The truth about recycling, according to the Economist

by Stephen Tall on June 12, 2007

One of the questions that’s – quite reasonably – asked by recycling-sceptics is: prove it’s more environmentally friendly to recycle than to throw away, given the respective consumption of energy in both processes.

So I was particularly interested in a long feature in this week’s Economist, The truth about recycling. It’s worth reading in full, but I thought I’d fillet it a bit… First, here comes the science:

… the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish Topic Centre on Waste conduct[ed] a review of 55 life-cycle analyses, all of which were selected because of their rigorous methodology. The researchers then looked at more than 200 scenarios, comparing the impact of recycling with that of burying or burning particular types of waste material. They found that in 83% of all scenarios that included recycling, it was indeed better for the environment.

Based on this study, WRAP [the Waste & Resources Action Programme, a non-profit British recycling company] calculated that Britain’s recycling efforts reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by 10m-15m tonnes per year. That is equivalent to a 10% reduction in Britain’s annual carbon-dioxide emissions from transport, or roughly equivalent to taking 3.5m cars off the roads.

The question then to be asked is: if it’s worthwhile doing, is this something which can be supported by the market? (Ie, is there a profit which will enable a company to benefit society while benefiting its shareholders.) The answer appears to be: no.

… most kerbside recycling programmes are not financially self-sustaining. The cost of collecting, transporting and sorting materials generally exceeds the revenues generated by selling the recyclables, and is also greater than the disposal costs. Exceptions do exist … largely near ports in dense urban areas that charge high fees for landfill disposal and enjoy good market conditions for the sale of recyclables.

So, we have here a system which reduces Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions, but which cannot turn a profit – something I guess most of us would regard as market failure, and, therefore, a candidate for government action.

Then there’s the question of China – does all our hard recycling work simply end up in Chinese landfill? This seems harder to assess. On the one hand,

Pieter van Beukering, an economist who has studied the trade of waste paper to India and waste plastics to China: “as soon as somebody is paying for the material, you bet it will be recycled.” In fact, Dr van Beukering argues that by importing waste materials, recycling firms in developing countries are able to build larger factories and achieve economies of scale, recycling materials more efficiently and at lower environmental cost. He has witnessed as much in India, he says, where dozens of inefficient, polluting paper mills near Mumbai were transformed into a smaller number of far more productive and environmentally friendly factories within a few years.


… factories in developing nations may be less tightly regulated, and the recycling industry is no exception. China especially has been plagued by countless illegal-waste imports, many of which are processed by poor migrants in China’s coastal regions. They dismantle and recycle anything from plastic to electronic waste without any protection for themselves or the environment. The Chinese government has banned such practices, but migrant workers have spawned a mobile cottage industry that is difficult to wipe out … Because this type of industry operates largely under the radar, it is difficult to assess its overall impact. But it is clear that processing plastic and electronic waste in a crude manner releases toxic chemicals, harming people and the environment—the opposite of what recycling is supposed to achieve.

And, finally, there is a sting in the tail for the UK. Perhaps the first product many of us got used to recycling, usually at the local supermarket before kerbside collections took over, was the green bottle – this country is, after all, the biggest importer in the world of wine (1 billion litres a year):

But with only a tiny wine industry of its own, there is little demand for the resulting glass. Instead what is needed is clear glass, which is turned into bottles for spirits, and often exported to other countries. As a result, says Andy Dawe, WRAP’s glass-technology manager, Britain is in the “peculiar situation” of having more green glass than it has production capacity for. Britain’s bottle-makers already use as much recycled green glass as they can in their furnaces to produce new bottles. So some of the surplus glass is down-cycled into construction aggregates or sand for filtration systems. But WRAP’s own analysis reveals that the energy savings for both appear to be “marginal or even disadvantageous”.

But as the success of recycling in this country is measured by the Government not by the energy saved but by the total tonnage of recylables collected there is a perverse incentive for local councils to continue to invest in bottle recycling!

Enjoy reading this? Please like and share:


I thought you were soft-peddling this blog? You seem to be still on a roll and this posting certainly elegantly answers the question: “What is Stephen Tall for?”

If you didn’t see it, you might be interested in this fascinating article in the Guardian Weekend from April, where the journalist went to China on the trail of what happens to our discarded plastic bags.

by Paul Walter on June 13, 2007 at 9:08 am. Reply #

I think you’ve missed two rather major things here.

1) The WRAP report does not look, as you seem to think, at kerbside domestic recycling. Instead, those CO2 emissions saved are those from the recycling we “already” do. Cars recycled for the steel, cans for the aluminium and so on, well known to be effective and yes, the market does unaided, support exactly these activities.

To take the results of what we already do and project them onto what we might do in the future doesn’t really work. For the recycling we’re recommendingin hte future is different from the stuff we already do, see?

(I’m also rather disturbed by The Economist stating that landfills give of methane. That hasn’t been true since the 2004 Landfill Act, it’s collected and used to create energy.)

2) Everyone always leaves out by far the largest cost of such schemes. The time it takes to sort the materials by households. If this is only 15 minutes per household per week (which studies show is the average, without including food and garden waste) then that alone costs more than the entire current disposal system.

by Tim Worstall on June 13, 2007 at 9:47 am. Reply #


I nearly blogged about this article myself.

I actually found the Leader most depressing:

Britain imports too much green glass (all that wine), which is wastefully ground into aggregates and sand for building; it would be more economically efficient and environmentally friendly to throw the bottles away.

Sigh! Now I’m in the agonising position of wondering whether I best serve the environment by not recycling my (many, many) wine bottles.

But if I go down that root, my brain might explode from the constant need to second guess the advice to do what is anyway an onerous task!

by Tom Papworth on June 13, 2007 at 11:59 pm. Reply #

bez depozytu bonus free pieniadze dla nowych aktualne zastawienie bonusów
quiz poker wk?ad darmowy
Poker Stars nie depozytów, wolne william hill Poker bankroll Mansion darmo pieni?dze, mansion Poker wolne pieni?dze w pokera, nie deposit
poker za darmo , bonusy bez depozytu, graj w pokera bez obligacji generycznych bankroll buduj wolno ale dok?adnie odbiór dla poker rooms Promocje dla nowych graczy
titan mansion party poker pkr bet most i inne platformy room texas hold em
ker without money senza deposito Poker bonus without pay… Free no deposit casino cash says: … No deposit poker bonus… Free online poker games (without signing up) says
no deposit poker bonuses
Complete list of the best free poker money free poker bankroll no deposit
are looking for highroller bonuses, high can earn up to 500% of your deposit, obtain you Nast uniqe room
no deposit bonus titan pkr
. Walker Poker is a free, state of the art, software, titan which gives you the ability to play online poker
deposit as its instant and free to deposit money directly from uniqe room poker
actual Free! No Deposit Needed to get free poker bankrolls benefit…
free poker bankroll for new players
eading poker signup for coupon depositing online No Deposit $ Free poker capital, no deposit poker
sorry if spam for you ..

by Anonymous on June 6, 2009 at 9:07 pm. Reply #

Online poker gaiming fast and free. No deposit free capital for poker shark and donkey players.
Get smooking ultimate bet sponsorship for all nation.
Party poker room offering huge 100% Bonus up to 500 dollars Free. So don't be small with online gaiming today.
players enjoy an array of exciting bankroll without deposit cash as international start up money.
Good day. optimal combination cheap cake

by Anonymous on July 23, 2009 at 11:45 pm. Reply #

Leave your comment


Required. Not published.

If you have one.