Wednesday, 19 September 2007

The Great Recycling Swindle: Cardiff Recycling Sham!

Recycling industry insiders have revealed that Cardiff residents’ waste, which is picked up all in one bag without being separated, ends up far too mixed & contaminated to be recycled effectively.
Much of our green bag waste is sold on to dealers who export it halfway across the world to Indonesia, India & China, burning tonnes of carbon dioxide to dump rubbish on poorer people in the global South.
This shocking situation is repeated in most UK towns. Our waste should be recycled separately by local operations in the UK, but because it is usually collected mixed together in one bag, most paper mills, plastics, & glass handlers find it impossible to work with. Many UK paper mills have had to close down because councils are too short-sighted to implement proper recycling schemes to provide them with clean materials.
One insider said: “Cardiff Council will claim that it sends its paper to the paper mill at Ayelsford in Kent to be recycled. But none of the kerbside recycling from Cardiff gets there. By the time it’s been picked up & taken to the central depot it’s been contaminated by broken glass & other materials, & it’s mostly unusable. I know this because I’ve spoken to people at the paper mills. I don’t know exactly where it gets sent, but it stands to reason that if the UK recyclers are refusing it, it’ll be sold by middle-men to the big dealers in the Far East.”
Another industry expert, who also prefers to remain anonymous, said that lots of our waste ends up in the global South where it is picked over by poor labourers in dangerous & unsanitary conditions. “There are containers full of mixed materials illegally exported to developing countries where health & safety is not a consideration & where children sift through what we would call landfill sites. I’ve heard rumours that Cardiff’s so-called recycled waste gets sent to Indonesia, but only a few people know for sure. They don’t want to broadcast it”.
Cardiff Council only recently opened the expensive recycling "sorting" facility at Lamby Way. It essentially spent millions of tax payers money on what is essentially an environmentally damaging white elephant. One source said, “Lamby Way is a complete disaster. All it produces is low-grade contaminated waste that’s next to useless. That place was a total waste of money”.
Another explained that big & costly separating plants like Lamby Way wouldn’t be necessary if the public were asked to do the job in the home, or if collectors separated on collection. “Getting individuals separating waste in the home is not difficult – it’s common practice in other European countries like Germany, & it’s also done in Newport!”
One big difference in the Newport recycling method: apart from separating waste at source, not exporting it, & actually recycling it, is that it isn’t run by the council or outsourced to a business, but run by a community group.

5 comments:

Luther said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Luther said...

Martin Shipton of the Western Mail printed this blog posting in full (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=council-refutes-recycling-claims%26method=full%26objectid=19828270%26siteid=50082-name_page.html)

The council responded in the article thus:

A Cardiff Council spokesman responded, “Cardiff Council’s Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF) separates products using state-of-the-art machinery. At the moment the plastics line is being upgraded to maximise efficiency, and the plant is still operational as waste for recycling still has to be processed.

“Every two months the buyer contracts are reviewed. Every attempt is made to provide a Wales route first, then looking at the UK market, then to the European market and lastly the world market.

“Only 5% of what we produce goes to the world market. All materials are approved by the buyer and, once the new machinery is installed in the MRF by the end of October, normal operations will resume, providing excellent quality products, maximising revenue, ensuring value for money for the Cardiff taxpayer.

“The posting on the Lutheraplissett blog is completely inaccurate. High grade paper is sent to a reputable paper mill in Europe. The reason why it doesn’t go to UK paper mills is that a policy decision has been made not to accept paper from commingled recycling streams.”

The spokesman confirmed that some Cardiff waste ended up being sold to China.

ardibeltza said...

So 5% goes to the world market - how much goes to Europe? How much goes to UK landfill? Cardiff CC are on the run - a result for Luther ap!

Anonymous said...

The posting is correct. Many UK recyclers are sending waste plastics to China. They call themselves recyclers but they are facilitators, who work for Hong Kong based companies who then sell into china. So called recycling companies, who have no recycling equipment, only holding yards and maybe M.R.F. separators, send containers into local collection sites, like Lamby way ,the containers are loaded by council staff and then sent to the Far East . This can be verified by container numbers and duties of care certification which will give the location and delivery address and the companies that purchase the materials. There is no effort to find local plastic recyclers. There is no support or incentive for the use of these material by W.A.G. or central government, as it is all $ or £ transactions with the added incentive of E.P.R.N payments above and beyond the sale price, this is an export incentive paid in a form of a tonnage certificate monitored by the environment agency and then sold on the open market. Councils are not the only ones,
large retail outlets also do the same.
This in turn has encouraged a smoke and mirror attitude by the councils and retailers, all over the UK. Councils are happy with this as they are monitored by tonnages, and retailers say they are recycling, so close your eyes fill a container and pretend its going to a company in Manchester.
Wales may be the worst transgressors, as the container prices to Hong Kong are about the same price as a lorry to Leeds. So the transport is also subsidized. Products delivered to the U.K. from China are by container and can be sent back empty, so the shipping company, that has delivered products into the UK, will contact a export agent to fill the container with anything he can to reduce cost. The shipping company will accept a handling charge for as little £150 transfer cost. = less then £600 to Hong Kong, Hong Kong to U.K. £2000

When the plastics arrive in Hong Kong various bribes are paid, containers are unloaded and then reloaded and sent to china via the weakest border route to sorting stations,
60 % of the material is then used to produce products and the rest goes to landfill.
But the best deal is that if a China based company then sells its product back into the EU at a reduced price, it gets a subsidy form the regional government, this then is the profit.

W A G. have provided large grants to companies that have good well presented business plans, who move into Wales and export waste, to the Far East then disappear.
This produces jobs and ticks boxes and then the medals are handed out.
We should help companies to produce products out of our waste materials and force councils to purchase them. Not encourage companies to export our problems.
Most M.R.F. separators are conveyor belts with elevated picking lines manned by sub contractors, the material is then feed into compactors, bailed ready for container transport, or it goes back into landfill. As for the paper company mentioned I have heard that they export to the Far East and have closed a South Wales paper mill.
The state of the art facility is old thinking, purchased by misinformed council employees, you only have to search the web to see this equipment. The state of art equipment at the site, is the car that the director drives to work in.
The 2 month contract review is a Dutch auction, sold to the highest bidder; the councils are under pressure to do this and can not be entirely blamed. It is our fault as we do not make them accountable.
As for the public separating at source this is being done today, but it is then sent to local yards placed into one co-mingled mass ,bailed and also sent to china , again a smoke and mirror exercise.
It is good to see that people are taking interest but if a council employee states that the allegations are incorrect he should prove this by providing a finale destination certificate
Not an agent’s delivery address. Monitored over the last 6 months Then if he has used the old, smoke and mirrors, it must be gross misconduct.

Luther said...

Thanks for both posts!
If anonymous would like to continue chatting about this by e-mail please contact me on:
lutherapblissett@googlemail.com
I'd be especially interested in the wording of a freedom of information request I'm planning to put in to the council - I need some specific help with what exactly to ask for to get the information I need.