outcomes. The investment which would be needed in new reprocessing capacity would be provided in response to a predictable demand by third parties, not by the retailers or their suppliers probably.
As well as Nestle, we know several of the major retailers, including M&S and Asda would like to increase their recycled content. It is not too far fetched to think that some industry wide agreement could get the ball rolling more quickly and without all the legal and regulatory complications that regulations would bring. The object afterall is to generate investment in reprocessing at a growing but sustainable rate.
Chris Hi,
Can you give me a call on 07932 640 785 or email me,
I am the commercial director at ECO Plastics Ltd and feel we can help here,
it seems common practice that brands complain that they are unable to get the appropriate recyckled material yet I have never been able to speak to anyone from Nestle and likewise they have never approached us,
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss,
Chris
I buy the market failure argument and I also agree that the black plastic problem should be well on the way to a technical solution.
Regs would be one way of breaking the circle but could be ferociously difficult to draft and enforce in practice. I have argued for a while that the major retailers – perhaps through Courtauld Commitment – could set recycled content targets for themselves and their suppliers. By giving reasonable notice and fixing a rising requirement profile, they could give time for investment to be made and the certainty of demand to support that investment. Once the ball is rolling and the supply is growing it may be easier to move to regulations to mop up laggards and free riders.
Hi Philip,
The progress seen in the Courtauld Commitment to date, while positive, has so far focused on waste prevention, and minimisation which, while good things, save costs without any large investment or risk from the sector.
What I am proposing would require investment in facilities for the large scale reprocessing of plastics, which at present appears to be too risky for development with both manufacturers and developers making little to no progress in solving the deadlock.
When it comes to such large investment, only legally binding targets can have the necessary impact on the sector and provide guarantees in the areas where the current level of risk has been deemed too high by potential developers. A legal requirement for recycled plastic content would remove the risk that a large grocery store does not honour a voluntary commitment it has made.
I agree that the method of monitoring and enforcement would need to be drafted carefully to ensure simplicity and not to over burden the sector with unnecessary administrative work but I believe the benefits would far outweigh the costs.
Yes I can only agree with you. But the big issue as is with all other industries is FINANCE. The advancement of new technology by optical sorting manufacturers will most likely be expensive as is all new technology. The secret is to be able to use existing optical sorting equipment within existing facilities therefore increasing throughput with minimum new investment. I also think that it is a lot easier and cheaper to change the black pigment to an alternative colour. This along with government incentives and legislation setting realistic but challenging targets should allow for quick and steady solutions lending to growth in this sector.
I fully agree with Nestle and other companies finding it very difficult to find recycled plastis to incorporate within their packaging and I also agree that government investment by means of new legislation and funding are also needed. However, i firmly believe the existing waste stream that is generated by Nestle and similar companies products consists of too many “black” packaging products which unfortunatley today can not be sorted by optical sorters which are the primary means of sorting and segregating such plastic products and indeed bottles which has proved successful.
No confirmation on the level of “black” packaging has ever been issued to my knowledge but I would guesstimate 40-50% would not be too far of the mark. Given the density of this type of material it has proved extremley difficult for any operator to justify trying to sort such a waste stream where a 40-50% residual is almost guaranteed.
I think if an industry reduction leading to an industry ban on using black packaging was to be brought into legislation over a “fair” period of time it would help incentivise the reprocessing of mixed plastic packaging from an operators perspective. I appreciate some companies will laugh at this suggestion but from previous discussions many companies similar to Nestle have openly admitted that an alternative to black would not pose a negative influence to their product range ie sales and profits. Black is commonly used because it is the cheapest masterbatch availible but if for example blue was to become the new black would or should it not become the cheapest masterbatch. Even if it didnt, would the increased availibilty of recycled materials alone not prove a cost efficient exercise to all parties especially the environment.
The issue of black plastic sorting is an important one. However, it is my understanding that both manufacturers and technology providers are working towards solutions that will allow this to be overcome. If manufacturers change the type of black pigment used, current sorting technology will be able to sort them; also I believe new advanced optical sorters are being developed to sort black plastic by type with or without a change in the pigment type used.
However, this is only one of many factors that highlight the market’s failure and sluggish movement towards environmentally responsible behaviour. While a ban on black plastic might go some way to incentivising investment in reprocessing capacity, it might not go far enough or quickly enough. If government legislation specified targets for recycled plastic content, the market would react quite rapidly to fix this issue and ensure that the inability to sort black plastic became a thing of the past (even if it meant that manufacturers switched to non-black plastics) as greater quantities of recycled material would become available.