Page 1209 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
therefore it is critical to our overall environment and climate change strategy. Source separation is an approach to waste management that focuses on recovering and recycling materials to their highest economic and environmental value. It prevents different types of waste streams from mixing together, becoming contaminated and therefore being difficult to reuse.
As the name suggests, resources are separated at the source—that is, by whoever is creating the waste, such as a resident or business—and this is usually done by separating the resources into different containers. Providing a third bin for the collection of green and organic waste is an example of a source separation approach. The contrast to this approach is co-mingled recycling, or what is sometimes called dirty recycling. Under this approach, waste streams are collected together so that recyclables are mixed with non-recyclables. Typically, an attempt is then made to separate this waste after collection. An example is to attempt to sort mixed waste using a mixed residual material recovery facility, usually called a “dirty MRF”.
This is not just some meaningless debate about the technicalities of waste collection. The impacts for the community and the environment will be very real. Whether the government decides to favour clean source separation or dirty co-mingled collection is pivotal in the future of waste management in the territory. A source separation approach means that the Canberra community will get the benefit of a third bin to collect organic waste. Source separation means that if someone is in the city and they have a recyclable bottle or can, they will actually have a recycling bin to put it in. Source separation is about providing options to get toxic wastes, like mercury filled light globes or batteries, out of the waste stream.
The question of source separation versus co-mingled collection is even critical to the future of ACT soils and whether we will have organic material available to make our soil healthy and fertile. The decision that the government makes on this question will lock in long-term impacts for the community. If the government takes the dirty co-mingled approach, it is likely that there will be no going back. Dirty MRF technology is an enormous, complicated operation. It costs tens of millions of dollars and is likely to involve contracts with waste operators that are decades long. I will give an example of that a little later.
The Greens favour source separation, or clean recycling. We think that the government is overlooking the benefits of source separation. Through its new draft waste strategy it appears to be focusing on dirty, co-mingled waste processing, perhaps enticed by the lure of some magic solution. However, before I talk about some of the problems with co-mingled waste processing, I would like to outline the enormous benefits of source separation. These are the benefits that the government will deny to the ACT if it fails to adopt this approach.
Firstly, let us talk about greenhouse gas emissions. There is strong evidence that using source separation, followed by the processing of organic material through windrow composting, is the best approach if we want to minimise greenhouse gases. This is made clear in the European Union’s study of waste management and climate change. It says very clearly, “Source segregation of waste followed by recycling and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video