SBS are keen recyclers. Letters and Numbers with Richard Morecroft finished filming is 2012 but still regularly features in early evening viewing. Great Train Journeys of the World – just how many can there really be? Not to mention the endless re-runs of anything concerning Egypt and the Pharaohs.
With all this experience you would expect SBS to have a good understanding of recycling. But Abbie O’Brien’s piece on the National Packaging Targets, aired on SBS News on January 2, suggests not.
National Packaging Targets are targets established in consultation with industry back in 2018 and designed to increase the proportion of recycled content in packaging. You will be surprised to hear that these voluntary targets, expected to be met by the end of this year, won’t be reached. In particular, the plastic-related target, requiring 70% of plastic packaging to be recycled or composted by 2025, is dust, with Australia currently sitting at an estimated 19% (and that seems a generous estimate).
Chris Foley from the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (responsible for implementing the Federal Government’s targets) explained that the system is broken – unable to collect and recycle sufficient quantities of waste back into the circular economy. In particular, Australia lacks the infrastructure to reprocess in a ‘chemical context’ the quantities of soft plastic required, Foley explained.
It is interesting to note that Foley used the term ‘chemical’ as he was presumably referring to a range of technologies which most of the industry refers to by the more palatable term ‘advanced recycling’. Either term is used to refer to a group of technologies (including pyrolysis, gasification, and depolymerisation) that break down the molecular chain of polymers into liquid or gasses that can then be processed into constituent chemicals. By breaking down plastics into their components they can theoretically be reborn, displaying the same properties as their virgin parents. Industry representatives promote this technology as: ‘true circular recycling,’ often ignoring the fact that significant resources will undoubtedly be lost during the energy-intensive processes.
The scalability of ‘advanced’ technologies, mostly still in the experimental stage, their energy, and resource efficiencies, together with the environmental and health impacts of toxins released during processes, all remain the subjects of debate by industry, academics and legislators. Despite industry enthusiasm, chemical recycling accounts for less than 1% of installed recycling capacity globally. Regardless, industry continues to promote chemical recycling as the solution to the plastic crisis, ignoring the fact that over 50 years of investment in recycling infrastructure has failed to adequately address the problem, with only 9% of all the plastic ever made having been recycled.
Ignoring these concerns, O’Brien went on to inform us that recycling rigid plastics is challenged by the fact they are not always sorted correctly in the home, thereby firmly placing blame on the consumer. Although how our inability to sort plastics is impacting waste recovery when we are provided with only one recycling bin was not detailed. Industry has continually blamed consumers for the inappropriate disposal of plastic waste for many decades. Focusing on end-of-pipe littering impacts draws our attention from the unsustainable trajectory of our consumption of plastic.
Foley did admit in passing that there were a number of members who needed to do more with their packaging but stated that the real issue is cost, it’s simply not worth collecting the packaging put into the market by members!
Foley failed to mention that the targets include the requirement that packaging is to contain, on average, 50% recycled content by 2025. Industry took the easy route, increasing the use of recycled paper and cardboard, allowing the overall target to be met, while ignoring the more complex issue of plastics, a fact which O’Brien ignored or failed to interrogate.
The latter seems more likely given the absence of other voices included in this report. Where were the environmentalists – surely the Environment Defenders Office or Boomerang Alliance were worth a call for a start? How about the people who design the packaging – why not ask them what’s stopping them from meeting the targets – Andrew Simpson from Design Declares (and Vert Design Studio) might be worth a call here. I know it is the silly season but this really was a weak and unbalanced story from SBS.
By privileging one voice we were presented with a very biased view of the problem, clearly demonstrated by the story wrap-up. All is not lost O’Brien informed us. With the 2025 goals out of reach a new set of voluntary goals for 2030 has been set. Investment in additional infrastructure to process waste is a priority we are told. O’Brien failed to mention that much of that investment will undoubtedly come from taxpayers in the form of grants and incentives from governments at all levels.
After a good 50 years of investment in recycling less than 9% of all the plastic that has ever been made has been recycled. After seven years industry-led voluntary targets have not been met. But the solution to achieve more sustainable packaging is to do more of the same – invest in recycling infrastructure and commit (or at least be seen to commit) to voluntary targets. But wait, doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome – isn’t that the definition of insanity?
What we need is mandatory targets. This would make polluters address their packaging and find more environmentally sustainable solutions. Even parts of the United States are ahead of us here, for example, see the legislation recently introduced in Washington State. Mandatory targets would force the market to solve the economic problems – higher costs will be absorbed by polluters and their customers and/or higher volumes of demand will drive down the price of recycled content. It won’t be easy. With demand for fossil fuels expected to decrease significantly over the next few decades, the industry will increasingly rely on petrochemicals for future profitability. The danger is that the market will be flooded with cheap fossil fuels making it virtually impossible for recyclers to compete. Another reason why we need mandatory targets.
Must go, Mastermind is on. Oh wait, it is a re-run.