When we think about the concept of environmental sustainability, and the kind of steps that we need to take on an individual level, recycling is definitely one of the first things that will conjure into all of our minds. The three-arrow triangle has become embedded into modern environmentalism. After all, what better and more convenient way is there to be able to dispose of trash into bins like we always do, yet feeling good with the knowledge that your trash will supposedly become regenerated into a useful product, indifferentiable from an original.
Or at least that is what we would like to think, for few of us know or even ponder about what happens to the trash we dispose of in those colourful recycle bins. Neither did I, until I stumbled upon the video “why you should QUIT recycling” by Shelbizlee during one of my routine aimless scrolls through YouTube. The title was a tad misleading, as it served to highlight the problems plaguing modern recycling rather than an attack on recycling per se. In this article, I will share my insights from this eye-opener.
We all know about the 3 Rs: reduce, reuse, recycle”. They have been belaboured since we were young, and as cliche as they sound, this very aptly communicates the “waste hierarchy” which remains central to waste management. But notice that recycling comes last of the 3 Rs? Yes, in the waste hierarchy, recycling comes after reducing and reusing. But then why is it the process most commonly associated with an eco-friendly lifestyle? One answer: marketing. When recycling became a popular trend in the developed world in the late 20th century, there were a tirade of ads promoting this way of life - the sustainable way to go. And who funded all these ads? Corporations - who had made a shift since the 1950s of developing recyclable products as opposed to providing repairs and services. As environmentalism picked up steam from the 1970s onwards, recycling was the perfect PR move. The consumer could live with all the conveniences of disposable plastic, without any lifestyle changes, responsibility, or guilt. Why not reduce and reuse? Because it would reduce demand, decrease sales, hurt profits and harm the bottom line of a company. This in effect has created a “disposable”culture where we largely throw away all the products we use, just that instead of burning our garbage, we are turning it back to something new.
Not A Path of Roses: The Perils of Recycling
But if waste can be regenerated, this whole system is waste-neutral, isn’t it? Or so we think. Because our daily lives are barely impacted, and we are oblivious to the dirty work in the recycling process, it is easy to simply “feel good” about recycling. But this feel-good sentiment may just be a placebo effect. The fact is that tons of what we “recycle” still ends up in landfills and oceans. A recent study even suggested that only 9% of the world's trash is recycled. Recycling is often just another word for a long, expensive detour that a plastic bottle takes on its way to a landfill, where it slowly breaks down over hundreds of years. If we’re lucky, that plastic won’t be ingested by a bird, fish or any other mammal that we end up eating.
What are the problems with recycling? What we often believe is that recycling creates a circular economy and the system is zero-waste, or waste-neutral. But the reality is that recycling is limited. A plastic bottle can only be recycled up to 10 times at best, and according to National Geographic, it is usually only 2 to 3 times. This is because every time plastic is recycled, the polymer chain grows shorter, degrading its quality. To compensate for the fall in quality, virgin plastic will have to be added to what is labelled a “recycled” product, which causes pollution because this new plastic is sourced from hydrocarbons. Waste thrown in the recycle bins are also likely contaminated not only by different materials, but even different types of plastics need to be separated for different methods of recycling. (If contaminated by foodstuff, oils or grease, the whole bin can be rendered unrecyclable) Due to the tediousness of this cycle, compounded by additional costs from the increased complexity of modern plastic packaging such as translucent colouring, it is inevitably cheaper to produce brand new plastic which will boast superior quality. Hence recycled products often suffer from a lack of value in a market which ultimately favours cost-efficiency.
China’s Recycling “Problem”
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Where does the trash go? If you live in the developed world, in particular the United States, until 2017, the answer would most likely be China. Yes, China has been buying the world’s trash for decades - since 1988, about half of the world’s plastic was sent to China. If you are struggling to wrap your head around this, here is some context. Recycling became a popular trend starting from the 1990s and 2000s. This was the same period of time when China was experiencing unprecedented economic growth. A large developed country like the US had a lot of trash it wanted to recycle, while China needed materials for its manufacturing boom. Massive-scale recycling was not feasible in the developed world due to the high costs of labour and transportation, but China had them in abundance. So it made perfect economic sense for the US and other countries to sell trash to China, which will be recycled to generate materials for China’s dream of becoming the “factory of the world”. The nature of the Chinese economy made this very lucrative. For example, China lacked its own softwood lumber industry, so they rely on importing recycled paper. A win-win, right?
But it quickly snapped in the 2010s, as China transitioned into a wealthier middle-to-high income country. This meant that China had a lot more trash of its own, and it also no longer wanted to be the world’s “dumping ground”. China also sought to reduce environmental pollution and improve its international image after the scandal caused by the documentary Plastic China. In 2013, China introduced Operation Green Fence, setting a limit of 1.5% of allowable contaminant for each bale of imported recyclables. It was followed more aggressively by Operation National Sword in 2017, by moving the acceptable threshold down to 0.5%. This decision sent shockwaves and ripple effects worldwide. In multiple American states, recycling had to be sent to the dump as landfills overflowed. Ireland, which exported 95% of its trash, faced a “near-crisis”. The developed world then turned to Southeast Asian countries to send their trash but soon they started to reject the waste too. In 2020, Malaysia sent 4120 tons of trash back to 13 countries of origin, including the US, Japan and Singapore, proclaiming that it does not want to be the “rubbish dump of the world”. All of this does sound like a disaster, look at the silver lining. Due to the lack of capacity in the developed world to process and recycle trash, the magnitude of the trash that they are producing becomes more visibly apparent. There will be greater incentive to reduce waste, and it will no longer be “profitable”to outsource trash to China. As demand (from China) falls, supply (of waste) should fall too. To address the shortfall of capacity, there is a shift in policy of governments to reduce waste, such as Canada’s ban of single-use plastics, or use of technology, such as how Sweden turns their trash into energy.
What to do?
We all know that triangle icon, the one that represents a utopian world where reduce, reuse and recycle are all treated equally, free to coexist in a world where waste doesn’t exist, and if it does, is recyclable. That triangle should really be a line, one where “reduce” is at the far left. “Reuse” should follow. At the far right of that line — nearly off the page — should be “recycling,” a last resort. Certainly not a first-order action that should make us happy or proud.
We need to fundamentally alter many ways in which we live if we are to truly build a sustainable future. While recycling causes minimal disruption to our lives, as we still very much live in a “disposable” culture where consumerism thrives. When we reduce, we would need to lead more frugal lives, spend less and make do with less. When we reuse, our products would need to be fundamentally different. They need to be built to be more durable rather than replaceable, more quality rather than quantity.
Less consumerism will be a consequence of a shift towards reducing and reusing. Yes, companies will see their profit margins fall, and by our current (flawed) definition of economic success, economic growth will be stymied. But does that justify the wrong messages that we have been fed for too long? Well, it isn’t any more justified than some technology companies designing their products with planned obsolescence in mind.
Concluding thoughts
I did not write this to discredit recycling or all the movements and campaigns aimed to encourage recycling. It is certainly a lot better than not recycling and having our waste sent to incineration. Credit must still go to the goodhearted activists who promote recycling, and to the millions who diligently and conscientiously recycle their waste, making the effort to sort out their trash and dispose of them in the correct bins. But there should at least be two main takeaways from this article. First, when we recycle we should not do it blindly but rather with a sense of awareness of the behind-the-scenes, dirty processes that constitute recycling. Second, follow the waste hierarchy reflected in the order of the 3 Rs. Reduce, then reuse, then recycle. With less trash sent to the recycling plants, the world will have appropriate capacity to make recycling a sustainable process.
Комментарии