Waste-to-energy hardly get the respect it deserves

Let me start with a simple question. How are we going to tackle the ever-growing mounds of waste problems when, globally, each year, we dump a massive 2.12 billion tons of it? Then, there’s another question: Is there an easy and straightforward answer to this question? Increased population, consumer culture, inadequate waste disposal facilities and lack of waste disposal awareness have been long identified as the basic causes of waste issues across the world. Different countries have different ways of tackling the problem, but the bigger question remains whether the methods being used are sustainable or the impacts are relatively low on the environment and people’s lives.

There are a number of ways waste can be treated. For example, incineration, plasma gasification (extreme thermal processes), pyrolysis (high temperature in absence of oxygen), dumps, landfills, biological waste treatment (composting, anaerobic digestion) etc. For many years, the incineration has been one of the most common ways of tackling the waste problem, but lately, generating energy in the form of heat and electricity from residual waste (general waste which are not easily recyclable) has become an emerging trend towards achieving environmental sustainability and circular economy goals.

It may sound bizarre how burning waste can be linked to environmental sustainability and circular economy goals. Compared to other methods, generating energy from residual waste is quicker, commercially viable and sustainable. Obviously, this process is far better than sending waste to the landfill and it is less carbon-intensive than coal. Time is of the essence too, it is no brainer that we need a quicker method to get rid of waste, otherwise the amount of waste will be increased over time, which will even usher in bigger problems for the present and the future generations to manage the impending crisis. Generating electricity and supply to the national grid to power millions of households is an effective way to combat energy crisis. In the process, it generates new jobs for the local communities.

To my mind, it is a win-win situation and meets the current needs without compromising the future generations’ ability to tackle waste problems. Therefore, in this case, sustainability and circular economy, in their broadest contexts, comprise not only environmental but it also embraces social and economic factors where everything has value and nothing is wasted. When we say, ‘nothing is wasted’, which effectively touches the core value of the circular economy. It is a start-to-finish circular concept that rejects the traditional economic approach, instead it embraces a new economic approach that opposes the usual narrative – ‘take-make- consume and dispose’ pattern of growth. 

As the waste-to-energy process gets rid of residual waste quicker and supports economic development and prosperity, hence attracting many interests around the world to build more waste-to-energy plants. According to the British government data, there are currently 90 interactions in the UK and 50more proposed. In China, there are now over 300 and another 200 currently under construction. In the United States, there are 84 waste-to-energy plants in operations.  

According to a recent report by Research and Markets, the world market for waste-to-energy is expected to grow at a combined annual growth rate of approximately 6.45% during the forecast period of 2020-2025. Clearly, there is an upward trend around the world. However, critics opine, it is not good enough and may not be the right yardstick for measuring success, as it pollutes the air by emitting noxious gases and particulates like carbon-dioxide, nitrous-oxides and fine particles, bottom ashes as by-products, vehicle emissions, and CO2 emissions from other activities. Critics go further saying that waste-to-energy process discourages waste recycling.

However, I believe these claims are quite ambiguous and the pollution concerns have been overblown. The opponents are extraordinarily good to sell the concept of fear, uncertainty, and doubt factors. It is quite easy to criticise, however, the critics have, so far, failed to come up with a cost-effective, viable and easy solution. The waste-to-energy plants operate under strict regulations (may vary country to country) which allow only minimum threshold of air emissions and any continuing breaches would be seriously dealt with by the government regulatory bodies. Ferrous metals are taken out from the left-over ashes to be processes to recycling centres, and the rest are sent to further processing to be used as an aggregate and very little remaining of which goes to the landfill sites.

Also, the argument about the process that discourages waste recycling is false as we are talking about generating energy from waste which are not easily recyclable. Besides, evidence have shown from the five European countries with the highest recycling rates (Germany, Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium) are amongst the countries with the most waste-to-energy facilities in Europe.

Surely, we should look for new technologies and more efficient ways of tackling waste as the credo of more stuff will continue to dominate, effectively the amount of waste will increase over time. Green innovations are great for the environment, but at present, we cannot just wait and hope for the new technologies to take over. We need to act now with a cost-effective and available technology that we have in our disposal. The state-of-art and expensive technology e.g., plasma gasification can emerge as triumphant in all environmental debates and talks but it is simply a convenient facade where the basics barely touch with the reality.

Moreover, the poorer countries are usually been side-lined in the prospects and potentials of new technologies. Can the poorer countries simply leapfrog to the new and expensive technologies that are being proposed by the critics? Waste is a universal menace, and we need to tackle the problem head- on and hence it is required to get everyone on-board. The waste-to-energy is doing that and should get the respect it deserves. That does not mean waste-to-energy process can rest on its laurels, rather in time, it needs to get technologically better.
 

Integrated waste management approach is long overdue in Bangladesh

Bangladesh has a huge population approximately over 160 million and it is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. One can imagine the size of its enormous waste that could be generated, in particular, by the domestic, industrial and commercial activities in the larger cities. The urban area of Bangladesh generates approximately 16,015 tons of waste per day, which adds up to over 5.84 million tons annually. It is projected that this amount will grow up to 47,000 tons/day and close to 17.16 million tons per year by 2025, due to growth both in population and the increase in per capita waste generation (Country Analysis Paper Draft BANGLADESH, Bangladesh Third Meeting of the Regional 3R Forum in Asia Technology, Singapore, 5-7 October 2011). 

Waste is no longer regarded as waste these days. It is considered as extra sources of revenue if you can make use of unwanted materials. It may sound very strange, but it is true. Countries that have managed to establish efficient waste management and recycling systems are earning substantial amount of money by providing complete recycling and resource management services (by their public and private companies) to the local communities, effectively creating new jobs, better quality of environment and improved public health. Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysis predicts boom in global waste industry as resource crunch bites. The report says Global waste industry could double to $2tn by 2020 (Murrey, 09 April 2013 in Business Green Sustainable Thinking). Bangladesh should not miss out the opportunities to develop and expand its existing waste management systems. An integrated waste management approach is long overdue in the face of rapid creation of waste, which eventually will help Bangladesh stepping towards a sustainable future. 

Waste Concern; a social business enterprise founded in 1995 has been working with a vision to tackle waste issues in Bangladesh. Waste Concern Group was formed to achieve a common vision to contribute towards waste recycling, environmental improvement, renewable energy, poverty reduction through job creation, and sustainable development (http://www.wasteconcern.org/). It is a drop in the ocean but a huge step forward. There are also irregular small scale (informal) recycling centres are growing around the country. If they are managed and organised properly then it is possible to revitalise the local economy. On the other hand, a caveat, having hundreds of recycling centres wouldn’t help if the recycling centre employees do not practice what they preach. Meaning if they dump their unwanted materials as waste into the local drains, water courses or fly-tipping (illegal dumping) to open lands, then the purpose of doing recycling business would be useless. Therefore, waste legislations should dictate how waste should be managed and disposed. Also, appropriate environmental training and education are essential for those who run casual recycling centres. 

On 29th December 2011, Bangladesh Government had launched a National 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) waste management strategy, which was developed in collaboration with the support from The United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD),Government of Japan and Waste Concern would support waste reduction, reuse, recycle and appropriate disposal of waste. It is hardly surprising that a new set of National Waste Strategy was required to resolve waste related problems; however, at this point it feels like the strategy should have been adapted at some point earlier in time. Under the national 3R goal for waste management, complete elimination of waste disposal on open dumps, rivers, flood plains were to be achieved by 2015. As well as promoting recycling of waste through mandatory segregation of waste at source, create a market for recycled products and also to provide incentives for recycling of waste (National 3R Strategy for Waste Management, Government of Bangladesh, 2010). However, the dream could yet to become true, having different ranges of other priorities, the deadline year 2015 seemed too near considering the implementation costs, lack of institutional and infrastructure facilities, amount of waste and public cooperation in achieving above mentioned goals. 

Apart from the lack of financial, institutional and infrastructure facilities, the crux of the matter is to raise public awareness in order to change their behaviour and practices. Changing the mind-set, internal culture or behaviour is the hardest thing. A genuine commitment across the general public is required at all levels and in all sectors for meaningful change to occur. It is noteworthy to mention that my observation in early 1990s in Sweden was an excellent one. I came across many times extraordinary behaviour and practices among general public when it came to respect to the common good and understanding the potential risks from waste. Someone behind you would pick up the rubbish and put it in the nearest bin if you had thrown it on the street. It took Swedes over many generations to build up this kind of attitude, also some of the environmental problems e.g. effects of acid rain in 1980s raised green consciousness even stronger. In the context of Bangladesh, it is still a long way to go to enshrine such mentality as the irresponsible practices of handling and disposing waste on individual level has been going on for so long that people consider it part of their daily routines.

With the increasing amount of waste that is generated, Bangladesh has fallen behind in waste handling and disposing and will fall even further if the waste issues are not taken very seriously and the conclusion drawn is that it has to be at the forefront of environmental sustainably agenda.

Do you think you can get away with greenwashing? Think again!

In the past, understanding of green and non-green products and its impacts on the environment and human health were little-known. Over time, the environmental knowledge continues to grow among public and the society as a whole; hence it has become inevitable that the production of goods and services are expected to be eco-friendlier. However, in the midst, there are still many who continue to spend needlessly more money and time, falsely claiming that their products are eco-friendly. It is time to distinguish between green winners and greenwashing.

Since the environmental movement gained momentum in mid 60s, many companies rushed to create green images to stay on competitive advantage, without looking at the consequences what might happen if their false claims were to be found out, and how harder it would be to rebuild the good reputation again. Companies or business organisations can no longer play with people’s mind while promoting misleading environmental claims through so called ‘green marketing’. In the USA & EU, there have been some environmental regulations which were developed and even modified the existing legislations to counter these issues. For example, the US Federal Trade Commission updated its environmental marketing guidelines to intervene when businesses are falsely claiming that their products are green and European law requires that advertisers list their CO2 emissions in advertisements.

However, the question is - how the customers will know about the green products if the business organisations do not disclose the information? Customers should ask the questions and create pressure on the businesses to reveal the truth of the environmental claims. In this context, Corporate Reporting has been playing its priceless role separating between green heroes and greenwashing, however yet in many cases the consistency and accessibility to quality data have not been satisfactory, therefore it is important that the information in the reporting is accurate, verifiable, consistent and clear.

It is a fact that Corporate Reporting on economic, environmental and social issues has entered a new phase. It has moved from an experimental phase to a standard practice. In its recent survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017, KPMG found that the majority (78 percent) of the world’s top companies (G250) now do this, indicating that they believe CR data is relevant for their investors. The practice has shown remarkable growth in recent years: in KPMG’s 2011 survey only a minority 44 percent of G250 companies included CR data in their annual reports. Among the N100, the underlying trend is also one of growth, with the rate of companies including CR data in their annual reports up to 60 percent in 2017. There has been a particularly significant increase in the number of US N100 companies integrating CR information into their financial reporting – 81 of the top 100 US companies now do this compared with only 30 just two years ago in 2015.

Finally, those who are still thinking that they can get away with greenwashing, they should think again. Business organisations should grab the green opportunities as the sources of strength rather than barriers to their business growth. Greenwashing is not just worth anymore. Customers will find out and you as a business will lose the integrity and credibility.

Is plastic the main problem or what we choose to do with it?

Plastic pollution is not a recent phenomenon; it has been there for many years. Based on various types and sizes, plastics have been polluting the wildlife habitats, environment and human population since it was invented more than hundred years ago. Until recently, we have realised that the pollution crisis have reached to pandemic proportions. BBC series ‘Blue Planet II’ presented by the famous natural history presenter David Attenborough, who eloquently explained and showed some of the shocking images how plastic waste are polluting our oceans. It is estimated that eight million metric tons of plastics end up in our oceans each year. Furthermore another estimated 150 million metric tons currently circulating our oceans. According to research by The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, by 2050 the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish. Plastics are basically everywhere from shopping bags to packaging materials, rigid plastics, foams, nylons, cigarette filter tips, synthetic fibres in clothing and even in the cosmetics as micro-beads. A single shower could result in 100,000 plastic particles entering the ocean. We are living in a plastic world, and it is one at a scale that we simply cannot ignore. Plastics are even finding its way to human food chains and we still do not understand the full extent of the human health impacts.

Plastics are very popular around the world due to its physical properties and cost-effectiveness. It is light, can be easily shaped, strong and cheaper compared to its other contenders. That is why plastics have reached to every corner of the planet and the rapid growth of plastic users after the post-world war 2 scenarios have been staggering. The uses of plastics have grown exponentially in the last 70 years without realising its negative effects. Now, we are trying to turn the wheel around but how? The questions to be asked are – what can we do about the pandemic of plastic pollution? Is plastic the main problem or what we choose to do with it?

‘Beating plastic pollution’ has been the theme for 2018 UN Environment Day, which has raised a lot of public awareness around the world and many countries have taken substantial steps to beat the plastic pollution. Many European countries have introduced a levy on plastic bags. China is one of the biggest users of plastics has implemented a ban on thin plastics. India’s Prime Minister has recently pledged to eliminate all single-use plastics in the country by 2022, with an immediate ban in Delhi. Bangladesh Government banned plastic bags in 2002 for different reasons; however it is now helping to limit the pollution levels. Not only governments but also many private companies, NGOs, charities etc. are now refusing single-use of plastics. The Coca-Cola Company has promised to make bottles containing a higher percentage of recycled plastic packaging to be reused and recycled. Despite the progress being made, we are way behind tackling the problems. It is therefore the momentum to beat plastic pollution should continue to progress. A train certainly has started rolling from its breakdown but it needs to roll faster.

Our society has been enjoying the benefits of plastics over hundred years but at the same time we let the plastic pollution go for too long. We didn’t realise that the pollution levels would be skyrocketed in such an astonishing way. Even If we completely stop using the plastics from today, it will still take hundreds of years to be non-traceable in the ecosystems and the environment, or it may never be fully recovered. Instead of blaming the plastics, the main attention should be on how the plastics get into the oceans? Why are there so many gaps in consumers’ knowledge and behaviours? The answers to these questions are very straight forward, yet they are complex as they have got socio-economic and cultural factors associated.

Public knowledge and behaviour vary widely from country to country. It happens often in the developing countries, people throw all sorts of things on the street including plastic packaging e.g. shopping bags, bottles, and food packaging etc., thinking it is government’s job to clean up. Plastics are comparatively lighter than other packaging products, therefore there is a greater risk that it will be blown away by wind to the roadside drains, ditches, canals, rivers and finally find its way to the oceans. Even in the richer part of the world, we have witnessed time and again in our holidays that people leave behind their rubbish after spending time on the sea beach. It could be purely due to lack of knowledge or laziness – people do not want to walk up to 100 meters to dispose their rubbish in the appropriate recycling bins. They are not bothered if plastic straws or bottles end up in the ocean, they may have the knowledge but do not care about the impacts of plastics on marine life.

To reduce plastic pollution, the behavioural issues are particularly complicated. The changes of behaviour will not occur until people understand the adverse effects of plastic pollution. No matter how many regulations will be brought into by the Government but it will not work. Citizens cannot just wash their hands off, thinking they are exempted to participate. They should be doing their parts too. We cannot expect that the Government will get all the necessary done without the help from the citizens. What Government can do? They can provide more waste management and recycling facilities, more awareness campaign activities, making sure the recycling plastic is economically viable, promote educational activities in the schools and looking for further opportunities to close the gaps. In order to carry out these activities, huge investments are required, but where will the funds come from? Environmental priorities always go at the bottom of the list when there are other so called important issues to be tackled.

Plastics cannot be completely eliminated as it has got many benefits. Society must strive to create sustainable plastics supply chain that benefits both the environment and economy. One of the biggest challenges in our hands is that the use of plastics will increase across the globe but collection and recycling efforts will not grow simultaneously, therefore we will fail to keep up with the pace. It says where there is a problem, there is an opportunity. I believe there are real opportunities particularly for the developing countries to turn this plastic menace to a profitable business by improving the Health, Safety and Welfare at work, CSR & Sustainability practices within the waste management and recycling sectors.