Ten years ago I wrote ‘Cleanstream’, an approach to recycling predicated on certain fundamental principles. These principles include the imperative to retain the integrity and quality of the materials in a way that protects and optimises their values. In essence, the approach is based on keeping materials clean and separate from one another from the household to the reprocessor. One of the important consequences of the approach is the minimisation of losses of materials due to contamination and compromised quality.

I have advocated the cause of recycling as much as anyone and I am delighted that recycling and the concept of zero waste have become accepted and included in mainstream thinking and several national waste strategies. Yet I am concerned too that in our promotion of the need for recycling that we are missing the real point, the reasons for ‘real’ recycling, where quality rather than quantity is paramount. If we are concerned about conserving ‘finite resources’ then designing a system that fails to achieve 100 per cent conservation is a crime against sustainability, especially when the zero waste option is easier, cheaper and available.

Some of my concerns have been well discussed in ‘Towards Zero Waste’, the overarching waste strategy document for Wales. This waste strategy takes forward the debate in important ways. It recognises the importance of preventing waste and reducing resource consumption. Further, it has identified the use of ecological footprinting (EF) as the main metric for setting and monitoring performance in Wales. I compliment the authors of the strategy for pushing the boundaries of the debate and for recognising that recycling is not the end in itself but just one component of the holistic approach that societies across the world must take to ensure the protection of our planetary resources.

Whilst measuring resource consumption is unquestionably a step forward, the attempt to measure the quality of recycling services is now progressing in a way that in my view could miss the point. The government in Scotland is looking to use carbon metrics rather than simply quantities of material recycled. Whilst this may on the face of it look like a progressive move, I am concerned that it may lead to an analysis of resource management that is skewed by an overemphasis on carbon.

This may seem a strange thing to say, given that I share the concerns of many regarding global climate change and overreliance on fossil fuels and that I am a passionate advocate of sustainable development including renewable energy.

But putting all the emphasis on carbon could make us blind to other environmental impacts. For instance, when considering the merits of a building a dam to generate electricity, the value of this green energy needs to be weighed against the impact on the area in terms of lost biodiversity and access to mineral deposits – not to mention the displacement of people.

Similarly, recycling needs to be viewed not only in terms of carbon, but also resource depletion, as well as loss of biodiversity and the impact on people’s welfare that results from chasing additional virgin materials.
This brings me back to ‘Cleanstream’. I think for all the reasons that are explained, that ‘Cleanstream’ approaches to recycling will produce better outcomes in terms of resource management, material conservation and, incidentally, carbon impacts.

Perhaps what is needed is a new metric, one that differentiates between recycling based on low-quality MRF sorting including suboptimal benefits and high losses of material. In terms of aligning local recycling services with global priorities I think the message is simple: collect materials using kerbside sort approaches.

Is there a new metric that might help promote the quality agenda and at the same time avoid the potential distraction of carbon? Well, as someone who advocates ‘zero waste’ and who opposes the very existence of a waste management industry, I think we should start measuring waste as a key metric. How much of the material resources made available by householders is lost due to the way they are managed? How much material is rendered unusable and fit only for disposal because of the way it is managed?

We have got to start designing our recycling systems in ways that help protect the planet’s resources, including its natural habitats, biodiversity, food and water – and its human populations. This linkage between kerbside sort collections and global strategic benefits is, to me, quite clear – and I’m happy to initiate the debate.