Burn cautiously

There is still a challenging debate in the land about how much waste should be recycled and how much should be used to provide energy and power. The pros and cons have been well documented over the last 20 years or so as we have learnt a lot about waste. It is clearer now that the EU, devolved assemblies and governments have made it clearer in policy terms what they see as being possible up to 2035.

However, let us look at the agenda not from the issue of getting waste better used according to a hierarchy but from a perspective of an economic mindset that seeks to recover value from post consumer discarded materials and products.

The waste hierarchy is useful in setting preferences of outcomes but in practice decision makers have to deal with every category at the same time and decisions need to be taken in total. But consider the first 4 steps of the hierarchy; none of this is about waste but materials and resources that operate in an income generating market.

Supply

Each of the categories has different scales of process capability, costs, and incomes. Household strategies cannot be dealt with on a council by council basis, even at county level, as each is too small to implement a market efficient system. The supply chain that delivers goods to consumers operates on a resource logistics pattern and now we need the materials back we need a reverse logistics system that is cost effective.

Key decisions regarding infrastructure and systems will be about the volume of materials collected for recycling sufficient to meet market demands with QUALITY of supply paramount. At the same time residual volumes can be committed to recovery for energy by whatever means. The latters timescale for decisions and planning is a lot longer than that for recycling systems and there is a tough choice to make whether to wait until recycling is maximised or to implement a complementary integrated system.

My view remains that it is more effective to operate on all levels at once and build in flexibility in contracts. To wait means that it will be twenty years before one knows that, say, 70% recycling can be successfully achieved, when in the meantime without energy recovery the material will be landfilled at substantially higher cost and worst environmental outcomes. Most policies target household waste and keep councils focussed on a service. This needs to change.

The task is to recover both materials and energy in a balanced and flexible system where there is a focus on providing quality materials to the market which increasingly will be critical as security of supply will be important to UK manufacturing and retail. This will be more related to policies related to investment and jobs than solving a waste problem.

Planning

When we know that energy supply and security is also of national concern and prices are increasing it also makes sense to promote the opportunities available from material which is unlikely to find a market and use it as fuel. There are now a wide range of energy products on the market and many operate at a more local scale. Nevertheless planning for the best systems for local conditions and to recover heat and power takes planning with partnerships needed between councils/industry and the community.

The UK still needs more investment in systems and infrastructure to meet aspirations of zero waste. The good news is that it is entirely achievable. The requirement to succeed is to make the agenda a positive one for jobs and growth and to ensure that the total supply chain is involved.

In Steinbecks book East of Eden the father and business entrepreneur says. I dont like waste. I cannot afford it. The UK cannot afford waste either in current times but it can consider this a great opportunity to create wealth and growth.