Waste expert Peter Jones has insisted he would "never suggest recycling is a waste of time" following national media reports saying he believed it could contribute to global warming.

The points selectively attributed to me will unfortunately add nothing to public awareness of the issues and make that task more not less difficult going forward

 
Peter Jones

Mr Jones - who is Mayor Boris Johnson's representative on the London Waste and Recycling Board and an ex-Biffa director - appeared on the BBC News at Ten last night (January 27) claiming the impact of recycling on climate change needed to be assessed to see whether it was "adding to or reducing" carbon emissions.

This was followed by reports in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph this morning which claimed Mr Jones believed that recycling could be contributing to global warming and that "much of the country's" recyclable material should be burned for energy instead. Mr Jones was also reported to have criticised some commingled recycling collections for damaging material quality.

Rotten

However, speaking to letsrecycle.com this morning, Mr Jones rejected the suggestion that he had questioned the value of recycling and called into question the Telegraph article in particular which he said was "rotten in parts".

He said: "I did not ever suggest that recycling is a waste of time - that is a nonsensical position to take and those who know me would find such an assertion laughable."

In a letter sent to the author of the Telegraph article, Louise Gray, clarifying his position, Mr Jones added: "[Recycling] is a valuable and important contribution to the fight on global warming."

Mr Jones explained that what he had sought to convey was that more needed to be done to assess the carbon impact of transporting and treating materials in order to identify best practice.

He said: "I emphasised that the real policy need going forward lays with the initiation of a National tracking system for waste and recyclate materials so that more effective planning could be undertaken to map the best low carbon options for the management of these materials, and preferably on the proximity principal."

"Going forward we must be mindful of the need for more understanding of material flows, technological options and their associated global warming impacts as we tackle the remaining 40 million tonnes or so of organic material sent to landfill in the UK", he added.

Energy

Mr Jones said that in particular he had been misrepresented on the issue of burning recyclable material to generate energy, and that the articles had confused energy-generation as a whole - which he supported - with mass-burn incineration.

In his letter to Ms Gray, Mr Jones said: "Throughout the discussion I emphasised that I was talking with regard to carbon conversion to energy, which could be in the form of electricity, gas, steam, heat, hydrogen or synthetic diesel. Conversion to electricity only without combined heat and power is nonsensical and inefficient."

Summarising his portrayal, Mr Jones said that the article "misquoted specific references - for instance in relation to incinerators" and claimed that points "selectively attributed to me will unfortunately add nothing to public awareness on these issues and make it more and not less difficult going forward".

Quality

Within the Daily Mail and Telegraph articles, Mr Jones was also quoted as saying that some councils were collecting materials for recycling and then "cross-contaminating" them by mixing them together and that this was "stupid".

However, Mr Jones said that his comments on this topic had been "reported accurately" and that quality had to be taken into account - especially in the current financial climate.

He said: "What I did say is that the blip in the recyclate markets is impacting most on those councils are cross-contaminating materials at the point of collection and that they will possibly have to rethink their approach on quality."

Communications

Overall, Mr Jones said that the media reports highlighted the need for better communications surrounding recycling - a position shared by many in the waste and recycling sector.

He said: "It is always good when the environmental agenda hits the headlines insofar as the general public awareness accelerate accordingly in this important area. Nevertheless it is equally important that this debate moves ahead on the basis of sound science and a balanced representation of the options".

Response

Reaction to the media reports also came today from the Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP).

Chief executive Liz Goodwin said that the coverage was "misleading and factually incorrect" and that it would "threaten the environmental benefits currently being delivered by the public through the UK's recycling schemes".

She added: "WRAP's independent research carried out by internationally recognised experts, has shown that across the board recycling is the best environmental option. It is when recycling is not an option that recovery of energy from waste can contribute to a balanced energy policy."

"Recycling is good for the environment, saves energy, reduces raw material extraction and helps combats climate change."

"Around two thirds of households now recycle as a way of life. The message to householders is that recycling is delivering great environmental benefits and there is absolutely no reason for them to stop."