Recycling - Why bother

Gray Merriam | Jul 05, 2017

(Editors note - The path forward for our waste systems in Eastern Ontario has become identified as a long term issue by Frontenac County Council, and Addington Highlands Council as well. Here Gray Merriam takes a look at recycling in terms of environmental impactgs, in contrast to the incineration option)

The basic reasons for recycling are to conserve natural resources and to save energy. But what drove us to recycle was the difficulty of finding spaces to dump our waste without getting in trouble with neighbours, near or far.

The most critical reason for recycling is actually protection of our atmosphere. Recycling reduces our use of energy and that reduces the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps more of the heat that comes from reradiation of solar energy by the earth. Preventing heat from escaping through the atmosphere not only heats the atmosphere, it also makes weather increasingly variable and very unpredictable. It changes the distribution of heat and of rainfall so that our placement of human activities and food production no longer matches the weather that we need in those chosen places. Food growing areas can become more like deserts.

Achievability of targets for recycling is affected by many variables but mainly by costs of collecting, markets for recyclables and demographic density. The US recycles about 32% of the volume of wastes but the Netherlands recycles 60% or more. Locally we try to reach 25%.

In 2007, recycling was estimated to reduce Britain's annual emission of carbon dioxide by 10%. In 2005, the US EPA recorded that recycling had reduced the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere the 49 million tons.

What Does Recycling Actually Save?

Aluminum
This is your best bet for saving energy by recycling. Because refining aluminum from the mineral bauxite requires so much electricity it is probably fair to say that aluminum refineries have seriously impacted fast-water, cold rivers – trout and salmon streams – more than any other particular industry. Not to mention their output of toxins such as fluorides.

Recycling aluminum can save over 90% of the energy that would be used to produce the same amount of aluminum from bauxite ore. We can make 20 cans from recycled aluminum for the same amount of energy needed to make one can from bauxite.

In addition, waste aluminum is easy to separate from other waste and is light and easy to transport back to the refinery, saving more energy.

Food Cans
Tin-coated steel food cans are pulled from the waste stream by magnets and metal recycled from them uses only 74% of the energy that would be needed to produce new cans from iron ore. Recycled metal from cans makes up 25% of new cans.

Along with the energy savings, recycling 2000 pounds of cans saves 2500 pounds of iron ore, 1400 lbs of coal (with its own carbon dioxide emitted), and 120 lbs of limestone.

Plastics
The biggest issue with plastics is that there are about 20 different types in the waste stream so manual sorting can be costly. Once sorted, making plastic products from recycled plastic can use as little as 10% of the energy needed to make new plastics from oil.

Recycling 2000 pounds of pastics can save 685 gallons of oil (5774 kilowatt-hours of energy and associated carbon dioxide emission).

Paper and Cardboard
Over a half million trees are used to produce North America's weekend newspapers. One ton of recycled paper can reduce the number of trees used for pulp by 1700 trees.

Using recycled paper reduces the energy used in producing fresh paper by about 40% to 45%. Recycling 2000 pounds of paper saves the trees and also saves energy equal to 380 gallons of oil (4100 kilowatt-hours).

Recycling 200 pounds of cardboard saves trees plus energy equal to 5 gallons of oil (390 kwh).

Glass
Recycling glass saves about 25% to 33% of the energy that would be used to produce new glass from raw materials because the recycled glass (cullet) melts at a lower temperature than virgin sand.

Each ton of recycled glass saves 1300 pounds of sand, 410 lb of soda ash (sodium carbonate) and 380 lb of limestone. Extraction and procurement of each of these raw materials entails an energy cost for extraction, transport and processing.

Recycling of glass exemplifies the need for critical examination of the gains possible from recycling. Because coloured glass contains different proportions of soda ash and sand (silica) than clear glass, coloured glass must be separated from clear glass. The market price for coloured glass is much less than for clear glass and large amounts of coloured glass sometimes build up at recycling and sorting depots. When this happens, the market price drops sharply, the surplus gets greater and may require disposal by other means.

All glass to be recycled must be crushed to the stage called 'cullet' for long-distance transport and to enter the process for re-melting. Crushing takes energy and labour. If the nearest glass works is distant from the recycling depot, the energy used to transport the cullet can significantly reduce any energy savings.

The greatest amount of material saved by glass recycling is sand. Previously, sand was not expensive but now sand, as well as other aggregates, is in very high demand, is very expensive and actually is being stolen in many parts of the world by international crime groups.

Waste System Savings
The final savings from recycling is space at the dump and avoiding the very high costs of closing the dump when it reaches capacity. Solid waste dumps do not enhance our landscapes.

Alternatives to Recycling
Incineration is a frequently suggested alternative to recycling. Possibly the definitive study of recycling was done by the Technical University of Denmark (supported by the nonprofit British Waste and Resources Action Programme). They reviewed studies of 55 types of waste from production to final disposal and studied over 200 alternatives for burning, compared to burying, compared to recycling. Their conclusion, as summarized by the Economist, was that recycling is better than incineration for the environment.

Where incineration has been the chosen method for dealing with wastes, the value of the heat and or electricity generated is critical to meeting the costs of the incineration. The incinerator must be close to the users of the heat and electricity. This is more difficult to achieve in rural areas than in cities where incineration has been most successful. Even in urban settings, incineration is still debated heatedly in western Europe.

Collection and sorting costs are essentially the same as for recycling. All the recyclable materials are separated, all the materials that emit toxic substance when burned are separated and safeguarded. The remainder, mainly household food wastes, goes to the incinerator. Stockholm incinerates 250,000 tonnes of waste per year which costs about 63 Canadian dollars per tonne. Recently in the European Union, there is concern that recycling is decreasing and incineration is increasing because the economic system rewards energy production and does not provide tools to encourage recycling.