Shipping Waste 10,000 Miles For Recycling Still Better Than Landfilling
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY 
on 08.22.08
photo: Lisa via flickr
Here’s a quick one via The Guardian which at first certainly counter-intuitive but upon examination isn’t and really shows how important recycling is.
A new report from the Waste Resources Action Programme says that shipping newspapers and plastic bottles the 10,000 miles from the UK to China actually prevents more carbon emissions that landfilling the waste in Britain and manufacturing new products.
Container Ships Still Pollute Empty or Full
Even after being shipped halfway around the world on container ships, for paper products the journey results in one-third the carbon emissions of landfilling, plastics save even more. The reason: Many of container ships which bring manufactured goods from China make the return journey empty, yet still produce the same amount of emissions.
Recyclable Materials More a Resource in China Than UK
So basically, the UK no longer has a manufacturing base large enough to make use of all that recyclable material so, even taking into account the emissions from shipping, it’s better from the standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions to send waste to China, where it can be made into new products rather than disposed of closer to home. Obviously if more recycled products could be produced closer to home, then the balance would likely shift away from offshoring.
While we’re at it, I point you to a recent report about why, if you take offshore manufacturing into account, Britain’s carbon emissions should be 49% higher than claimed.
via :: The Guardian
Carbon Emissions, Recycling
Carbon Emissions in UK 49% Higher Than Acknowledged: New Report Claims
Big Ben in Old Coke Can Reminds Us To Recycle?
21 Things You Didn’t Know You Could Recycle
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Does Recycling Really Make a Difference?
- Reuse Those Plastic Cups As Earrings
- Quickly Calculate The Carbon of Your Flights
- Compost Stink? Add Cardboard!
- Focus on Focus Earth: The Beginning of Eco-Terrorism (Video)
- Runners: Choose a Marathon that Matches Your Eco-Values
It is not "counter-intuitive" at all. It is just the same story we have heard over and over - that "miles" really don't matter.
The energy cost of manufacturing goods and raw materials greatly exceeds the energy used to move them around the global supply chain in most cases, usually by a factor of ten or more. Therefore, even small improvements in the extraction and manufacturing processees can easily offset the costs (both dollar and energy) of shipping stuff around the world.
I know it is "counter-intuitive" to many around here, but centralization is often far more efficient than local. It really is that simple.
This post still exists in the fantasy world in which we don't have to cut 90% of our emissions. Less bad is still not good. Who cares if shipping 10000 miles is better than landfilling--neither is an option.
Well, Chad, it shouldn't be counter-intuitive; there is a reason that for a couple hundred years, the most successful businesses have usually been the ones centralizing things. It isn't always the best option, but often it is.
Maybe we should spend more time developing better intuition.
The waste is being shipped in these boats, so the carbon footprint should be correctly assigned to this task, regardless if the emissions wasted on an empty journey.
I think the argument can be reduced to this = Insanity.
Centralisation is fine within reason, to half way around the world is not practical. Recycling centres across europe would provide industries here that need plastics, metals, paper etc without the need for the recycled material to be processed in China and then sent back.
Because what was in the shipment from China to Britain in the first place?