News & Media > Environmental Services
12:05:2010
Time to check the carbon impact facts
The commingled versus source separation debate rumbles on. As an advocate of kerbside sort, I’m delighted it keeps coming up, giving us the opportunity to re-check the facts and dispel some myths.
An event held by MRF operators in Milton Keynes recently brought the kerbside sort versus commingled battle under scrutiny again, debating the carbon impact of the different recycling methods.
Using research commissioned by the MRF community, the conclusion drawn was that commingled collections produce 8.4kg less of CO2 equivalent per tonne, compared to source separated collections. This paints a very different picture to the one we understand to be true at May Gurney.
Based on WRAP research and our own direct evidence, it is clear that kerbside sort schemes collect a similar amount of tonnage to commingled operations, providing the material range, volume and frequency of residual are the same. We also know that a refuse collection vehicle does not have the same fuel efficiency as a 12 tonne recycling vehicle. In fact, it is almost three times more inefficient. Once these figures are factored in, a different conclusion is drawn, with CO2 emissions for kerbside sort dramatically falling by 75%, to a much lower figure than the modelled commingled collection.
The debate also failed to consider the wider environmental benefit of each system. And it’s the environmental benefits where kerbside sort outshines commingling.
Kerbside sort delivers closed loop recycling and paper reprocessing in the UK, not exporting overseas. It also achieves a higher rate of recycling. A commingled service sees an average of 10% and anything up to 39% of materials (as published in WRAPs report on materials quality) directly rejected from the MRF, while100% will be recycled when collected separately.
Based on these facts, I think you understand which side of the fence I sit on. But I also recognise that one approach does not fit all. And we must focus on tailoring recycling services for all residents, wherever they may live.
I like nothing better than a healthy debate. But it’s time we moved on. The industry needs to come together and develop ideas for the best environmental strategy for the country .That means encouraging behavioural change, preventing the creation of waste in the first place and tackling the £17bn food and drink waste mountain we currently produce in the UK.
This will, after all, help to deliver the best outcome we could hope for – a zero waste nation.
News archive
Public Sector
Regulated Sector
Other News
