War on waste
THE only thing that has been wasteful in recent times is our collective inability to adapt to other methods of waste management.
Blaming the SKMs of the world is not the answer — they can only operate within strict guidelines. So it should come as no surprise that the issue of recycling has been further exacerbated by SKM’s inability to give a clear assurance of its future capacity to meet the laws and regulations of waste recycling.
As a result, many Victorian councils are now between a rock and a hard place. This on top of the State Government continuing to hold on to an estimated $500 million pool of land fee levy funding, only drip feeding it back to get genuine alternatives to waste treatment.
Alternatives could include the construction of a waste to energy (WTE) plant, as are seen in almost every European country and widely spread around the world. Considerable studies and background checking have been done into WTE as a part of the waste solution. It is acknowledged that it should not be the only solution, but certainly a genuine contributor to waste treatment.
Advanced WTE plants have the capacity to produce large volumes of energy and can also produce precursors to pharmaceuticals and cosmetics.
And it is not uncommon to see these plants operating within proximity to suburban communities such is the technology to protect the environment from harmful emissions while providing cheaper power alternatives.
Now is the time to move into the 21st century with WTE as a genuine component of our waste treatment options.
Victoria and Tasmania are now the only states in the country that do not have a container deposit scheme. This concept is now supported by the Australian Beverage Council — an industry that has historically been opposed to any form of container deposit scheme.
One of the arguments against such a scheme is that it will be detrimental to existing kerbside recycling programs. Well, how’s that going for us today?
Research conducted by Monash University on 47 container deposit schemes concluded that: “The 47 container deposit refund (CDR) schemes recovered an average of 76 per cent of drink containers. In the United States, beverage container recovery rates for aluminium, plastic and glass in the 11 CDR states are 84 per cent, 48 per cent and 65 per cent respectively, compared with 39 per cent, 20 per cent and 25 per cent in non-CDR states.
The figures are similar in South Australia, one of the longest-running CDR schemes in the world: 84 per cent, 74 per cent and 85 per cent for cans, plastic and glass compared with national averages of 63 per cent, 36 per cent and 36 per cent.”
These statistics alone form a compelling reason to now introduce such a scheme. Let alone the benefits that would be derived at a community level with the opportunity to fundraise for a whole range of community organisations.
Another lesser known fact is that about 50 per cent of our waste is paper and cardboard — a very highly sought after waste commodity.
Initial discussion has started about extending the council’s community collection service to include a separate bin just for paper and cardboard.
The key to these products holding their value is how clean they remain in the recovery process. So it would take further community discipline to separate paper and cardboard from other waste products so as not to contaminate it, but it would have an immediate positive impact.
There is no dispute that separation of waste is one of the main keys to being able to implement genuine alternatives to waste recycling and reuse. It is time-consuming and expensive, but the reward far outweighs this relatively minor inconvenience.
There is also alarming evidence of highly toxic and inflammable waste being stored in warehouses all around the state that is still going largely unchecked.
I’d suggest that, like all problems, when seeking a solution you need to go back to the start. And in the waste discussion that is largely back to manufacturing. The products used in some manufacturing need to be further examined and either eliminated or substantially reduced.
Only products that can be recycled or remanufactured should be our collective goal.
Ultimately this comes back to us as a community. What are we prepared to accept and what pressure are we prepared to put on respective governments and industry to address this global problem?
The “war on waste” is one we can’t afford to lose, but we have to fight a lot of battles along the journey while trying to be realistic because in a fast growing world we are very hungry consumers, with substantial differences in our commitment to genuinely reducing the effects of poor waste management.
SKM Recycling in South Geelong.
Bruce Harwood is City of Greater Geelong mayor