Ireland has what it takes in the rubbish stakes
August 20, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Whilst the British government is good at talking about recycling initiatives and convincing us that change is on the horizon, the actual implementation is… well, a bit rubbish.
When it comes to the issue of recycling, it would appear that we Brits just do not get it. Already fresh recycling policies are flagging: supermarkets are failing to use recyclable packaging, shoppers are still able to use large quantities of low-cost (or free) plastic bags and our British beaches are transforming into plastic-littered landfill sites before our very eyes.
Times columnist, Melanie McDonagh, has highlighted "Britain’s poor recycling performance" in her latest article, "How Ireland cleaned up on recycling". The article explains how the Government of Ireland (Rialtas na hÉireann) has cunningly decided to wrestle the recycling dilemma by making people pay for the quantity of rubbish they dispose of. Rather than threatening to fine people if they accidentally put their paper in with their plastics, it is now Ireland’s policy to charge around £4 per rubbish bag. Not only does this mean that less plastic is produced and less money is spent on landfill sites, it also sends out a clear incentive to reduce the amount of rubbish people throw away on a day-to-day basis. McDonagh sums up her article well, concluding that if we are to change the way we see recycling, the government should "make us pay … it’s the only language we understand".
Whether or not we need to introduce a scheme similar to the aptly dubbed Recycle Bank is another question entirely. A number of people feel that the British government should follow the example of Ireland’s plastic bag ban. Rather than pussyfooting around and charging a measly 5p per shopping bag, British supermarkets should charge an amount that will force its customers to rethink the type of bags they use. Please click on the Bag it don’t bin it website to find out more.
Carrier bags – paper or plastic?
August 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm
If asked to say which was worse for the environment, plastic carrier bags or paper carrier bags, most people would hardly hesitate to say plastic, plastic, plastic! Paper is a natural material and completely biodegradable after all. So why don’t supermarkets just switch (or switch back) to paper bags? Isn’t that the simple answer to the environmental damage plastic bags are causing? Well the truth is, it is certainly not that simple.
Plastic bags are undeniably a problem in many areas. Discarded carrier bags are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of animals every year, from turtles to gulls, due to ingestion. They have been blamed for causing massive floods in India after they blocked up drains. Parts of the North Pacific Ocean are becoming a soup of photo-degraded plastic particles, which are then entering the food chain. You simply do not hear about paper bags causing these problems!
But let’s look at it from a different angle. The production of plastic bags is far better in terms of energy use than paper bags. It can take up to five times the energy to make a paper bag. The production of plastic uses valuable oil resources, but so does the production of paper bags. Paper bag production is also responsible for the destruction of millions of trees every year already (over 20 million just for paper carrier bags in the USA alone). The production of paper can create 50 times (yes, that’s 50 times!) the amount of water pollutants than the production of plastic, and up to 70% more air pollutants.
It doesn’t stop there. Paper bags are heavier, up to 6 times heavier, and more difficult to compress than plastic bags. That means more impact from transport pollution. It also means that paper bags would take up much more room in landfill sites than plastic bags currently do (less than 2%). And whilst it is true that plastic bags can take hundreds of years to break down, paper bags also have this problem due to the fact that biodegradation requires light, water and oxygen, elements which are often missing from modern landfill sites.
A much larger percentage of paper bags are recycled when compared to plastic bags; paper recycling in general is much more advanced than plastics recycling. However, recycling paper bags uses many times more energy than recycling plastic bags. Then there is the issue of reuse. It is thought that 80% of plastic carrier bags are reused at least once. This is probably because they are strong, waterproof and don’t fall apart after a couple of uses. Can the same be said for paper bags?
So is paper better than plastic? The answer, quite clearly, is no! Both paper and plastic carrier bags create their own problems for the environment. If plastic bag recycling was brought up to the levels of paper recycling, this already small environmental problem would all but disappear.
Summer blockbuster encourages children to recycle
August 8, 2008 at 1:55 pm
School’s out and when the inevitable rainy afternoon brings young children and their accompanying adults to the cinema, Disney may well encourage them all to go home and recycle (after seeing WALL-E, that is).
Along with Pixar, the animators who have previously brought us Toy Story, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille, Disney’s summer blockbuster WALL-E transports viewers to a “galaxy not so very far away” in a film where not much is said, and yet a powerful message is put across.
In the film, humans live in spaceships whilst a sweet, courageous robot (whose name stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class) works to clean up the planet that they have filled to the brim with rubbish. At once an endearing adventure story and a bleak promise of apocalypse, WALL-E is a film that may just bring home an idea or two about the virtues of recycling.
Having the recycling message mixed into their entertainment is likely to be a familiar experience for the very young. The two-to-six-year-old viewers of CBeebies can now tune into EcoBeebies, a range of programmes focused on our impact on the environment. Little ones can sing along at the end of programmes such as Green Balloon Club, “…All the little things we do/make a difference”, and parents can also find sticker charts on the accompanying website to put some of these ideas into action.
Online mobile phone recycling scheme launched
July 30, 2008 at 2:25 pm
According to some estimates, there are 90 million unused mobile handsets sitting around in homes across the UK, collecting dust at this very moment. People are constantly reminded not to throw away their old phones due to the toxic properties of some of the ingredients and as a result they are unsure of what to do with them.
If you have an old handset (or even a few) lying around at home, then you will be interested to hear about the new service offered by MPRC (The Mobile Phone Repair Company), which has just launched a new mobile phone recycling scheme that claims to be simpler and more efficient than any of the other schemes currently available.
The aim behind the scheme is to recycle old phones for the precious plastics and metals that are found within them, and for this reason the handsets do not have to be functioning.
The service, which complies with current EU legislation and is done in an environmentally friendly manner, aims to form “financially productive partnerships with charities, businesses and members of the public”, according to the website.
The process is simple: just go to the website, choose your model of phone and fill in the form. You will then be sent a freepost envelope in which to post your phone, and when the phone is received you will be paid.
The prices are pretty good too. For a Nokia N95, you can get £120 for a working phone and £60 for a non-working model. However, for older models the prices are a bit lower, with phones such as the Nokia 2100 being bought for £2 for a working model and £1 if it is not functioning.
The company claims that payment is guaranteed within 14 days, and it also states that a free courier collection is on offer for 10 or more phones at a time, which could be useful for charities looking to capitalise on the scheme.
Chip-and-bin fails in Norfolk
July 23, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Much has been made in the press of the chip-and-bin plans, whereby householders pay according to how much waste they produce. However, the failure of a trial in Norfolk, which started in 2002, could be bad news for the Government.
Computer problems, the irritation of local residents over the Big Brother type surveillance and a two-and-a-half fold increase in fly-tipping have brought the trial to a halt.
52,000 homes in the South Norfolk District Council area took part at a cost of over £1 million pounds, £25,000 of which was spent on fitting the necessary equipment to 12 dust carts. The microchips fitted to the bins (and used successfully in Europe for over a decade) were supposed to send data on the weight of refuse and the address of the household to a computer on the dust cart. In order to ensure accuracy, each bin was weighed six times on the way up and a further six times on the way down. However, problems with the electrics, hydraulics, mechanics and computer rendered the scheme unworkable.
District Council leader, John Fuller, has said that in order for the scheme to succeed, the technology has to work “in every bin, in every street on every day of the year”. Three other areas piloting the scheme have also had “significant difficulties”.
Despite the problems experienced already, the government is still seeking other councils to take part in trials next year. South Norfolk’s trial was not an official pilot but was paid for by government grants for recycling, which could be spent in whatever way the council wished. The legislation for official pilot schemes has not yet been passed.
£15 million Dorset recycling plant on the way
July 16, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Stand by Dorset, because you’re soon going to be getting a £15 million recycling plant that will end up seeing over 120,000 tonnes of waste coming through its doors every year. Just outside the quaint west-country town of Wareham will stand a three-in-one recycling plant, consisting of an inert recycling facility, an in-vessel composting centre for food and kitchen waste, and a materials recycling facility (MRF).
The decision was passed by the local council last month and the proposal now looks set to be moved up to the next level. There is currently a huge demand for a plant in the area, as a great amount of waste is currently being forced into landfills. There is simply no other option. Now that the site has been approved by the rubber stamp personnel, building will begin later this year and continue into next spring potentially being completed by the close of 2009.
The plant has raised a number of concerns by the local communities around the Purbeck region though and many nearby residents are somewhat concerned over the likely increase in traffic pollution, which undoubtedly will lead to noise and air pollution as well as congestion on the currently quiet and peaceful roads.
However, the council has listened to the concerns of the locals and still feel there is a way in which the plant can be built whilst still remaining in favour with the local communities. They are working with local residents to make sure everyone is kept abreast of each stage.
Worries over Scotland’s recycling
July 8, 2008 at 2:53 pm
A few weeks ago, Scotland’s recycling figures were published, leading to worries that the country will be unable to deliver on the ambitious targets imposed by the Scottish Government earlier this year. These targets aim to increase municipal recycling or composting rates to 40% by 2010, 50% by 2013, 60% by 2020 and 70% by 2025, with equally ambitious targets being set for landfill: the rate is currently 69% but the targets are 56% by 2010, 36% by 2013, 15% by 2020 and 5% by 2025.
The new figures reveal that, between 2006 and 2007, Scotland’s recycling rate has improved modestly by 4.1%, making its annual rate 31.2%. Richard Lochhead, Scottish Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, heralded the figures as proof that the country was going in the right direction.
This sentiment was not shared by the Scottish Liberal Democrats, however, with Mike Rumbles, the shadow environment secretary, raising concerns that, with the reduction in the waste budget of £26 million, the targets were going to be extremely difficult to achieve.
The head of the waste unit at SEPA (Scottish Environmental Protection Agency) echoed the Lib Dems’ concerns, saying that the targets for the future are “very challenging” and that the Scots cannot “slow down yet”.
Of course much of Scotland’s waste is produced by non-municipal users in industry and commerce and Mr Lochhead stated earlier this year that he would be turning his attentions to these areas too.
Mr Lochhead does not see the recycling issues purely in terms of the environment but has also said that they will lead to greater job opportunities in the waste sector.
Supermarkets failing on packaging
July 1, 2008 at 2:32 pm
The Telegraph has reported that Marks & Spencer suffered a humiliating blow recently in its pledge to become the greenest retailer in Britain, when it was announced that it had come bottom of a league of supermarkets in the amount of recyclable packaging that it uses. This comes despite the £200 million ‘eco plan’ which it launched last year to put it top of such leagues, and shows that very little progress has been made.
The LGA (Local Government Association) discovered that a meagre 62% of its packaging was suitable for recycling, which put it joint bottom with Lidl, which also had a large amount of non-recyclable packaging in its average shopping basket.
In terms of packaging alone, M&S has more packaging than any other store with 807g in the average basket, compared to 746g for Sainsbury’s and 668g for Tescos. The results of the research were disputed by M&S, who said that 91% of its packaging was recyclable.
However, all of the figures remain too high, suggesting that supermarkets are still not pulling their weight in the bid to reduce waste and promote recycling. Although they constantly promote how green they are, this simply is not the case.
The report also highlighted biscuits and pizzas as some of the worst products for unnecessary packaging, whilst at the same time stating that some products, such as broccoli (which now comes without shrink wrap in some of the stores), were in fact improving,
It seems that not a lot has changed since the first survey was carried out last October. In that time period, the general amount of packaging being used has gone down slightly, but the amount of recyclable packaging has hardly changed at all. Seeing as both the government and consumers have been putting pressure on them to reduce their waste, this is a discouraging result.
Paul Bettison is the Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, and he said that: “The days of the cling film coconut must come to an end”. The advice for shoppers if they want to reduce their packaging is to shop at local markets, which are far more efficient than supermarkets in preventing waste.
Glastonbury Goes Green
June 24, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Glastonbury have launched the ‘Love the Farm – Leave no Trace’ initiative this year in an attempt to make the events of 2008 as eco-friendly as possible.
Following a report that live events such as Glastonbury are responsible for around 75% of the whole of the music industry’s greenhouse gas emissions, organisers have decided to take a greener approach to the famous festival.
The scheme includes giving out free biodegradable tent pegs made out of potato starch to all festival goers. As well as that, they will also be ensuring that all the food tents use wooden cups and cutlery instead of plastic, which is far more difficult and expensive to recycle.
At many of the music festivals this year, car share schemes are being offered to lower the amount of harmful gases emitted in just travelling to the events. Not only that, but a biodegradable two-man tent made out of recycled cardboard and plastic has been invented by young entrepreneur, James Dunlop. He has called his eco-friendly tent the ‘Myhab.’ And do not worry – it is waterproof.
Glastonbury has always believed in the eco-friendly ethic and has had ‘Green Police’ in previous years, who dress up in funny costumes and walk around encouraging people to respect the environment by cleaning up after themselves. Regular visitors to the festival will be happy to know that they will be around this year as well.
Unfortunately, encouraging people to be green is not always enough. A survey carried out by non profit organisation, A Greener Festival, showed that 25% of all festival goers asked said that they would not recycle. And you can not make people recycle.
But some people are trying harder than others. Last year, over 70,000 music lovers signed up to the UK’s I Count campaign to stop climate chaos and show their support and commitment to saving the planet by not leaving a trace.
Go to Glastonbury’s Official Website for more information on the causes and campaigns supported by the legendary festival.
Evian? Don’t be naive…
June 17, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Drink tap water. It’s brilliant
The words of a water company? Surely not.
Surprising though it may seem, this is in fact a clear indication of Belu water company’s pure motives (although they might add: ‘…but if you are going to drink bottled water, drink ours’). Recycling can be difficult at the best of times but recycling plastic can be especially hard – many local councils still do not collect plastic recycling directly from homes, and, even if they do, the problem remains that a large quantity of the plastic we consume is not consumed at home. The most obvious case in point is bottled water.
We hardly need the figures from the British Soft Drinks Association to confirm the sensible guess that consumption of bottled water has been on the increase recently. Endless marketing campaigns about the benefits of hydration and purity have successfully embedded the idea that bottled water is tastier, cleaner and healthier for you. The result is that, according to Belu, the total spent on bottled water each year amounts to $100 billion. By way of contrast, they estimate that it would cost just $30 billion to reduce by half, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation (part of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals).
So what makes Belu special? It seems that they are offering a fairly ideal solution to the problems of global water shortage and unnecessary pollution through the excessive consumption of plastic and glass used in bottled water. How? By being the first bottled water company to sell water in compostable bottles, which are, wait for it, made from corn (only the lid is conventional plastic). In addition, all profits go to fund clean water projects around the world.
The project has been championed by, amongst others, the Times restaurant critic Giles Coren, who terrorised restaurants that did not offer tap (or Belu) water freely, and there have been signs of a consumer backlash against bottled water. Given the chance, who would not opt for a conscience as clear as their bottled water? If you can have your cake and eat it, then so much the better.
