Page 1211 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
wide in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Italy.
Behind these countries are a series of second level countries where source separation of organics is growing very rapidly. These countries divert large amounts of their waste from landfill and largely processing organics using windrow composting and anaerobic digestion. In fact, they are achieving some of the highest resource recovery rates in the world. It is a completely mainstream service in these countries, and it can be here in Canberra as well.
Another service that Canberrans are missing out on is the provision of public place recycling. Canberrans have probably visited other towns around Australia and come across public place recycling bins. This of course makes perfect sense. Why should all the waste we generate when out in town here in Civic, our lunch or drink containers for example, go into the general bin and be wasted in landfill? The Greens have been arguing for this service. Public place recycling should be able to become as reliable and consistent as kerbside recycling. Public place recycling is a good example of source separation, and it has many benefits. Recyclable materials like plastic, glass, paper and organics are all much more valuable when they are source separated, compared to when they are collected through a mixed stream and an attempt is made to separate them later.
Source separated materials have a higher dollar value. The modelling of the government’s consultant showed that many materials are worth double or more when source separated. Perhaps more importantly, though, this source separated material also has a higher environmental value because it can be used to make higher quality products. This stops resources being down-cycled to low grade products, which hastens their journey towards landfill.
Down-cycling materials, or sending them to landfill, breaks the recycling loop and increases the need to create new products from raw materials. The Greens support the concept of reusing materials to their highest use. Reusing recyclable material for its highest use ultimately saves resources and greenhouse gases by saving on virgin materials, which are used to make new products. Source separation and clean recycling is the best way to do this.
If we look at co-mingled recycling, if it is not clear already why source separation is the ideal way to recycle, I want to touch on some of the detriments of a co-mingled or dirty recycling approach. As I have already pointed out, source separation is well-tested and well-proven. The review of waste technologies that the government itself commissioned in 2008 confirms that there is a low risk of adverse events occurring when using a source separation or composting strategy.
However, this contrasts to the report’s findings that using co-mingled or dirty MRF recycling has high and moderate to high risks. Some of the high risks include commissioning delays, achieving effective separation of organics, managing contamination, product quality, application and odour. Of course, we do know that odour has been a major problem down in the suburb of Macarthur recently.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video