Brexit has been touted as many things but being good for the environment is not one of them. So when David Palmer-Jones, UK CEO of waste and recycling giant Suez, tentatively suggests it could just herald a shift to a more circular economy, you take a mental step backwards. Just how does he work that out?
Although Suez was vocal in its desire for the country to remain in the EU, its UK boss recognizes that Brexit might present an opportunity to reframe recycling regulations, many of which stem from Europe. At present, these set straightforward targets for the amount of waste to be recycled – the latest stipulating 50% by 2020. And he’s quick to give the EU praise where it’s due. “We tend to forget that back in 2000, our recycling rate was just 9%. Now it’s 45%.” That’s largely due to European pressure, he says: “Things can move very quickly when fuelled by regulation”. In the UK’s case, this was spurred by landfill tax, which made the old school stick-it-in-a-hole-in-the-ground-and-forget-it approach financially less appealing.
One of the consequences has been a rise in energy recovery: burning waste to generate electricity. Although perhaps sometimes misunderstood, Palmer-Jones insists it’s a proven and safe technology. But he feels its potential is underused in the UK, compared to continental Europe. There, incineration plants are often situated close to communities, so that they can provide both electricity and heat. In the Swedish city of Malmo, for example, “they showed me with great pride how the plant was right in the middle of the town,” says Palmer-Jones, “so it could provide hot water to all the houses in the area. Local people know about it, and know it means they’re getting the benefit from it and saving money too.”
In Britain, by contrast, the attitude is “let’s keep it as far away from people as possible – stick it in a quarry so it can’t be seen”. That might satisfy local planning officials, but it’s a lot less efficient in energy terms, as it’s too far away from population centres to provide heat – whether for domestic or industrial uses – so the benefits are restricted to electricity. A preferable alternative, says Palmer-Jones, would be to site the plants close to local industry, so as to meet their heat and power needs.
Meanwhile, the downside of present recycling rules is that they can lead to some fairly crude yardsticks. In the UK, recycling rates are typically measured by weight, which doesn’t really discriminate between the relative value of different materials. It’s also open to some pretty random fluctuations. The classic example, says Palmer-Jones, is grass clippings, which weigh much more when wet, and the quantity of which varies with the season. “So you have local authorities having to explain to some poor old Defra official that they had a dryer year, therefore the grass clippings weren’t as heavy as the previous year … What’s the point of that? You’re not really capturing any information of value.”
So how might Brexit make it better? First, Palmer-Jones is quick to emphasise that both he and Suez were keen for the UK to remain in the European Union and that he’s not looking for a bonfire of regulations. Far from it – he’s relieved that the government’s planning to incorporate all EU regulations in British law, to be amended or repealed on a case-by-case basis. But when that happens, he’d like to see more sophisticated recycling regulations introduced – with the emphasis on materials stewardship instead of end-of-life disposal. That could mean moving beyond purely weight-based targets, he says. “We should be asking, ‘how can the UK get cleverer after Brexit?”
Part of the answer, he believes, lies in regulations which encourage industry to adopt a circular approach. “One of the best ways to do this is to regulate for product take-back.” With this approach, manufacturers would be obliged to recover some or all of their products and product packaging – with the focus placed on those whose materials or products could be easily reused or recycled.
This, he argues, would encourage the growth of a stable market in secondary materials, which – because it would be fed by a steady flow of new feedstock – would be insulated to some extent from the volatility of fluctuating commodities prices. “And it would be a lot more politically acceptable – and less burdensome – than some form of tax or levy system.”
In practical terms, it could work along the same lines as the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directive, which requires manufacturers to take back products such as fridges at the end of their life.
One thing is certain: the days of landfill are fast coming to an end. Apart from anything else, “there simply aren’t enough holes in the ground”, says Palmer-Jones. “For example, by 2021, there will be no landfill space left in Kent.” So while hoping for a shift towards a circular, product-stewardship, approach in the long term, he’s also looking for government to give a clear commitment to the landfill tax “over the next 10 years or so.”
Hs is cautiously encouraged by noises emanating from the government on this, and on their industrial strategy more broadly. But, he adds, “We’d love them to come out and make some clear statements. They’re very good at implying things, but not actually saying them out loud. That’s a bit too subtle for us! The one thing industry really needs is certainty.”
Content on this page is paid for and produced to a brief agreed by Suez, sponsor of the circular economy hub
