A world where, unfortunately, recycling is not the priority yet...
|
Imagine a land where less than half of the sewage is collected, and even less is treated.
What would you do? Would you advocate for advanced water reuse systems? Or would you struggle for basic sanitation infrastructure?
Unfortunately, this situation is not hypothetical. And it applies equally to solid waste.
What would you do? Would you advocate for advanced water reuse systems? Or would you struggle for basic sanitation infrastructure?
Unfortunately, this situation is not hypothetical. And it applies equally to solid waste.
I. A Gigantic Sanitation Issue
Most of the world population does not have access to basic sanitation services, a sad truth that encompasses not only wastewater, but also solid waste collection and treatment.
This rampant situation is at the root of some of the most pressing social and environmental issues, both locally and globally. Without basic sanitation, societies simply fail to provide a clean environment and protect health.
z
Open dumps are not only absurd and illegal. They are prevalent. If you have never visited a large dump site, I urge you to do so. Consternation is guaranteed. You will not forget the experience.
This rampant situation is at the root of some of the most pressing social and environmental issues, both locally and globally. Without basic sanitation, societies simply fail to provide a clean environment and protect health.
z
Open dumps are not only absurd and illegal. They are prevalent. If you have never visited a large dump site, I urge you to do so. Consternation is guaranteed. You will not forget the experience.
The Brazilian 2014-17 economic crisis damaged even more
already deplorable public sanitation services.
Source: Globo, Mar/2017
Source: Globo, Mar/2017
In Brazil and Argentina, for example, where I worked and lived for the past 15 years, between approximately 1/2 and 1/3 of all municipal waste are thrown away in natura or deposited in illegal dumps. The exact amounts are not known because, by definition, there is no control.
Around 60% of the country´s more than 5,000 cities still dispose their waste in open dumps, impacting around 80 million people. And the situation is still worsening because of the economic crisis.
Unfortunately, Brazil is not an exception. Lack of basic waste management system is common place in developing countries. About 40% of all the world´s waste end up in dumpsites, where tens of thousands of people work and live under inhumane conditions, including children.
Such an abomination has terrible environmental consequences. It contaminates our water, soil and air. Millions are directly affected, billions indirectly. One growing issue is ocean pollution. A few countries with large coastal populations and primitive sanitation services are responsible for most of the trash that ends up fouling global waters.
It is worth quoting a publication from Nature that became a reference: “16 of the top 20 [waste-to-the-ocean] producers are middle-income countries, where fast economic growth is probably occurring but waste management infrastructure is lacking (the average mismanaged waste fraction is 68%). [...] We will not reach a global “peak waste” before 2100. Our waste will continue to grow with increased population and increased per capita consumption associated with economic growth [...]. Improving waste management infrastructure in developing countries is paramount and will require substantial resources and time" (Jambeck et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Nature, 2015, p. 770).
Basic sanitation services are obviously an emergency. Many of us, however, inevitably reply that we need to work on at least two fronts: eliminate dumpsites (for this is so obvious!), but also invest in recycling systems.
Can´t we do both? We all would like to, no? It might be fine in theory. In practice, however, we need to set priorities and attack these first. A virtual Q&A might help understand the whole issue. We will ask a few common questions and provide quick answers.
II. Q&A
Question 1. But recycling makes more sense than landfilling because it generates value, right?
Recycling valuable materials is viable and should definitely be encouraged. In a country like Brazil, however, a good part of all valuable materials are already recycled. How, if there is no basic infrastructure? It is a mean of living for the needy.
Aluminum cans, cardboard and PET bottles are good examples. Their recycling rates are high, 97%, 84% and 59%, respectively. Despite relying on totally different models, Brazilian rates are similar to those in the USA (55%, 89% and 31%, respectively) or in many European countries. Although I did not collect data, I suspect similar rates in many emerging markets.
Most waste materials that are not recycled in such large proportions are not recycled simply because the process is not worth it. Why would the necessitous waste away valuable goods?
?thes dar
Information we frequently encounter stating that billions could be captured by recycling materials from landfills are hypothetical and mostly based on wrong assumptions. Recycling low-recyclability post-consumer waste (that might have served a very valuable function in their lifetime) is and would most likely remain quite expensive for a long time, not lucrative.
Recycling valuable materials is viable and should definitely be encouraged. In a country like Brazil, however, a good part of all valuable materials are already recycled. How, if there is no basic infrastructure? It is a mean of living for the needy.
Aluminum cans, cardboard and PET bottles are good examples. Their recycling rates are high, 97%, 84% and 59%, respectively. Despite relying on totally different models, Brazilian rates are similar to those in the USA (55%, 89% and 31%, respectively) or in many European countries. Although I did not collect data, I suspect similar rates in many emerging markets.
Most waste materials that are not recycled in such large proportions are not recycled simply because the process is not worth it. Why would the necessitous waste away valuable goods?
?thes dar
Information we frequently encounter stating that billions could be captured by recycling materials from landfills are hypothetical and mostly based on wrong assumptions. Recycling low-recyclability post-consumer waste (that might have served a very valuable function in their lifetime) is and would most likely remain quite expensive for a long time, not lucrative.
Question 2. But technologies advancements will make recycling more and more viable, right?
.
Very few packaging materials are not already recycled as industrial waste. For example, most flexible packaging companies have been recycling (almost) all of their waste for many years now, anywhere I know. So, recycling post-consumer waste is really not a technology issue. It is an economic one: the goods that can be obtained by recycling low-recyclability post-consumer waste are just not worth the segregating, washing and processing costs.
Recycling is not a panacea. It is one of several complementary waste management alternatives that include composting, energy recovery and landfilling. And just like others alternatives, recycling has inherent limitations.
Technological advancements might make recycling more efficient and advantageous, but the benefits will most certainly remain marginal. Sweden, for example, one of the most advanced country in terms of waste management, recycles just about a third of its municipal solid waste. Inconvenient as it may sound, it is just not reasonable to think a much less developed country could soon do better.
We should not bet on advanced recycling technologies where basic sanitation services are not even met.
Question 3. But recycling helps diverting material from dumpsites, right?
Not exactly...
As previously stated, a significant part of the valuable waste streams in developing countries such as Brazil are actually already recovered by low-income workers. This does not mean efforts should stop, especially in terms of automation, but one needs to recognize that recycling most of the rest would be complex and expensive. Organic waste, for example, represent more than half of all municipal solid waste, and is not recyclable; and a significant part of the 'non-organic' fraction, the so-called 'dry fraction', is just not recyclable. Plus, it is obviously difficult to install advanced recycling infrastructure in places where basic sanitation are not even in place.
.sdfsdf
Most additional recycling naturally occur in privileged regions, essentially in the largest cities where logistics and recycling firms make it possible. Thus, it mostly diverts waste from the few landfills that operate in these most affluent regions, not from all the dumpsites scattered in the poorest regions. In the end, despite all efforts, littering and illegal dumping regrettably continue mostly untouched.
The current most pressing waste management issue in the developing world is really not to recycle more, but to proper manage what is not recycled.
Question 4. But landfilling is a terrible thing, right?
Littering and dumping are terrible practices, yes! Sanitary landfills are not. They generally receive four main environmental critics that deserve moderation.
z
z
1. Landfills take up a lot of space!?
This is at the same time probably the most common and the most nonsense argument: if there is no land for sanitary landfills in a country like Brazil, how come there is for illegal open dumps?
One exception might be densely populated islands and peninsulas that currently just wash up most of their waste directly into the sea, like I have witnessed in Thailand. In such places, energy recovery should complement the integrated waste management system, like in Japan.
Japanese waste management system should serve as an example for many nations
2. Landfills are corrupted!?
Corruption is probably the main obstacle to development and should be much more actively fought and severely punished. It certainly haunts public waste management, like so many other areas such as education, health and construction. As a long-time professional in the area, though, I am really not sure there is more corruption in landfilling operations than in any other business.
Corruption is probably the main obstacle to development and should be much more actively fought and severely punished. It certainly haunts public waste management, like so many other areas such as education, health and construction. As a long-time professional in the area, though, I am really not sure there is more corruption in landfilling operations than in any other business.
3. Landfills generate greenhouse gases!?
Yes, they do, but from 'organic waste', i.e., putrescible waste. Landfilling glass, metal or plastic do not generate much environmental impact beside the space it occupies. In a way, these materials just go back to the ground after having served a purpose.
Yes, they do, but from 'organic waste', i.e., putrescible waste. Landfilling glass, metal or plastic do not generate much environmental impact beside the space it occupies. In a way, these materials just go back to the ground after having served a purpose.
4. Landfills are a waste because materials should recirculate in the economy!?
First, the 3 R´s rule reminds us that waste reduction should be the priority, not recycling. And if landfilling can be seen as an inefficient use of resources, it is also frequently the less inefficient alternative. Flexible packaging constitutes a good example.
Complex flexible packaging is not recycled anywhere as post-consumer waste. In many instances, though, it is the best environmental option technologically available: the drastic source reduction that flexible packaging enables more than justify the small volumes of inert waste it generates. Recycling post-consumer flexible packaging waste will only very marginally improve the system. There is absolutely no common measure with the monstrous environmental impacts of illegal dumping that is plaguing our world.
Countries like Sweden or Japan do not recycle flexible packaging, but they do not throw it into dumps either. Instead, they use it as a source of energy. Shouldn´t we start by following the example of the few success stories instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?
First, the 3 R´s rule reminds us that waste reduction should be the priority, not recycling. And if landfilling can be seen as an inefficient use of resources, it is also frequently the less inefficient alternative. Flexible packaging constitutes a good example.
Complex flexible packaging is not recycled anywhere as post-consumer waste. In many instances, though, it is the best environmental option technologically available: the drastic source reduction that flexible packaging enables more than justify the small volumes of inert waste it generates. Recycling post-consumer flexible packaging waste will only very marginally improve the system. There is absolutely no common measure with the monstrous environmental impacts of illegal dumping that is plaguing our world.
Countries like Sweden or Japan do not recycle flexible packaging, but they do not throw it into dumps either. Instead, they use it as a source of energy. Shouldn´t we start by following the example of the few success stories instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?
Question 5. But then, why do we hear so much about recycling, and so little about basic sanitation issues?
Lack of sanitation is inconvenient for most of the parties involved. So, they privilege the so-called 'positive agenda'.
1. Politicians do not want to take the blame for the lack of basic sanitation in emerging markets and are generally very reluctant to invest in long-term projects. It would not help their career. In any political speech or pamphlet, promising easy recycling does sound much better than denouncing illegal dumpsites. Demagogy prevails.
2. Private companies normally center their waste agenda on recycling. Full recycling is fairly easy to achieve at an industrial level and generally lucrative. Plus, many companies also see environmental innovation as a marketing tool. Helping to finance basic sanitation services or even just bringing up the issue would not be coherent with their communication strategy.
3. For obvious monetary reasons, NGOs are very much inclined to accompany the aspirations of their investors. Contrary to entities eager to promote recycling, those willing to fund basic sanitation services in developing nations are not common or not present in the public eye.
Lack of sanitation is inconvenient for most of the parties involved. So, they privilege the so-called 'positive agenda'.
1. Politicians do not want to take the blame for the lack of basic sanitation in emerging markets and are generally very reluctant to invest in long-term projects. It would not help their career. In any political speech or pamphlet, promising easy recycling does sound much better than denouncing illegal dumpsites. Demagogy prevails.
2. Private companies normally center their waste agenda on recycling. Full recycling is fairly easy to achieve at an industrial level and generally lucrative. Plus, many companies also see environmental innovation as a marketing tool. Helping to finance basic sanitation services or even just bringing up the issue would not be coherent with their communication strategy.
3. For obvious monetary reasons, NGOs are very much inclined to accompany the aspirations of their investors. Contrary to entities eager to promote recycling, those willing to fund basic sanitation services in developing nations are not common or not present in the public eye.
4. Even some environmental consulting firms now somehow gave in to greenwashing. Extravagant waste management projects, more based on marketing techniques than true environmental benefits, seem to attract a certain audience. Needless to say limited financial resources in the waste arena could be put to a much better use than to deceive or miseducate.
gsdg.
As a result of all these misplaced but convergent forces, entire populations are bombarded with biased pseudo-technical messages. They developed a superficial and distorted view on waste management. A growing gap now divides opinions and realities. In some circles, recycling even took the features of a new deity, worshiped in environmental sermons reminiscent of the geocentric model. Just as climate change, I am afraid waste management might be entering a post-truth era governed by alternative facts.
III. Conclusion
I am a very fervent enthusiast of recycling. For over twelve years now, I have been responsible for managing more than a thousand tons a month of diverse industrial waste streams in various regions in South America.
My team and I worked on dozens of projects with many recycling companies. We participated in the development of several important solutions, reducing waste and increasing recyclability both upstream and downstream. Currently, about 95% of the waste we manage is recycled and most of the remaining 5% is recovered as energy. But industrial and post-consumer waste management are very different issues.
What developing countries desperately needs for their urban solid waste are not new fancy recycling schemes, but just basic education and sanitation, i.e., universal collection and proper disposal.
What developing countries desperately needs for their urban solid waste are not new fancy recycling schemes, but just basic education and sanitation, i.e., universal collection and proper disposal.
Does it make sense to invest limited resources to artificially improve recycling when basic minimum conditions are far from being met? It might to a certain degree, but it certainly will not solve the main issues and will quickly become counterproductive. Any delay in universalizing sanitation brings an enormous social and environmental cost. But time goes by and the overall picture does not improve, well at the contrary.
Brazil is a good example. By a law signed in 2010, all dumps should have been closed by 2014, before the FIFA World Cup. By 2015, however, more than a year later, the situation remained almost the same and about half of Brazilian waste still ended up in dumps. As a token of irony, the Senate extended the deadline by 2021. However, it will most probably not happen, as so often in the "eternal country of the future". And as far as wastewater collection and treatment, considering the current rate of investment, Brazil will not reach national completion before 2060, which really means that nobody knows.
Pleading for basic sanitation services is certainly not as glamour as discoursing on disruptive innovations. Nonetheless, that is really where our efforts should be concentrated, to heal our bleeding wounds and guarantee a brighter future.
Having set our priorities, we have to act, now!
Posts relacionados
Você também vai gostar de:
Teddy Lalande. Abr/17.
Engineer from Angers, France, MSc in Environmental Sciences from Clemson University, USA, Teddy is pursuing a PhD in Innovation Management in Brazil where he lives since 2000. At Bemis since 2005, he is currently responsible for the Latin American social and environmental programs.
This article provided me with a wealth of information. The article is both educational and helpful. Thank you for providing this information. Keep up the good work. Best Waste Management Company In India
ReplyDelete