Recycling is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. This is an alternative to "conventional" waste disposal that can save materials and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions (compared to plastics production, for example). Recycling can prevent waste of potentially useful materials and reduce consumption of fresh raw materials, thereby reducing: energy use, air pollution (from combustion), and water pollution (from landfill).
Recycling is a key component of modern waste reduction and is the third component of the "Reduce, Rework, and Recycle" waste hierarchy. Thus, recycling aims at environmental sustainability by replacing the input of raw materials into and directing the output of waste out of the economic system.
There are several ISO standards related to recycling such as ISO 15270: 2008 for waste plastics and ISO 14001: 2004 for environmental management control of recycling practices.
Recyclable materials cover many types of glass, paper, and cardboard, metals, plastics, tires, textiles, and electronics. Composting or reuse of other biodegradable waste - such as food or garden waste - is also considered to be recycled. Materials to be recycled are brought to a collection center or taken from the curb, then sorted, cleaned, and reprocessed into new materials intended for manufacture.
In the strictest sense, recycling of a material will produce a new supply of the same material - for example, used office paper will be converted into new office paper or polystyrene foam used into the new polystyrene. However, this is often difficult or too expensive (compared to producing the same product from raw materials or other sources), so that the "recycling" of many products or materials involves reusing them in producing different materials (eg , carton) instead. Another form of recycling is the saving of certain materials from complex products, either because of their intrinsic value (such as lead from car batteries, or gold from circuit boards), or because of its dangerous nature (eg, the removal and reuse of mercury from thermometers and thermostat).
Video Recycling
History
Origins
Recycling has become a common practice for most of human history, with the noted supporters as far back as Plato in the fourth century BC. During periods when resources are scarce and hard to come by, archaeological studies on ancient waste disposal show fewer household wastes (such as ash, broken tools, and pottery) - imply more waste is being recycled in the absence of new materials.
In pre-industrial times, there was evidence of bronze and other metals collected in Europe and melted for reuse forever. Paper recycling was first recorded in 1031 when Japanese stores sold paper that was revoked. In the UK dust and ash from wood and coal fire are collected by "dust" and recycled as the base material used in the manufacture of bricks. The main driver for this type of recycling is the economic benefit of obtaining recycled raw materials rather than acquiring virgin material, as well as the lack of removal of public waste in more populous areas. In 1813, Benjamin Law developed the process of transforming fabric into "bad" and "mungo" wools in Batley, Yorkshire. This material combines recycled fiber with virgin wool. The ugly industry of West Yorkshire in cities such as Batley and Dewsbury lasted from the early 19th century until at least 1914.
Industrialization encourages demand for affordable materials; other than cloth, metal scrap metal is more coveted because the price is cheaper than the virgin ore. The railway bought and sold scrap metal in the 19th century, and the growing steel and automobile industry bought used goods in the early 20th century. Many secondary items are collected, processed and sold by peddlers who are exploring landfills and city streets to dispose of machines, pots, pans, and other metal sources. In World War I, thousands of such merchants roamed the streets of American cities, taking advantage of market forces to recycle post-consumer materials back into industrial production.
The drink bottles are recycled with a refundable deposit in some British and Irish beverage manufacturers around 1800, mainly Schweppes. The official recycling system with a refundable deposit was established in Sweden for bottles in 1884 and aluminum beverage cans in 1982; the law has resulted in recycling rates for drinks containers of 84-99 percent depending on the type, and glass bottles can be recharged more than 20 times the average.
Wartime
The new chemical industries created in the late 19th century both found new materials (eg Bakelite [1907]) and promised to convert values ​​into valuable materials. You can not make a silk wallet from a pig's ear - until US company Arhur D. Little published in 1921 "On Making a Silk Wallet from a Cow Ear", his research proves that when "chemistry puts on overalls and goes down to business... value- new values ​​emerge, new paths and better opened to achieve desired goals. "
Recycling (or "rescue", as it is usually known) was a major problem for the government during World War II. Financial constraints and significant material shortages due to war effort make it necessary for countries to reuse goods and recyclables. This lack of resources is caused by world wars, and other events that change the world, strongly encouraging recycling. The war struggle claims a lot of available material resources, leaving little for civilians. It becomes important for most homes to recycle their waste, since recycling offers an additional source of material that allows people to take advantage of what is available to them. Household recycling means more resources for war effort and better chance of winning. Major government promotional campaigns, such as the UK National Rescue Campaign and the Rescue for Victory campaign in the United States, were conducted in front of homes in every warring country, urging citizens to donate metals, paper, cloth and rubber as a matter of patriotism.
Post World War II
Significant investment in recycling occurred in the 1970s, due to rising energy costs. Aluminum recycling uses only 5% of the energy required by virgin production; glass, paper and other metals have significantly less dramatic but significant energy savings when recycled raw materials are used.
Although consumer electronics such as televisions have been popular since the 1920s, recycling was almost unheard of until early 1991. The first electronic waste recycling scheme was undertaken in Switzerland, beginning with a collection of old refrigerators but gradually evolving to cover all devices. Once this scheme is created, many countries do not have the capacity to handle the quantity of electronic waste produced or its harmful nature. They start exporting problems to developing countries without enforced environmental regulations. This is cheaper, because recycled computer monitors in the United States cost 10 times more than in China. Demand in Asia for electronic waste began to grow when scrap yards discovered that they could extract valuable substances such as copper, silver, iron, silicon, nickel, and gold, during the recycling process. The 2000s saw a large increase in the sales of electronic devices and their growth as a waste stream: in 2002, e-waste grew faster than other types of waste in the EU. This led to investments in modern and automated facilities to cope with excessive entry of equipment, especially after strict laws were implemented in 2003.
In 2014, the EU has about 50% of the world share of the waste and recycling industry, with more than 60,000 companies employing 500,000 people, with a turnover of EUR24 billion. Countries should reach recycling rates of at least 50%, while countries lead about 65% and the EU average is 39% by 2013.
Maps Recycling
Legislation
Supply
In order for a recycling program to work, the supply of highly recyclable materials is critical. Three legislative options have been used to create supplies such as: mandatory recycling collection, container storage legislation, and refuse restrictions. The collection law is required to set recycling targets for municipal purposes, usually in the form that a certain percentage of a material must be diverted from the municipal waste stream on the target date. The city is then responsible for working to meet this target.
Container storage laws involve refunds for the return of certain containers, usually glass, plastics, and metals. When a product in the container is purchased, a small additional cost is added to the price. This additional cost can be reclaimed by the consumer if the container is returned to the collection point. These programs are very successful, often resulting in 80% recycling rates. Despite these good results, shifts in billing costs from local governments to industries and consumers have created strong opposition to the making of these programs in some areas. The variation on this is where manufacturers bear responsibility for recycling their goods. In the European Union, the WEEE Directive requires the consumer electronics manufacturers to reimburse the recycler fee.
An alternative way to increase the supply of recyclables is to prohibit the disposal of certain materials as waste, often including used oil, used batteries, tires, and garden waste. One of the goals of this method is to create a viable economy for the proper disposal of forbidden products. It should be noted that quite a number of these recycling services exist, or such restrictions only lead to increased illegal disposal.
Government required requests
Legislation has also been used to improve and maintain the demand for recycled materials. There are four such legislative methods: the mandate of minimum recycling content, utilization rates, procurement policies, and labeling of recycled products.
Both the minimum recycle content mandate and utilization rate increase demand directly by forcing manufacturers to include recycling in their operations. The content of the mandate specifies that a certain percentage of a new product must consist of recycled materials. Utilization rates are a more flexible option: industries are allowed to meet recycling targets at any point of their operations or even engage in recycling contracts in exchange for tradable credit. Opponents of both of these methods showed a large increase in their reporting requirements, and claimed that they robbed the industry of the necessary flexibility.
The government has used their own purchasing power to increase recycling demand through so-called "procurement policies." These policies are "set-aside", which reserves a specific amount of expenditure on recycled products, or "price preference" programs that provide larger budgets when recycled goods are purchased. Additional regulations may target specific cases: in the United States, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency mandates the purchase of oil, paper, tires and building insulation from recycled sources or refined sources whenever possible.
The latest government regulation on increasing demand is the labeling of recycled products. When manufacturers are asked to label their packaging with the amount of recycled materials in the product (including packaging), consumers are better able to make educated choices. Consumers with sufficient purchasing power can then opt for a more environmentally conscious option, producers soon to increase the amount of recycled materials in their products, and indirectly increase demand. Standard recycling labeling can also have a positive effect on the supply of recycling if labeling includes information about how and where the product can be recycled.
Recycle
Recycling is the raw material delivered to, and processed at waste recycling plants or materials recovery facilities that will be used to form new products. The material is collected in various methods and sent to the facility where it undergoes re-manufacturing so that it can be used in the production of new materials or products. For example, collected plastic bottles can be reused and made into plastic pellets, new products.
Recycled quality
Recycling quality is recognized as one of the key challenges that need to be addressed for the successful long-term vision of green economy and achieving zero waste. The quality of recycling generally refers to how much raw material consists of the target material compared to the amount of non-targeted material and other non-recyclable materials. Only the target material is likely to be recycled, so higher non-target and non-recycled material quantities will reduce the quantity of recycled products. The high proportion of non-target and non-recyclable materials can complicate the process of re-processor to achieve "high-quality" recycling. If recycling is of poor quality, it will most likely end up with a down cycle or, in more extreme cases, sent to other recovery options or stockpiled. For example, to facilitate the re-manufacturing of clear glass products there are strict restrictions for colored glass going into the re-melting process.
The quality of recycling not only supports high quality recycling, but also can provide significant environmental benefits by reducing, reusing and keeping products from landfills. High quality recycling can help support economic growth by maximizing the economic value of the collected waste material. Higher income levels from quality recycled sales can bring significant value to local governments, households and businesses. Pursuing high quality recyclables can also provide consumer and business trust in the waste and resource management sectors and can encourage investment in the sector.
There are many actions along the recycling supply chain that can affect and affect the quality of recycled materials. This starts with a waste producer that places non-target waste and can not be recycled in recycling collection. This may affect the quality of the final recycling stream or require further effort to dispose of the material at a later stage in the recycling process. Different collection systems can produce different levels of contamination. Depending on the collected material, extra effort is required to re-sort this material into separate streams and can significantly reduce the quality of the final product. Transportation and material compaction can make it more difficult to separate the material back into a separate waste stream. Sorting facilities are not one hundred percent effective in separating materials, although technological improvements and recycling quality can degrade recyclate quality. Storage of materials outside, where the product can become wet, may cause problems for the re-processor. The reprocessing facility may require further sorting steps to reduce the number of non-target and non-recyclable materials. Every action along the recycling line plays a role in the quality of recycling.
Quality asset quality (Scotland)
The Scottish Reconciliation Quality Action Plan sets out a number of proposed actions that the Scottish Government wants to improve the quality of materials collected for recycling and disaggregation in materials recovery facilities before being exported or sold to the reprocessing market.
The purpose of the plan is to:
- Improve recycling quality.
- Provides better transparency about recycling quality.
- Provide assistance to those who contract with materials recycling facilities to identify what is required of them
- Ensure compliance with Waste (Scotland) 2012 regulations.
- Stimulate the household market for quality recycling.
- Address and reduce issues around the Trash Delivery Policy.
The plan focuses on three key areas, with fourteen actions identified to improve the quality of the materials collected, sorted and presented to a processing market in Scotland.
Three focus areas are:
- Input collection and contamination system
- Sorting facility - material samples and transparency
- Setting quality and quality standards
Recycling consumer waste
Collection
A number of different systems have been applied to collect recyclables from common waste streams. The system is located along a spectrum of trade-offs between public convenience and ease and government spending. The three main collection categories are "downtown", "repurchase center", and "curbside collection".
The collection of sidewalks
The curb collection includes many very different systems, which are very different where in this process the recycling is sorted and cleared. The main categories are mixed waste collection, recycling waste, and resource segregation. Garbage collector vehicles generally pick up trash.
At one end of the spectrum is the collection of mixed waste, where all recyclables are collected mixed with waste residue, and the desired material is then sorted and cleaned at the central sorting facility. This results in large amounts of recyclable waste, especially paper, which is too dirty to be reprocessed, but has the advantage too: cities do not have to pay for separate recycling pooling and no public education is required. Any changes to recyclable materials are easy to accommodate because all sorting takes place in a central location.
In a mixed or single flow system, all recyclable items for collection are mixed but stored separately from other wastes. This greatly reduces the need for post-collection cleaning but does require public education on what materials can be recycled.
Separation source
Source separation is another extreme, where every material is cleaned and sorted before collection. This method requires the least post-collection sorting and produces the purest recycler, but incurs additional operating costs for the collection of each separate material. An extensive public education program is also needed, which should be successful if recycled contamination should be avoided.
Source separation is used to be the preferred method because of the high segregation costs incurred by mixed waste. However, advances in sorting technology have lowered this substantial cost substantially. Many areas have developed source separation programs since turning to so-called co-mingled collections .
Repurchase center
The repurchase center is different because cleaned recyclables are purchased, thus providing a clear incentive to use and creating a stable supply. Processed materials can then be sold. If this is profitable, it saves emissions of greenhouse gases; if unprofitable, it increases greenhouse gas emissions. Government subsidies are needed to make repurchase centers a viable company. In 1993, according to National Waste & amp; US. The Recycling Association, it costs an average of US $ 50 to process a ton of material, which can be resold for US $ 30.
In the US, the value per ton of recycled mixture is US $ 180 in 2011, US $ 80 in 2015, and $ US $ 100 in 2017.
By 2017, glass is essentially worthless, because of the low cost of sand, its main component; low oil costs preclude recycling of plastics.
In 2017, Napa, California earned a replacement of about 20% of recycled costs.
Decrease center
The drop-off center requires waste manufacturers to bring recycling to a central location, either the installed or mobile collection station or the reprocessing plant itself. They are the easiest type of collection to build but suffer from low throughput and are unpredictable.
Distributed recycling
For some waste materials such as plastics, a technical device recently called recyclebots enables a distributed recycling form. Early life cycle analysis (LCA) shows that distributed HDPE recycling to make 3-D printer filaments in rural areas is very advantageous either using pure resins or conventional recycling processes due to a reduction in transport energy.
Sorting
After recycled mixtures are collected and sent to a central collection facility, different types of materials should be sorted. This is done in a series of stages, many of which involve automated processes so that truckloads can be fully sorted in less than an hour. Some plants can now sort the material automatically, known as a single flow recycle. In plants, various materials are sorted like paper, various types of plastic, glass, metal, food scraps, and most types of batteries. A 30 percent increase in recycling rates has been seen in areas where these plants exist.
Initially, mixed recycling is removed from collecting vehicles and placed on a conveyor belt scattered in one layer. Large pieces of fiber boards and plastic bags are released by hand at this stage, as they can cause congestion later on.
Furthermore, automatic machines such as disk screens and air classifiers separate heavy recycling, separating lighter paper and plastic from heavier glass and metal. Cartons removed from mixed paper and most common plastic types, PET (# 1) and HDPE (# 2), are collected. This separation is usually done by hand but has become automatic in several sorting centers: the spectroscopic scanner is used to distinguish between different types of paper and plastic based on absorbed wavelengths, and then divert each material into the proper collection channel.
Strong magnets are used to separate ferrous metals, such as iron, steel, and cans. Non-iron metal is released by magnetic eddy currents in which a rotating magnetic field induces an electric current around an aluminum can, which in turn creates a magnetic eddy current in the can. This magnetic eddy current is repulsed by a large magnetic field, and the cans are removed from the rest of the recyclate stream.
Finally, glass is sorted by color: brown, orange, green, or clear. These can be sorted by hand, or via automatic machines that use colored filters to detect different colors. Pieces of glass smaller than 10 millimeters (0.39 inches) can not be sorted automatically, and mixed together as "glass fines."
This recycling process as well as the reuse of recycled materials has proved beneficial because it reduces the amount of waste sent to landfills, conserves natural resources, saves energy, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and helps create new jobs. Recycled materials can also be converted into new products that can be consumed again, such as paper, plastic, and glass.
The City and San Francisco County Environmental Department is trying to achieve the entire city's goal of generating zero waste by 2020. San Francisco garbage collectors Recology operates an effective recycling sorting facility in San Francisco, which helps San Francisco achieve record-breaking levels of diversion 80%.
Rinse
Food packaging should no longer contain organic matter (organic matter, if any, needs to be placed in biodegradable trash or buried in the garden). Since no remaining biodegradable material is best stored in the packaging before placing it in a garbage bag, some packages also need to be rinsed.
Industrial waste recycling
Although many government programs are concentrated on home recycling, 64% of waste in the UK is produced by industry. The focus of many industrial recycling programs is the cost-effectiveness of recycling. The ubiquitous nature of cardboard packaging makes cardboard a recyclable waste product common to companies that deal with packaged goods, such as retail stores, warehouses, and goods distributors. Other industries handle a niche or specialty product, depending on the nature of the existing waste material.
Manufacturers of glass, wood, pulp and paper all face to face with ordinary recycled materials; However, old rubber tires can be collected and recycled by independent tire dealers for profit.
The level of metal recycling is generally low. In 2010, the International Resources Panel, organized by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), published a report on the stock of existing metals in the community and their recycling rates. The Panel reports that increased use of metals during the 20th and 21st centuries has led to a substantial shift in metal stocks from underground for use in applications in above-ground societies. For example, copper stocks used in the US grew from 73 to 238 kg per capita between 1932 and 1999.
The authors of the report observed that, since metals could be recycled inherently, metal stocks in society could function as large mines on the ground (the term "urban mine ) had been created with this idea in mind.) However, they found that the cycle rate repeated many very low metals.The report warns that the recycling rates of some rare metals used in applications such as mobile phones, battery packs for hybrid cars and fuel cells, are so low that unless the dramatic end-use recycling rates dramatically improved metal- This important metal will become unavailable for use in modern technology.
The military recycles some metals. The US Navy Ship Disposal Program uses ship termination to reclaim old steel vessels. The ship can also sink to create artificial corals. Uranium is a highly dense metal that has superior quality for lead and titanium for many military and industrial uses. The remaining uranium from processing it to nuclear weapons and fuel for nuclear reactors is called depleted uranium, and is used by all branches of US military use for shells and steel protective shields.
The construction industry can recycle old road surface concrete and sidewalks, selling their waste materials for profit.
Some industries, such as the renewable energy industry and photovoltaic solar technology, in particular, become proactive in preparing recycling policies even before there is substantial volume into their waste stream, anticipating future demand during its rapid growth.
Plastic recycling is more difficult, as most programs can not achieve the required level of quality. Recycling of PVC often results in material degradation, which means only products with lower quality standards can be made with recycled materials. A new approach that allows the same level of quality is the Vinyloop process. It was used after the London 2012 Olympics to comply with PVC Policy.
Recycling electronic waste
E-waste is a growing problem, accounting for 20-50 million metric tons of global waste per year according to the EPA. It is also the fastest growing waste stream in the EU. Many recyclers do not recycle e-waste responsibly. After the Khian Sea cargo barge dumped 14,000 metric tons of toxic ash in Haiti, the Basel Convention was formed to stem the flow of harmful substances into poor countries. They create e-Stewards certification to ensure that recyclers are held to the highest standards for environmental responsibility and to help consumers identify responsible recyclers. It works in conjunction with other prominent legislation, such as the EU Electronic Electrical and Electronic Equipment Guidelines of the US National Computer Recycling Act, to prevent toxic chemicals from entering the waters and the atmosphere.
In the recycling process, television sets, monitors, cell phones, and computers are usually tested for reuse and repair. If damaged, they can be disassembled because spare parts still have a high value if the labor is cheap enough. Other e-wastes are cut into approximately 10 centimeters (3.9 inches) in size, and are manually inspected to separate toxic batteries and capacitors containing toxic metals. The remaining pieces are then shredded up to 10 millimeters (0.39 inches) and passed under a magnet to remove the ferrous metal. Eddy currents emit non-ferrous metals, which are sorted by density by either a centrifuge or a vibrating plate. Precious metals can be dissolved in acid, sorted, and melted into ingots. The remaining glass and plastic shards are separated by density and sold to re-processors. TV sets and monitors must be disassembled manually to remove lead from CRT or mercury backlight from LCD.
Plastic recycling
Plastic recycling is the process of restoring residual or plastic waste and reprocessing the material into useful products, sometimes completely different in shape from its original state. For example, this could mean melting a soft drink bottle and then spreading it as a plastic chair and table.
Physical recycling
Some plastics are rejuvenated to form new plastic objects; for example, a PET bottle of water can be converted into a polyester intended for clothing. The disadvantage of this type of recycling is that the molecular weight of the polymer may change further and the degree of unwanted substance in the plastic can increase with each remelt.
Chemical recycling
For some polymers, it is possible to convert them back into monomers, for example, PET can be treated with alcohols and catalysts to form dialkyl terephthalate. The terephthalate tester may be used with ethylene glycol to form a new polyester polymer, making it possible to use more pure polymers.
Plastic pyrolysis waste to fuel oil
Another process involves converting various polymers into petroleum by a much less precise depolymerization process. Such a process would be able to accept virtually any polymer or polymer blend, including thermoset materials such as vulcanized rubber tires and biopolymers in feathers and other agricultural wastes. Like natural oils, the chemicals produced can be used as fuel or as raw materials. RESEM Plants This type of technology in Carthage, Missouri, USA, uses turkey waste as a feedstock. Gasification is a similar process but not technically recycled because the polymer is unlikely to be the result. Plastic pyrolysis can change the flow of petroleum-based waste such as plastics into high-quality fuel, carbon. Given below is a list of plastic raw materials suitable for pyrolysis:
- Mixed plastic (HDPE, LDPE, PE, PP, Nylon, Teflon, PS, ABS, FRP, etc.)
- Mix the plastic waste from the used paper mill
- Plastics in layers
Recycle recycling
The recycling process (ideal) can be divided into three loops, one for manufacturing (recycling of production waste) and two for product disposal (product and recycled materials).
The product-making phase, which consists of materials processing and fabrication, forms the recycling of waste-recycled production. Industrial waste materials are put back into, and reused, the same production process.
The product disposal process requires two recycling rounds: product recycling and recycled materials . Products or product parts are reused in the product recycling phase . This happens in one of two ways: the product is used to maintain the product function ("reuse") or the product continues to use but with the changed function ("further use"). Product design is not modified, or modified only slightly, in both scenarios.
Product disassembly requires material recycling in which product material is recovered and recycled. Ideally, the material is processed so that it can flow back to the production process.
Recycle code
To meet the needs of the recycler while providing a consistent and uniform system, coding systems are developed. The recycling code for plastics was introduced in 1988 by the plastics industry through the Society of the Plastics Industry. Because city recycling programs have traditionally targeted packaging - mainly bottles and containers - resin coding systems offer a way of identifying the resin contents of bottles and containers commonly found in residential waste streams.
Plastic products are printed with numbers 1-7 depending on the type of resin. Type 1 (polyethylene terephthalate) is commonly found in soft drinks and bottled water. Type 2 (high-density polyethylene) is found in most hard plastics such as milk jugs, detergent bottles, and some cutlery. Type 3 (polyvinyl chloride) includes items such as shampoo bottles, shower curtains, hula hoops, credit cards, jacketing wire, medical equipment, walls, and piping. Type 4 (low density polyethylene) is found in shopping bags, influenced bottles, handbags, clothing, furniture, and carpets. Type 5 is polypropylene and makes bottles of syrup, straws, Tupperware, and some automotive components. Type 6 is polystyrene and makes meat trays, egg cartons, clamshell containers, and compact disc boxes. Type 7 covers all other plastics such as bulletproof material, 3 and 5 gallon water bottles, and sunglasses. Having a recycled code or arrows chasing a logo on a material is not an automatic indicator that a material can be recycled but rather an explanation of its material. Types 1 and 2 are the most frequently recycled.
Economic impact
Critics have denied the clean economic and environmental benefits of recycling at their expense, and show that recycling supporters often make matters worse and suffer from confirmatory bias. In particular, critics argue that the costs and energy used in collection and transportation reduce (and exceed) the costs and energy stored in the production process; also that the work produced by the recycling industry can be a bad trade for lost jobs in logging, mining, and other industries related to production; and that pulp-like materials can only be recycled several times before material degradation prevents further recycling.
The National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA), reported in May 2015, that recycling and waste make a $ 6.7 billion economic impact in Ohio, USA, and employs 14,000 people.
Cost-benefit analysis
There is some debate as to whether recycling is economically efficient. According to the Natural Resources Board research, garbage collection and landfill disposal produces less than one job per 1,000 tons of waste materials managed; In contrast, the collection, processing, and manufacture of recycled materials create 6-13 jobs or more per 1,000 tons. However, the cost-effectiveness of creating additional jobs remains unproven. According to the US Recycling Economic Information Study, there are more than 50,000 recycling organizations that have created more than one million jobs in the US.
Two years after New York City declared that implementing a recycling program would "drain energy in the city", New York City leaders realized that an efficient recycling system could save the city more than $ 20 million. Municipalities often see the fiscal benefits of the implementation of recycling programs, primarily because of the reduced cost of waste dumps. A study by the Danish Engineering University according to the Economist found that in 83 percent of cases, recycling is the most efficient method of disposing of household waste. However, a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Agency concluded that combustion was the most effective method of disposing of beverage containers, even those made of aluminum.
Fiscal efficiency is separate from economic efficiency. Economic analysis of recycling does not include so-called economists as externalities, which are the unappreciated costs and benefits gained to individuals outside of personal transactions. Examples include: reducing air pollution and greenhouse gases from incineration, reducing hazardous waste from landfills, reducing energy consumption, and reducing waste and resource consumption, leading to reduced mining and environmentally damaging wood activities. About 4,000 minerals are known, in which only a few hundred are relatively common. Known phosphorus reserves will be depleted within the next 100 years with current usage levels. Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies to internalize externalities, businesses can ignore it even if there are fees imposed on society. To make such nonfiscal benefits relevant economically, proponents have encouraged legislative action to increase demand for recycled materials. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded support for recycling, saying that the recycling effort reduced the country's carbon emissions by 49 million metric tons net in 2005. In the UK, the Waste and Resource Action Program states that Great Britain's recycling efforts reducing CO 2 emissions by 10-15 million tons per year. Recycling is more efficient in densely populated areas, because there is an economic scale involved.
Certain requirements must be met for recycling to be economically feasible and environmentally sound. These include adequate recycling resources, a system for extracting recyclables from waste streams, nearby factories capable of reprocessing recyclables, and potential demand for recycled products. The latter two requirements are often ignored - without industrial markets for production using collected materials and consumer markets for manufactured goods, incomplete recycling and in fact just "collections".
Julian Simon's free market economist said, "There are three ways people can manage sewerage: (a) rule, (b) guide taxes and subsidies, and (c) deliver it to individuals and markets." These principles appear to share today's economic thinker.
Frank Ackerman supports high-level government intervention to provide recycling services. He believes that the benefits of recycling can not be effectively quantified by the traditional laissez-faire economy. Allen Hershkowitz supports the intervention, saying that it is a public service equivalent to education and police. He argues that producers must bear more of the burden of waste disposal.
Paul Calcott and Margaret Walls advocated a second option. A deposit refund scheme and a small refusal fee will encourage recycling but not at the expense of fly-tipping. Thomas C. Kinnaman concluded that the landfill tax would force consumers, corporations and councils to recycle more.
Most free market thinkers hate subsidies and interventions because they are wasting resources. Terry Anderson and Donald Leal think that all recycling programs should be privately operated, and therefore will only operate if the money saved by recycling exceeds the cost. Daniel K. Benjamin argues that it is wasting human resources and degrading the wealth of a population.
Swap recycle
Certain countries trade in untreated recyclables. Some complain that the ultimate fate of recycling sold to other countries is unknown and they may end up in landfills instead of being reprocessed. According to one report, in America, 50-80 percent of computers destined for recycling are not actually recycled. There are reports of illegally imported waste into China that were dismantled and recycled solely for monetary gain, without consideration for workers' health or environmental damage. Although the Chinese government has banned these practices, it has not been able to eradicate them. In 2008, the price of recyclable waste fell before the rebound in 2009. The cardboard averaged around Ã,  £ 53/tonnes from 2004 to 2008, dropping to Ã, £ 19/ton, and then rising to Ã,  £ 59/ton in May 2009. Plastic PET averages around Ã,  £ 156/ton, down to Ã,  £ 75/ton and then rises to Ã,  £ 195/tonne in May 2009.
Certain areas have difficulty using or exporting as much material as they recycle. This problem occurs mostly on glass: Britain and the United States import large quantities of wine bottles in green glasses. Although most of these glasses are shipped for recycling, outside the Midwest of America there is not enough wine production to use all the reprocessed material. Extras should be recycled into building materials or put back into regular waste streams.
Similarly, the northwestern United States finds it difficult to find markets for recycled newspapers, given the large number of pulp mills in the region as well as their proximity to Asian markets. In other parts of the United States, demand for waste paper has been fluctuating widely.
In some US states, a program called RecycleBank pays people to recycle, receiving money from local municipalities to reduce the landfill space to buy. It uses a single stream process in which all the material is automatically sorted.
Criticisms and responses
Most of the difficulties that exist in recycling stem from the fact that most products are not designed with consideration of recycling. The concept of sustainable design aims to solve this problem, and is outlined in the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart. They suggest that each product (and all necessary packaging) must have a complete "closed loop" cycle mapped for each component - the way in which each component will return to the natural ecosystem through biodegradation or recycling indefinitely.
Complete recycling is not possible from a practical point of view. In short, substitution and recycling strategies simply postpone the depletion of non-renewable stock and therefore can buy time in transition to true or strong sustainability, ultimately guaranteed only in an economy based on renewable resources.
While recycling diverts waste from direct entry to landfill sites, recycling is currently longing for dissipative components. Complete recycling can not be done because the highly dispersed waste becomes so dilute that the energy needed for recovery becomes excessive. "For example, how is it possible to recycle many chlorinated organic hydrocarbons that have bioaccumulation in animals and human tissues worldwide, copper dispersed in fungicides, lead in widely applicable paints, or zinc oxide present in finely dispersed rubber powder from car tires? "
As with any environmental economy, care must be taken to ensure a full view of the costs and benefits involved. For example, carton packaging for food products is easier to recycle than most plastics, but it is heavier to ship and can produce more waste from decay.
Energy and material flow
The amount of energy saved through recycling depends on the material being recycled and the type of energy calculation used. Correct bookkeeping for this energy savings can be achieved by lifecycle analysis using real energy values, and in addition, exergy, which is a useful energy measure can be used. In general, it takes far less energy to produce a unit mass of recycled material than to make the same mass of virgin material.
Some scholars use an emergency analysis (spelled with m), for example, a budget for the amount of energy one type (exergy) needed to make or transform something into another type of product or service. Emergy's calculations take into account the economics that can change purely physics-based outcomes. Using an analysis of the emergy lifecycle, the researchers concluded that materials with large refining costs have the greatest potential for high recycling benefits. In addition, the highest emergy efficiency comes from systems directed to the recycling of materials, in which materials are engineered to be recycled back to their original shape and purpose, followed by an adaptive reuse system in which materials are recycled into different product types, and then byproducts. reusing the system in which parts of the product are used to create completely different products.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) stated on its website that "paper manufacturers use 40 percent less energy to make paper than recycled paper than to make paper from fresh wood." Some critics argue that it takes more energy to produce recycled products than to dispose of them in traditional landfill methods, since recycling garbage collection often requires a second trucking truck. However, recycling support indicates that the second logging or logging truck is removed when the paper is collected for recycling, resulting in clean energy consumption being the same. The emergy lifecycle analysis of recycling shows that fly ash, aluminum, recycled concrete aggregates, recycled plastics, and steels yield higher efficiency ratios, while recycling wood yields the lowest recycling benefit ratio. Therefore, the specific nature of the recycling process, the methods used to analyze the process, and the products involved affect the energy saving budget.
It is difficult to determine the amount of energy consumed or produced in the waste disposal process in broader ecological terms, where causal relationships disappear into material tissues and complex energy flows. For example, "cities do not follow all ecosystem development strategies.The biogeochemical pathways are relatively straight relative to wild ecosystems, with considerably reduced recycling, resulting in large streams of waste and low total energy efficiency.In contrast, in wild ecosystems, is another population resource, and succession generates efficient exploitation of resources, but even modern cities may still be at an early stage of succession that may take centuries or millennia to complete. "How much energy is used in the cycle The reset also depends on the type of material being recycled and the process used to do so. Aluminum generally agrees to use far less energy when recycled than produced from scratch. The EPA states that "recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy needed to make the same amount of aluminum from a second source, bauxite." In 2009, more than half of all aluminum cans produced came from recycled aluminum.
Every year, millions of tons of material are exploited from the earth's crust, and processed into consumer goods and capital. After several decades to a century, much of this material is "lost". With the exception of some artwork or religious relics, they are no longer involved in the consumption process. Where are they? Recycling is only an intermediate solution for such materials, though it extends the residence time in the anthroposphere. For thermodynamic reasons, however, recycling can not prevent the final need for final sinking.
Economist Steven Landsburg has suggested that the only benefit of reducing the landfill space is being ridden by the energy needed and generating pollution from the recycling process. Others, however, have calculated through life cycle assessments that produce recycled paper using less energy and water than cotton harvesting, pulping, processing and transporting trees. When less recycled paper is used, additional energy is needed to create and maintain the forests that are cultivated until these forests are attached as virgin forests.
Other research has shown that recycling itself is inefficient to "segregate" economic development from the depletion of nonrenewable feedstocks necessary for sustainable development. International transport or recycled materials flow through "... different different trade networks from three countries producing different currents, decay rates, and potential recycling returns." As global consumption of natural resources grows, their depletion is inevitable. The best recycling that can be done is delaying; the total closure of loop material to reach 100 percent nonrenewable recycling is unlikely because the micro-trail material disappears into the environment causing severe damage to the planet's ecosystem. Historically, it was identified as a metabolic gap by Karl Marx, which identified an unequal exchange rate between energy and nutrients flowing from rural areas to feed urban cities that create waste waste degrading the planet's ecological capital, such as the loss of soil nutrient production. Energy conservation also leads to what is known as Jevon's paradox, where improvements in energy efficiency lower production costs and lead to a rebounding effect where consumption rates and economic growth are increasing.
Cost
The amount of money actually saved through recycling depends on the efficiency of the recycling program used to do so. The Institute for Local Independence believes that the cost of recycling depends on various factors, such as landfill costs and the amount of disposal that is recycled by the community. It states that people start saving money when they treat recycling in lieu of their traditional waste systems rather than additions to it and by "redesigning their collection and/or truck schedule".
In some cases, the cost of recyclable materials also exceeds the cost of materials. The virgin plastic resin costs 40 percent less than the recycled resin. In addition, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study that tracked the clear glass prices from July 15 to August 2, 1991, found that the average cost per ton ranged from $ 40 to $ 60 while the USGS report showed that the cost per tonne of silica sand raw from 1993 to 1997 fell between $ 17.33 and $ 18.10.
Comparing market costs of recyclable materials with new raw material costs ignoring economic externalities - costs that are not currently accounted for by the market. Making a new piece of plastic, for example, can cause more pollution and less sustainability than recycling a similar piece of plastic, but these factors will not be counted in market costs. Life cycle assessments can be used to determine the extent of the externalities and decide whether recycling can be beneficial in spite of unfavorable market costs. Alternatively, legal means (such as carbon taxes) can be used to bring externality to the market, so that the material market costs become close to true costs.
Working conditions
Recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment in India and China produces a large amount of pollution. Informal recycling in the underground economy of these countries has resulted in environmental and health disaster. High levels of lead (Pb), polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs), polychlorinated dioxins and furans, as well as dioxins and polybrominated furans (PCDD/Fs and PBDD/Fs), are concentrated in air, bottom ash, dust, soil, water, and sediments in the area around the recycling site.
Dampak lingkungan
Economist Steven Landsburg, author of a paper entitled "Why I'm Not an Environmentalist", claims that paper recycling actually reduces the tree population. He argues that since paper companies have an incentive to replenish their forests, the huge demand for paper leads to large forests while reducing demand for paper causes fewer "farming" forests.
When logging companies cut down trees, more are planted in their places; however, the "cultivated" forest is lower than the virgin forest in some way. The planted forests can not repair the soil as quickly as virgin forest, causing extensive soil erosion and often require large amounts of fertilizer to maintain while containing a small variety of trees and wild life compared to virgin forest. Also, newly planted trees are not as big as trees being felled, and the argument that there will be "more trees" is not attractive to forestry supporters when they count the seedlings.
In particular, wood from tropical rainforests is seldom harvested for paper because of its heterogeneity. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Secretariat, direct causes of deforestation are subsistence agriculture (48% deforestation) and commercial agriculture (32%), food-related, not paper production.
In some countries, recycling is done by poor entrepreneurs like guni, zabbaleen, men and men, scavengers, and garbage people. With the creation of large recycling organizations that may be profitable, both by law and economies of scale, the poor are more likely to be pushed out of recycling and remanufacturing markets. To compensate for this loss of income, communities may need to create additional forms of community programs to help support the poor. Like the parable of broken windows, there is a net loss for the poor and perhaps the whole community to make recycling artificially profitable, for example by law. However, in Brazil and Argentina, informal scavengers work with the authorities, in fully or semi-funded co-operatives, allowing informal recycling to be legitimized as paid public sector work.
Since the social support of a country may be less than the loss of income for the recovering poor, there is a greater likelihood that the poor will conflict with large recycling organizations. This means that fewer people can decide whether a particular waste is economically reusable in its current form rather than reprocessed. In contrast to poor recycling, their recycling efficiency is actually higher for some materials because individuals have more control over what is considered "waste".
One less exploited waste is intensive electronic and computer wastes. Because this waste may still function and is especially desired by those with low incomes, who may sell or use it with greater efficiency than large recyclers.
Some recycling supporters believe that the laissez-faire-based individual recycling does not cover all the needs of community recycling. As such, it does not obviate the need for an organized recycling program. Local governments may consider poor recycling activities as contributors to property blight.
Public participation rate
Changes that have been shown to improve the recycling rate include:
- Recycle single stream
- Pay when you waste your waste for
"Between 1960 and 2000, world plastic resin production increased 25-fold, while material recovery remained below 5 percent." Many studies have discussed recycling behaviors and strategies to encourage community involvement in recycling programs. It has been argued that recycling behavior is not natural because it requires focus and rewards for long-term planning, whereas humans have evolved to be sensitive to short-term survival goals; and to overcome this innate tendency, the best solution is to use social pressure to force participation in the recycling program. However, recent research has concluded that social pressures can not survive in this context. One reason is that social pressure works well in small group sizes from 50 to 150 individuals (common to nomadic hunter-gatherer communities) but not in a community of millions, as we see today. Another reason is that individual recycling does not occur in public view.
In a study conducted by social psychologist Shawn Burn, it was found that personal contact with individuals in the environment is the most effective way to improve recycling in a community. In his studies, he has 10 leaders of the bloc talking to their neighbors and persuading them to recycle. The comparison group sent leaflets promoting recycling. It was found that the neighbors personally contacted by their block leader recycled more than the group without personal contact. As a result of this research, Shawn Burn believes that personal contact in a small group of people is an important factor in encouraging recycling. Another study conducted by Stuart Oskamp examines the influence of neighbors and friends in recycling. It was found in his study that people who have recycled friends and neighbors are much more likely to be recycled than those who have no friends and neighbors recycled.
Many schools have created recycling awareness clubs to give young students insight into recycling. These schools believe that the club really encourages students to not only recycle at school but also at home.
Related journals
See also
References
Further reading
- Ackerman, Frank. (1997). Why We Do Recycling ?: Market, Values, and Public Policy . Island Press. ISBNÃ, 1-55963-504-5, ISBNÃ, 978-1-55963-504-2
- Ayres, R.U. (1994). "Industrial Metabolism: Theory and Policy", In: Allenby, B.R., and D.J. Richards, Greening of Industrial Ecosystems . National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp.Ã, 23-37.
- Braungart, M., and W. McDonough (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Restoring the Way We Make Things . North Point Press, ISBN 0-86547-587-3.
- Huesemann, Michael H., and Joyce A. Huesemann (2011). Technofix: Why Technology Will not Save Us or the Environment , "Challenge # 3: Complete Recycling of Non-Renewable and Waste Materials", New Society Publishers Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada, ISBN 0 -86571-704-4, pp.Ã, 135-137.
- Minter, Adam (2015). Junkyard Planet: Travel in Trafficking Dollar-Dollar . Bloomsbury Press. ISBN: 978-1608197934.
- Porter, Richard C. (2002). Waste Economy . Resources for the Future. ISBN: 1-8
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments