BBC - The Broadcasting Bollocks Corporation

Chinese recycling
Photo courtesy of

In Radio 4's Home Planet today, Dr Lynn Dicks, pronouncing on the relative merits of recycling and landfilling, in terms of energy-consumption and carbon-footprint, said:

"Various people have looked at this from the point of view of greenhouse gas emissions, and again there are various different estimates from different people, but one particularly academic piece of research that I found was a full Lifecycle Assessment of the greenhouse gas or the CO2 emission from waste - either disposal of paper, including manufacturing of new paper and disposal to landfill, or recycling paper [Presenter interjects: And the lorry-loads that would be involved in that because that's something that Phil mentioned] and including taking the waste to the recycling facilities, disposing the residual waste after recycling... This was done by a consortium of people at UEA (University of East Anglia) and University College, London in 1995. It was all based on Milton Keynes, and what they found was that... oh well, I'll give you the figures - recycling paper produced about 50 kg of CO2 per tonne; if you disposed of it in landfill and made new paper, 550 kg of CO2 per tonne. So, it's much better to recycle."

1995! Our information and waste disposal techniques haven't improved since 1995? Oh well, if this is what the recycle-nuts want to hang their hats on, let's have a look at it. You can download it from here.

Take this, from p.11:

A second problem that occurs at the manufacturing stage is the scarcity of data, particularly with regards to the manufacture of products using secondary plastic materials. Whilst information concerning energy use is sometimes available, data for the remaining environmental inputs and outputs is either commercially sensitive or simply unreported. In this exercise, the process data (emissions arising directly from the process) has been taken as being identical for both primary and secondary plastics, but an energy saving (and thus the associated emissions of generation) of 77% is obtained by using secondary materials, as suggested by White, Franke and Hindle (1995).

Or to put it more succinctly, "we don't know how much energy is used in production of items from recycled feedstock, so we're going to assume it's 77% less than in the same processes using raw materials." That's how to get the "right" result. Use assumptions that make sure you get the desired outcome.

Even more questionably, from p. 13:

For each average tonne of waste which is disposed of to landfill in the UK, 81% by volume of the gaseous emissions are released to the atmosphere, 13% are flared, and 6% are used in landfill gas generating schemes (Williams, 1994 and Bellingham et al, 1994). This paper uses this average data when calculating the amount of electricity recovered. The electricity generated will displace emissions from old coal-fired power stations, and this study gives credit for these.

This probably wasn't even true in 1993 (the most recent year for which the Williams and Bellingham papers are likely to have had data). As I have mentioned before, I ran (until recently) the company that sold many of the flarestacks used on British landfills, so I know that a lot more flares went into landfills before 1993 than is usually assumed in government studies aiming to maximize the claimed reductions in landfill-gas emissions since then (which undermines the Government's claims that we are on target to meet our Kyoto obligations, but that is another story).

Whatever the case in 1993, nowadays this is absurd. The usual figure quoted for the capture-rate of methane from landfills over the lifetime of a modern, engineered landfill is about 85%. This is the figure used as standard in the government-approved model (GasSim) for estimating emissions from landfills. During the period when the gas is contained (i.e. after the phase has been "capped") and being converted (i.e. until the gas quality falls so low that it can no longer be flared), the capture rate is probably close to 100% in modern, engineered landfills. The 85% represents an allowance for emissions from the uncapped phase being tipped at any one time (the usual source of any odour), and slow seepage of the tail-end gas once it is no longer possible to flare it, by which time you are talking low volumes and low percentages of methane. Given sensible incentives, it would be possible to further reduce these emissions so that the overall capture-rate was over 90%, but let's take 85% as a reasonable average. Of that, provided that sensible incentives are maintained for its utilisation, the vast majority will be converted to electricity.

The impact on the LCA of assuming 19% capture, of which 6% utilisation, rather than the current figures of 85% capture of which perhaps 80% utilisation, is enormous. Methane (CH4) has a Global Warming Potential 23 times higher than carbon dioxide (CO2). If you assume that most of the carbohydrates in your waste are converted into landfill gas (roughly 50:50 CH4 and CO2), that most of that gas gets out, and that very little of it is used to displace fossil-fired generation, the comparison between landfill and any other form of waste disposal will be a no-brainer. Of course landfill is the worst technique if it's simply belching methane into the sky.

But this is bollocks. Methane isn't belching out of modern landfills - it is being captured and used to provide the largest single source of new renewable electricity in the country. Last year, landfill-gas generators produced nearly 4 TWh of renewable electricity. Onshore wind projects produced 2.8 TWh, offshore wind less than 0.7 TWh, while co-firing of biomass with coal, and refurbished hydro plants produced almost 2 TWh each.

The authors of the paper carefully ensured that it was not possible to trace their calculations from their assumptions to their conclusions. So it is not possible to reconstruct their calculations with more accurate assumptions. But even where they state their results, without showing how they were calculated, further errors intrude. On p.17, it is assumed that 13,000 grammes of methane are released per tonne of plastic landfilled (around a quarter of the methane emission-rate of paper). Ah yes, that famous putrescible plastic. This is such a beginner's error, that you have to wonder whether the authors had ever set foot on a landfill, or spoken to a waste-disposal operator.

And there is more. Landfilling of aluminium is assumed on the same page to produce 206.5 kilogrammes of methane per tonne of aluminium. Biodegradeable aluminium joins biodegradeable plastics in these academics' parallel universe. And thanks to what I can only assume is a labelling error, it is magnified by a factor of one thousand - not 206.5 g/t, but 206.5 kg/t in their scheme, or four times as much methane as is released from landfilling paper.

This study is so wrong that it isn't even in the right ballpark and so obfuscated that it is impossible to correct. And yet it is on studies like this that recycle-nuts like Dr Dicks rely to justify their brain-washed mantra of "reduce, reuse, recycle". That may be the right approach, in some circumstances, but where appropriate (as indicated by relative costs), not as a rule. The current EU Directives on waste disposal, the Government's dirigiste waste strategy (in compliance with the EU), and councils' complex collection schemes (in compliance with the Government's strategy), are based on nothing more than incompetence and distortion.



Surprise, surprise. Tim Worstall has already covered the case against recycling a couple of times (as linked from here). But hopefully this provides a different angle that compliments Tim's analysis.

I've posted a comment on the BBC Radio 4 Science forum. We'll see whether they let it stand, or whether anyone cares.

As far as I'm concerned there are two types of thing in this world resources and trash. If it's a resource I'm going to either use it or sell it. If it's trash I'm going to get rid of it in the cheapest way possible. Since nobody will pay me to recycle paper or bottles, since I can't use paper or bottles that I don't want, and since recycling uses up my valuable time and therfore costs ME, I will simply throw such items in the bin. If it was somehow better to recycle than to throw away, someone would be paying me to do it.

CynLib, I broadly agree, but can I put a twist on that? There is a cost to waste disposal. So it is worth recycling, reusing or converting to energy or mulch (depending on price) even if it costs you something to do so, so long as that something is less than the cost of disposal. One of the problems with our attitudes to waste is that we are insulated from its real costs by the socialization of waste collection and disposal.

But the really important part of your comment is the correct observation that it's not waste if you can use it or sell it. Another problem with our approach to waste is that, thanks to idiotic rules imposed by Europe but supported equally enthusiastically by the UK government, many things which are recovered from waste and which could be sold are prevented from being sold because they are still defined as waste and are therefore subject to the regulatory restrictions placed on waste. This prevents quite a lot of recyclate and other by-products from achieving the values they might otherwise achieve in the market if it were simply left down to producer and customer (subject to quality and H&S restrictions, of course) to agree a price.

Step forward a modern-day hero of the judiciary (yes, they do exist - in fact you are a lot more likely to find sensible thinking amongst our undemocratically-appointed judges than amongst our democratically-elected representatives), Lord Justice Carnwath. In a recent decision at the Court Of Appeal in R ex parte OSS Group Ltd v Environment Agency and DEFRA, Carnwath came to roughly the same view (couched in rather more legalese) as you do, and contrary to the views of those bastions of bureaucracy, the EA and DEFRA, that anything that has been discarded (or products therefrom) remains defined as waste until you can show either that it is identical to a product produced from raw materials, or that it has been treated in a process that complies with the Waste Incineration Directive (WID), which effectively means that it has to be subjected to thermal treatment (e.g. incineration) as a waste. While our bureaucrats continue to apply this approach, the value of a product can be turned from strongly negative to strongly positive simply depending on whether it is classified as a waste or a product. There need be no change to the product itself to produce this change in value - it is simply down to the classification. What a twisted, pointlessly bureaucratic world we live in.

This decision is couched in many provisos, and may be subject to further appeal, possibly all the way to Europe, where you can guess what the decision would be. But at least there are some people in positions of authority out there trying to apply commonsense and to limit the powers of our bureaucracy. 

To continue the circular referencing, Tim picked up on this post and made his own observations on the back of it. This has attracted a couple of comments, to which I have replied on Tim's site.

Incidentally, on the question of WRAP, see my other favourite blogger (besides Tim): Bishop Hill