@thegwpfcom @James_BG 1/* What are the claims of the report? Despite the provocative title, it isn’t very clear – and the bits that are clear I mostly disagree with. This is going to take some unpacking. [THREAD] 
2/* Presumably the main claim of a report with this title would be that if plastic recycling were to be stopped and replaced with incineration, it would “save the oceans”. I do not agree with this – and nor, it appears, does the author.
3/* How, according to the report, does recycling harm the oceans? It identifies different mechanisms for recycling in the West and in the developing world. Most of the report concerns the West, even though…
4/* Let’s look at the West first. Here, recycling is claimed to cause harm because (c.50% of) post-consumer plastic is exported for reprocessing in countries that have low environmental standards, and the following can happen:
5/* I agree that these are all plausible mechanisms. But far would ending all exports of plastic for recycling help “save the oceans”? The report does not venture a figure for the number of tonnes prevented.
6/* It does suggest that 20% of the EU nations’ 3.4m tonnes of annual waste plastic exports may be lost. So perhaps that’s 680,000 tonnes – a small but significant 7-8% of the tonnage of plastic though to be entering the ocean annually.
7/* No. The 20% is an estimate of how much of the plastic exported from the UK may be contaminants or otherwise unsuitable for recycling.
8/* Not all of this will be plastic. Much will be other materials (e.g. paper) that haven’t been properly separated out: isonomia.co.uk/?p=4633
9/* And will all of the non-recycled material be dumped in rivers or direct into the sea? No. As the report says, much will be landfilled, burned, or dumped on land.
10/* How much exported plastic ends up in the ocean, then? Nobody knows, and that’s bad. But it is unlikely to be anywhere close to 680,000 tonnes: in fact, a drop in the ocean, as it were.
11/* It’s still a problem worth tackling, though. I would advocate reforming producer responsibility to create more stable markets for recycled materials in Europe, enabling plastic reprocessors to invest.
12/* In the UK, reform of the PRNs/PERN system could provide a more level playing field for domestic reprocessors.
13/* What does the report say about this? It calls EU producer responsibility rules “notoriously dysfunctional, inefficient and unhygienic”. How a set of rules on who pays for waste management can be unhygienic is not explained…
14/* Why doesn’t the report call for recycling to be improved, rather than it being replaced by incineration?
15/* First, it mistakenly claims that there are only two ways of separating plastics for recycling: source separation, which it says is “impossible”, and MBT plants (to remove it from residual waste), which it says are “frauds”.
16/* If you’re labouring under that illusion, and have never heard of a MRF or PRF, perhaps giving up recycling seems the only option. Here’s an example of a MRF in Manchester that sorts glass, plastic and metals:
17/* It seems barely to recognise that Europe recycled 40% of the 16m tonnes of plastic packaging waste produced in 2015 (i.e. 6.4m tonnes). Only 3.4m tonnes were exported, so almost half was reprocessed in Europe: ec.europa.eu/environment/wa…
18/* It also overstates the benefits of incineration, saying that it “stands apart as the best way to deal with MSW.” It goes on…
19/* This is an incredibly unsophisticated account of the CO2 implications of diverting plastic from recycling to incineration, and quotes research from the 1990s. Things have moved on, and more nuanced analysis is required. isonomia.co.uk/?p=3501
20/* Waste incineration is not efficient. Even if you ignore biogenic carbon, it emits more CO2 per MW/h than does gas fired electricity generation. If you count biogenic carbon, it’s worse than coal.
21/* As electricity decarbonises, incineration performs worse and worse compared with the grid average.
22/* You also need to think about what would happen to the plastic if it wasn’t incinerated. Recycling plastic produces a carbon benefit due to the avoided need for virgin plastics.
23/* But let’s suppose it’s landfilled. Since plastic is fossil-fuel based, but degrades very slowly in landfill, those well-known radicals Defra say incinerating plastics is less carbon efficient than burying them.
24/* Defra has provided a lot of support to the development of incineration capacity in the UK, but is now putting out a more nuanced position on energy from waste: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
25/* So, incinerating plastic is only preferable if you ignore the benefits of recycling, and overstate the benefits of incineration. Or if you don't give any actual figures in your report. Or if you don’t care about CO2 emissions.
26/* Let’s now turn to the developing world – remember, the report says waste management there that gives rise to the majority (I’ve argued, the vast majority) of marine plastics. How is recycling to blame?
27/* Frankly, I’ve no idea what the argument is here. The whole section making the case is less than a page long. It starts by pointing out that a lot of waste in developing countries finds its way into rivers.
28/* It then quotes ISWA:
29/* So, 75% of the problem is effectively a lack of access to proper waste management. That certainly reflects the lived experience: isonomia.co.uk/?p=5084
30/* It also seems reasonable that 25% comes from the waste management system, whether lost from vehicles, informal sorting processes or poorly regulated dumpsites. isonomia.co.uk/?p=1232
31/* Sometimes informal waste management systems can be highly effective. isonomia.co.uk/?p=5263 But they’re hardly “waste management options preferred by the greens”.
32/* Is the report suggesting that 25% of all marine plastics produced in developing countries comes from managing waste sourced from the West? That clearly isn’t what ISWA says, and no other source is offered.
33/* The rest of the section concerns the neglect of proper municipal waste management. Hold on, wasn’t the waste management system the option “preferred by the greens”?
34/* This neglect is the fault of the Greens because…
35/* I’ve no idea whether this is a fair account of the Brundtland Commission and subsequent events, although inaccuracies elsewhere in the report make me disinclined to take it on trust.
37/* But it doesn’t matter. Enthusiasm for recycling isn’t mentioned as part of Brundtland’s reasons for excluding sanitation from the recommendations, if that’s what happened.
38/* How could it be? If you’re going to recycle something, first you have to collect it – so enthusiasm for recycling would have meant supporting waste collections.
39/* So, the report fails to argue that plastic recycling has any bearing on the propensity of waste generated in developing countries to end up in the ocean.
40/* And that’s agreed to be the vast majority of the problem. So, if Europe gave up plastic recycling tomorrow, the impact on the amount of plastic entering the oceans would be negligible. That’s something I agree with.
41/* And so I go back to my original question. What is GWPF actually arguing here? Because they don’t appear to be arguing that we can save the oceans by giving up plastic recycling.
42/42 Finally – if you don’t feel you’ve suffered enough, you can read my blog about this daft report here: isonomia.co.uk/?p=5384
@ThreadReaderApp unroll please
