News

Government ‘clutching at straws’ over waste plastic exports

exported plastic

In banning plastic drinking straws, coffee cups and other single-use plastic, the UK Government and NGOs seem to be ignoring the really big issue – the exportation of waste plastics that are ending up in the world’s oceans.

While politicians continue to follow the current UK media hype surrounding these ‘local issues’, they are failing to see the bigger picture and implement strategies that could provide economically-viable solutions to the growing pollution crisis.

“The actual tonnages of these minor fractions of single-use plastics are tiny in comparison to the BIG issue,” says Keith Freegard, Axion Director; a viewpoint that is shared by other industry experts.

The UK traditionally exports around 450,000 tonnes per annum of plastic packaging waste to Asia. The graph below shows the dramatic fall in exports to China in the first quarter of 2018 compared to the same period in 2017 and huge jump in exports to other Asian countries.

China’s National Sword ban on imported plastic waste has resulted in hundreds of containers being shipped to other Asian countries, such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Sri Lanka.

“82% of ocean plastic originates in Asia Pacific countries,” continues Keith. “If we were worried about standards of residual waste disposal in China, then we should be even more concerned about waste treatment infrastructure in these less-developed countries. This, of course, begs the question ‘how much of the 450,000 tonne pa is actually unrecyclable?”

“Sadly I think, along with many others in this industry, that quite a significant percentage of plastic waste from the UK householders’ kerbside collection stream is ending up in rivers, and subsequently the oceans. Rather than wasting taxpayers’ money on a plastic straw consultation, what UK government should be doing is finding out exactly how much of the exported waste to all those countries is being turned into really high-grade plastic.

“And what is happening to the fraction that is not being properly recycled? Around 15 to 20%, I guess. Is that going straight into the oceans? If it is, we’ve got a dreadful system!”

Sharing Keith’s views is Jessica Baker, Director at Chase Plastics Ltd, a UK plastics reprocessing company with more than 50 years’ experience. Jessica asserts: “Banning straws and other single-use plastic when the oceans are filling with our exported plastic is like fiddling while Rome burns. It will do very little to change the problem of plastics in our oceans.”

“If we think we have found a new home for the low grade mixed plastic waste that China did not want, should we not be concerned that it might be inundating countries that already have a much poorer environmental record than China, and will struggle to cope to actually reprocess all this material?”

“The reality is that plastic needs to be sorted into its separate polymers and formats in order to facilitate final reprocessing back into reusable pellets, but as long as we keep sending poorly sorted plastic overseas for reprocessing a significant proportion of this mix will end up in open landfill, the rivers and then oceans overseas.”

The solution, she suggests, is to make products more recyclable, collect these and reprocess them in the UK, adding: “Exported plastics should be of a sorted, single polymer stream or format so that overseas reprocessors do not have to re-sort it and throw out what they can’t use. Only this is going to address our contribution to the problem of ocean plastic.”

Phil Conran from 360 Environmental echoed these concerns. “It is clear that plastics are being exported that would fail the Transfrontier Shipment Regulations quality requirements if containers were checked. We know that even farm plastics are currently leaving the country in significant quantities and these can contain over 50% contamination. One of the issues we face is a very loose export control system with little information available to the Agencies before material is exported. Exporters of green list material have no legal requirement to submit documentation and consequently, the Agencies are left looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack. There is urgent need for export regulatory reform alongside measures to address the vast amount of unrecycled plastic that make a much greater contribution to global ocean litter that these small volume items.”

So what can be done? In conclusion, Keith suggests the authorities should follow the price of exported plastics to accurately measure the true levels of contaminants in waste plastics leaving the UK. He points out that some low-grade mixed plastics cost a ‘gate fee’ to export; yet will contain high percentages of waste in the bales. Many exporters are simply accessing ‘low-cost, poorly-regulated waste disposal routes’ in third-world countries. What we need is a much more rigorous and thorough methodology to accurately measure and quantify the split between ‘recyclable’ plastics and the tonnes of ‘unrecyclable’ waste in the containers leaving our shores.

“In the UK we’re already 15 to 20 years late in reacting to this issue and turning it into an economic growth opportunity. Unless our government recognise what dreadful environmental damage this huge waste export stream might be doing, and start to put in place some clear legislative drivers that underpin the growth of an economically viable plastics recycling industry, only then can we be truly responsible for the waste that we produce.”

“It’s no longer good enough to export it overseas, and hope for the best, we’ve got to be seen to be recycling as much as we can through well-regulated businesses operating under our own legislative waste structure,” he adds.

“This is so much more important than cotton buds and straws. We are sending our collected plastics out of sight and out of mind. The UK Government has to address this moral issue – and stop wasting time on a drinking straw consultation!”

 

£100m investment needed for flexible plastic recycling

Most flexible plastic packaging can be recycled, but investment of £100 million in collection, sorting and recycling infrastructure would be needed to make it happen in the UK.

“The big problem is the lack of adequate facilities designed to process these largely-recyclable materials,” says Richard McKinlay, Axion’s Head of Circular Economy. “If we are to increase the UK’s stalling recycling rate and hit future targets, the recycling of flexible packaging offers potential economic and environmental benefits.”

Around 414,000 tonnes of plastic-based flexible packaging is placed on the UK market each year. Flexible packaging such as plastic bags, confectionery wrappers, frozen food bags and pouches makes up 27% of consumer plastic packaging in the UK; yet much of this ends up in landfills or energy recovery.

Latest figures show that UK recycling rates have stalled; after increasing from 12 to 40 per cent between 2001 and 2010, the UK’s recycling rate has only risen by 5.2 per cent to 45.2 per cent in 2016/17.

Findings from the two-year R&D REFLEX project, led by Axion, showed that 80% of post-consumer flexible packaging, which is either polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene (PE) could be recycled, including those with metallised and barrier coatings. Much of the remaining 20% which is non-recyclable could be re-designed using innovative barrier and sealing materials to maintain performance while improving recyclability.

The aim of the collaborative project, involving key players from across the entire supply chain, was to understand and address the technical barriers to mechanically recycling flexible packaging in the post-consumer waste stream, creating a circular economy for these materials.

“We showed this technical feasibility on a relatively small scale with REFLEX, but need to demonstrate it on a larger scale; ideally with a dedicated UK research project focussing on the collection of household packaging films. Moving forward, more funding of around £100 million is required if we wanted to enable PP and PE film recycling from kerbside collections,” continues Richard.

This investment, he suggests, could come from Extended Producer Responsibility schemes that would encourage brands to design for end of life in exchange for reduced compliance fees, and so improve the ‘recyclability’ of their packaging.

Creating end markets for the recycled polymers is also important. While PE film is recycled, it tends to go back into film applications, which are sensitive to contaminants. Recycled PP can go back into injection-moulded products, such as paint pots and trays, extruded piping and outdoor furniture.

Richard concludes: “Uncertainty still reigns over what is recyclable when it comes to flexible packaging. Extensive testing and research we did through the REFLEX project delivered really valuable knowledge on processing these waste materials. We know that flexible packaging that has been designed for end of life can be recycled, so we need the facilities in place to do it.

“Now is the time to act on this data with investment in the infrastructure and ongoing subsidies to support and increase the recycling rates for these materials. If we’re going to achieve higher recycling rates, then we need to do it. At what point does it stop becoming a choice?”

Polymer Sourcing & Distribution 2018

Polymer Sourcing & Distribution 2018 will review global trends in sourcing, logistics and distribution of polymers and their feedstock and how these impact on the plastics industry. The conference will also discuss the changing industry structure of plastics processing, the effects of consolidation, changes in buying behaviours, squeezed margins; with ample opportunities for discussions during the Q&A sessions and breaks.

Axion Director Keith Freegard will be presenting on Thursday 17th May at 11:20 on the subject of ‘Sustainable product design with circular materials’.

Download the event programme here.

A ‘taxing’ question for single-use plastics recycling

The controversial proposed tax on single-use plastic packaging has raised questions over how to best recover and recycle this material. Taxes or deposit return schemes – how can we use economics to incentivise more recycling? Richard McKinlay, Head of Circular Economy at Axion, discusses the options.

Plastic packaging recycling has flat-lined. A key reason for this is the economics of recycling post-consumer packaging are very challenging. Another major problem is a lack of understanding among consumers over what can be recycled, alongside a lack of incentives for them to recycle properly.

The whole point of single-use plastics and packaging is to deliver products to as many people as possible, over as great a distance as possible with as little cost and product waste as possible. Modern packaging serves this purpose well; yet to recycle it successfully, we have to reverse this process and get it back from all the consumers. That’s no easy task!

So what’s the solution? Hit people in their pockets…otherwise known as taxes, or conversely ‘reward’ them for good recycling behaviour. Two ways of using economic drivers to increase recycling rates are a Deposit Return Scheme, a carrot, or a tax on single-use plastics, a stick.

Deposit Return Schemes

The Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) concept hit the UK news headlines at the end of March with Environment Secretary Michael Gove’s announcement to introduce a Deposit Return Scheme in England. Full details are subject to consultation and yet to be decided, including how big the deposit will be. Expected to cover single-use glass and plastic bottles, and steel and aluminium cans, the Government’s move has to be welcomed as a step in the right direction.

Similar schemes in Europe have been successful in achieving high recycling rates for PET bottles, aluminium cans and glass. They encourage users to recycle packaging for which they recover a small deposit, a reward if you like. Overall, there is no additional cost to consumers, providing they participate correctly.

The DRS will generate very high quality material for recycling because unlike kerbside collections, you can control exactly what is collected. This is especially important when producing food grade rPET. With material from kerbside collections, the food grade PET is mixed with non-food grade PET, which makes it harder to achieve the maximum allowed 5% non-food PET.

Deposit Return Schemes should increase recycling rates for the materials included in the scheme, most likely PET bottles and aluminium cans. However these already have a comparatively high recycling rate compared to other packaging, so any increase on overall rates will be marginal at best.

Single-use plastics tax

A tax on single-use plastics is more of a driver to reduce unnecessary packaging items, in other words, a ‘stick’. This tax could also be used to increase recycling rates if the money goes into setting up new collection and recycling infrastructure. It’s also difficult: putting a tax on all ‘single-use’ plastic is not fair.

When packaging is necessary, such as for meat, rice, pasta – everyday essentials – it would not be fair to tax this and pass the cost on to the consumer. This could affect those on low incomes as they have no choice but to pay it. In some cases, plastic packaging is the best option for protecting the product.

Other packaging materials, such as glass or aluminium, do not necessarily have greater environmental benefits: glass, for example, is heavier so transporting it has a higher carbon impact than plastic film.

The single-use plastics tax could be effective on products where there is a viable alternative for consumer use, such as reusable coffee cups. In this case the consumer can choose to bring a reusable cup and avoid paying the tax; or if they prefer the convenience of not bringing a cup, they can pay the tax, which is then used to pay for the recovery and recycling of the single-use packaging.

Extended Producer Responsibility

In conclusion, I think both approaches have their merits. They could help improve recycling rates, but not significantly in my view. A more effective solution would be Extended Producer Responsibility schemes that would encourage brands to design for end of life in exchange for reduced compliance fees, and so improve the ‘recyclability’ of their packaging.

While the recent announcement has been welcomed by environmental campaigners, the packaging industry may be worried about the price tag. The sector may be asked to pick up the bill for the deposit return scheme. Currently plastics producers pay just 10% of the cost of recycling packaging.

Councils will also be anxious to ensure that kerbside collecting is not undercut when details are confirmed. There are already pretty good collection and recycling rates for PET bottles.

But there is still more be done. Unless we focus effort on collecting and recycling pot, tubs and trays and films, we will not improve recycling rates significantly. The technical viabilities of recycling HDPE, PP and LDPE are all proven; what we need is investment in the infrastructure and ongoing subsidies to support and increase the recycling rates for these materials.

Perhaps, and more importantly, behavioural change from consumers and industry could be the key to unlocking economic and environmental benefits for all!

Axion urges Government Circular Economy policy to support UK manufacturers

Sustainability and circular economy principles should be at the heart of Government policy to encourage UK manufacturers to incorporate more recycled content in new goods, conserve raw material resources and promote locally-made goods.

That’s the view of Axion Director Keith Freegard, speaking at the first-ever Made in Britain (MiB) workshop focused on marketing in the Circular Economy (CE).

Keith commented: “Demand creation for recycled products is important if we are to create a circular economy based on efficient recovery and reuse of our existing finite resources, such as plastics.

“The technology is there to recycle these materials and there are multiple benefits to using recycled polymers from secure, locally-sourced UK supply chains with stable pricing. It’s also a brilliant carbon-saving story!”

Held at Axion’s end-of-life vehicle recycling facility in Manchester, the March event attracted more than 30 manufacturer and entrepreneur members keen to learn more about trading sustainably and supporting a more sustainable future in Britain.

Speakers also included Jane Gardner, Axion’s Head of Consulting Services on supporting business growth and development towards a circular economy; Malcolm Marnold from the Department for International Trade and Steve Poppit from Craemer UK who highlighted how their wheelie bin recycling scheme demonstrated circular economy principles.

Attendees toured Axion’s facility, the Shredder Waste Advanced Process Plant (SWAPP) where resources are extracted from shredded scrap vehicles. Recovered materials include high-quality recycled polymers that can be used in new plastic goods, from automotive components to construction products.

For MiB member David Trotter, Managing Director of Muggi, the event has inspired him to seek recycled polymers for use in his plastic cupholder products. He said: “It’s really interesting listening to the experts and I enjoyed the networking. I found Keith’s talk fascinating and I will call him for a chat. I’m specifically interested in seeing what recycled products Axion supply that I could use in making our polypropylene MUGGIs.”

Made in Britain’s Chief Executive, John Pearce, said: “What a privilege! To have our members take the factory tour at Axion in the afternoon, after spending the whole morning learning how you turn old cars into high value polymers, which some of them will want to purchase, was as good a day as I have ever had at Made in Britain.

“For me personally, just to see how Axion is delivering on the Circular Economy already was a massive inspiration. I want to make sure all our members know what Axion are doing to be global leaders in this field: in my view, far more important than sending a car into space!”

What’s best for low grade plastics?

With levels of waste plastics rising in the UK as a result of China’s National Sword scrap import policies, the debate is picking up over what to do with them. Landfilling, rather than incineration, might be the better option, suggests Keith Freegard, Axion Director.

China’s crackdown on imports of contaminated recyclables is leading to an ever-increasing stockpile of waste plastics materials worldwide. Tackling this problem waste stream will probably lead to increased incineration of waste to produce energy as the ‘best’ solution. An attractive option perhaps, but when the carbon produced by that process is taken into account, is it really the best environmental solution?

Creating energy from waste also produces between 25% to 30% residual incinerator bottom ash (IBA), which still requires waste disposal or long-term storage. Although generating heat and power from waste sounds appealing, it is inefficient when compared to burning gas in a modern generator system. Burning natural gas also produces fewer emissions and there is nil solid ash waste to dispose of.

The carbon release from waste incineration needs to be considered and compared to the alternative methods of generating an equivalent amount of electrical power. Typical Energy from Waste plants have efficiencies of up to 30% for converting feed material into electricity; in contrast, a modern Combined Cycle Gas Turbine’s efficiency is typically about 50%. As shown in below, this disparity in efficiencies means that producing 1 MWh of electricity from a CCGT produces just 40% of the CO2 emissions for the same amount of energy made from plastic incinerated at an EfW plant.

It is true that a best-in-class EfW plant with integrated heat recovery (i.e. CHP plant) can recover a further 35% of the available energy from the waste fuel; however, this heat could instead be generated by a natural gas boiler that has an efficiency of at least 90%. Even taking this additional heat-efficiency into account, a combination of CCGT and boiler still only emits about 65% of the CO2 of the leading EfW plants.

Using the CO2 metric alone suggests that it makes more sense to bury large amounts of plastic in a long-term ‘carbon sink’ in the ground and efficiently combust natural gas to satisfy our immediate power needs. However, until world leaders are prepared to transform the taxation on fossil-based fuels in a way that truly reflects the high environmental cost of ‘free carbon release’, then this numeric analysis remains an esoteric academic study.

Perhaps we should start by calling end-of-life waste incineration technology ‘sky-fill’ to compare it with the alternative ‘land-fill’ disposal route for plastic-rich carbon mass?

Increasing incineration capacity also stifles innovation in alternative resource recovery technologies because investment is diverted away from developing new processes towards building huge plants for burning materials to inefficiently create power.

Having first raised the ‘landfill or incineration’ question more than 12 months ago, I still believe that the best environmental option may well be to store the waste plastics in a controlled landfill facility and then to ‘mine’ them back at a later date when new re-processing capacity becomes available. Effectively acting as a long-term ‘carbon-sink’, these plastic materials could be extracted for recycling in the future if a new-process made this both technically and economically viable at that time.

Climate change concerns us all and efforts to control rising global temperatures have included a focus on the uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels in many parts of the world. The huge shift in corporate and national energy-habits required to leave fossil fuels in the ground will only happen with a Carbon Tax placed on the generation of electrical power that is directly linked to the tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere per unit of power created.

If that happens, it might then be the time to return to that ‘mine’ of carefully stowed thousands of tonnes of good plastic and look again at the economics of turning it into new polymer. With a huge carbon tax slapped on burning it, then the economics would probably work. So these plastics may not have to stay in the ground for too long.

Looking at the bigger picture, we should all be concerned about the wholesale damage to our planet caused by the completely uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels. That’s what we’re doing when we’re burning plastic that’s encapsulated amongst the mixed MSW we put in our black bin bags.

The short-term political and economic viewpoint is that ‘we’re getting some electrical power from it so it must be a good thing to do’. But this I think reflects the market failure created by our currently very high landfill taxes that are not balanced by an equivalent taxation method to discourage free ‘sky-fill’.

It’s a complex and challenging issue that reaches out over the next 20 years; a critical period in our history. Until we get a carbon tax that puts some seriously big pound notes on the cost of throwing carbon into the atmosphere, I don’t see there being any real change. After all, the Earth doesn’t have a bank account – it’s only us humans who operate under that monetary metric.

BPF webinar: Building cars with recycled plastic – Designing with Sustainable components

There are 37.5 million cars on the road in the UK – how many of them use recycled plastic?

In this British Plastics Federation (BPF) Sustainability Series webinar, Axion Director Keith Freegard explains the benefits and pitfalls for designers interested in moving to a more sustainable material choice.  He will take you on a journey into recycled vehicles, exploring:

  • The reasons to switch to using sustainable polymers in motor car design
  • Which plastics are readily available from the end-of-life motor vehicle reprocessors
  • The benefits versus risks in materials selection
  • A look at what the future holds

The car industry has to join the rest of the UK in moving towards a circular economy. This requires designers and manufacturers take action to ensure that recycling is paramount; this webinar will lead the way.

Wednesday 21st March 2018, 12:00 noon

Please register for the webinar on the BPF website here.

Are biodegradable plastics better for the environment?

Plastics are indispensable in many areas of our modern lives, yet questions over the material’s sustainability are rarely out of the headlines these days. Are biodegradable, compostable and bio-plastics really a better environmental solution? Richard McKinlay, Head of Circular Economy at Axion, offers his opinion.

Plastic materials that at end of life can completely break down naturally and disappear harmlessly may sound like the ideal answer. People hear terms such as ‘biodegradable’, ‘bio-plastic’ and ‘compostable’ and assume that these plastics are more ‘environmentally-friendly’. However, the reality is not so simple.

The main issue here is a lack of understanding of the nature of compostable or biodegradable plastics and what bio-plastics are; their specific applications and the specialist treatment process needed to deal with these materials.

Bioplastics are made using renewable feedstocks rather than being derived directly from oil. Bioplastics can be used in the production of conventional polymers that can be recycled, such as recycled PET, or biodegradable polymers such as PLA.

It may seem obvious that selecting a bioplastic is the most sustainable option. However, although there is a clear benefit from not depleting a non-renewable source, we need to consider that many petrochemicals are a by-product of the oil refining process. While we still live in an economy that is so heavily reliant on oil, it may be better to make use of its by-products rather than let them go to waste.

Bio-plastics are not free of environmental impact, and the carbon emissions associated with growing crops and converting these into the required chemicals needs to be taken into account.

“Compostable” and “biodegradable” are more or less synonymous terms and mean that the material will completely break down under certain conditions. The key to understanding any potential benefit is to know whether the polymer will easily break down, say in your home compost, or if it has to be treated in an industrial composting facility.

Many plastics that are described as biodegradable or compostable have to be collected and separated from the rest of the plastic waste and be sent to a purpose-designed industrial composting facility where they can be broken down successfully. These facilities exist for food waste, but ensuring compostable packaging reaches them can be challenging.

Consumer confusion over what materials can and can’t be recycled is another big issue. Is this plastic water bottle made from a biodegradable plastic or ‘conventional’ plastic, like PET? Does it go in the recycling bin or with the food waste collection?

Currently, throughout the UK there is a good collection and recycling infrastructure for PET bottles and this can be accessed by most people through council kerbside collections. The infrastructure for food waste collections is not as well-established, especially for ‘on-the-go’ collections.

So for water bottles made from biodegradable plastic to be correctly recycled, a public communication campaign would be required so that people understand that biodegradable plastic should go in with food waste and more food waste collection facilities in public places would be needed.

Some packaging such as that made from starch, will readily breakdown in a less controlled environment. However it is not possible to switch completely to these type of materials because they are not suitable for all applications. For example, kitchen/food recycling caddy liners are starch-based and will degrade in a home composting system. However this material would not be suitable for use in packaging as it would quickly start to break down when wet.

It’s important for brand owners, food producers and manufacturers to consider very carefully what packaging format they use and to make an informed decision based on the reality of our current waste management infrastructure and level of public understanding. Ensuring that products are ‘designed for recycling’ is essential if we are to recover more of our resources.

They also need to understand what actually happens to their materials at end-of-life and what their environmental impact could be. What is described as ‘compostable’ doesn’t mean it will just break down at the side of the road.

Marine litter is a huge concern, but only 2% of plastic waste in the oceans is estimated to come from the whole of Europe and the US combined. Using plastic bottles in the UK is a perfectly responsible packaging system because 99% of householders can put their plastic bottles in their household recycling collection bins.

Attention has to be turned to ‘on-the-go’ waste and littering. Levels of marine plastic could be reduced by improving ‘on-the-go’ waste provision and anti-littering public information campaigns. Better infrastructure is needed in public places to allow people to recycle when out and about. This is happening with more recycling points at places like train stations, airports and town centres. But people have to use them, understand them and know why it matters.

So are biodegradable plastics better for the environment? It’s a massive challenge and, as we’ve argued, it’s also complicated!

Ultimately it has to be down to infrastructure investment, public education and behavioural changes. Plastics are an inherent part of our lives and not ‘all bad’. Their responsible use and disposal/recycling should be a top priority!

Axion joins latest Jaguar Land Rover-led REALITY aluminium recycling project

Axion is undertaking further research into increasing recycled aluminium content in new vehicles as part of REcycled ALuminium Through Innovative TechnologY (REALITY), a new £2 million collaborative project led by Jaguar Land Rover.

Working with other consortium partners, Axion will focus on techniques for sorting and separating specialist alloys from aluminium derived from end-of-life vehicles.

Part-funded by Innovate UK, REALITY is an extension of the REALCAR (REcycled ALuminium CAR) projects, initially launched by Jaguar Land Rover in 2008 to create a closed-loop process for post-industrial aluminium scrap from its vehicle manufacturing. The original project and subsequent work with suppliers enabled Jaguar Land Rover to reclaim more than 75,000 tonnes of aluminium scrap and re-use it in the aluminium production process in 2016/17. The three-year REALITY project builds on the success of this earlier work.

Axion’s Head of Circular Economy, Richard McKinlay comments: “The REALITY project will refine the process of turning aluminium from ‘end-of-life’ cars into new vehicles. It will continue to deliver significant sustainability benefits, with aluminium recycling requiring up to 95% less energy than primary aluminium production.”

Axion’s research will focus on proving the technical and economic viability of separation techniques for the many different non-ferrous metals, such as zinc, copper and brass, from the scrap aluminium, and for separating the different aluminium alloys from each other.

Richard explains: “These extracted aluminium alloys will also be extensively tested to assess their suitability for reuse in new vehicles. If we can extract the right alloys and reuse them in the right components, then we will have created a closed-loop value chain for automotive aluminium.”

The new project will consider advanced sorting technologies and evaluate the next generation aluminium alloys for greater recyclability. Axion’s team will work on developing the sorting technologies for recovery of high-grade recycled aluminium.

Axion will evaluate and optimise sensor-based sorting technologies alongside collaboration with Novelis, Norton Aluminium, Warwick Manufacturing Group, Brunel University and Innoval Technology.

Richard adds: “This ground-breaking research will contribute towards the development of the circular economy for the automotive sector and enhanced environmental performance. Innovations in the sorting and separating technologies applied to automotive end-of-life waste streams will also help other sectors, including packaging and construction.”

UK should ‘create demand for recycled materials’

Axion is calling for the creation of greater demand for recycled materials in the UK following China’s decision to restrict imports of waste paper and plastics.

Axion Director Keith Freegard says that although the changed rules imposing a maximum 0.5% contamination level in imported materials present a ‘huge challenge’ in the short term, the UK should be looking at the opportunities this situation creates.

Speaking after highlighting the issues during his early January appearance on BBC Business News Today and BBC News, Keith explains: “Surely now the UK Government could consider supporting the growth of a strategic and sustainable resource recovery industry in the UK to feed valuable materials into UK manufacturers.”

Urging the creation of more sustainable business models like Axion’s, which recycles materials from end-of-life vehicles and WEEE, he says a ‘supportive legislative framework’ would be needed to produce the right conditions for a ‘healthy, strategic resource economy’ in the UK.

Key factors in developing these robust business models would be:

  • identifying stable, long-term sources of waste products as input feedstock;
  • building business partnerships with collaborative shareholders that bridge the main exchange points in the circular economy for taking collected waste materials back into new-life products so ‘interested parties’ share the mutual benefits; and
  • creating a competitive circular flows of materials back into multiple manufacturing sectors, such as construction, vehicles, electronics, and packaging.

Further action should include public sector procurement measures, which favour sustainable products both in design and use of recycled materials, and encouraging new product design with mandatory use of recycled/recovered materials at high percentage levels.

“What’s needed is a reward structure for doing this and we fully support this type of approach,” Keith emphasises. “Carrots, not sticks, are needed to make real changes in organisations. Michael Gove’s recent announcement of a series of measures that focus on increasing the quality and volume of collected post-consumer packaging waste is a good start. But measures should also be in place to stimulate demand for recycled materials in new products.”

He points out that the Commons Select Committee the EAC (Environmental Audit Committee) made this point just before Christmas, calling for a producer responsibility compliance fee structure that stimulates the use of recycled plastic, rewards design for recyclability, and increases costs for packaging that is difficult to re-use or recycle.

The EAC called for the introduction of a mandatory requirement of 50% recycled content in the production of new plastic bottles by 2023. This would create demand and stimulate a circular economy for plastic bottles; fitting with suggestions made by the BPF Recyclers Group over the last five years.

Keith concludes: “I think the demand creation in ‘materials hungry’ industries is where there really needs to be some more Government intervention in terms of strategic policy.

“Recycled material can be bought from anywhere in the world; clearly the best place to buy it would be from locally-sourced and secure, short-supply chains within the same economy and same currency. That should make a strong sustainability story for any industry!”

He adds: “If we could get some real Government engagement on a clear industrial strategy that involves sourcing materials from a vibrant, growing technology-based materials recovery sector; that would be a significant strong point for the UK going forward in a post-Brexit world.”