(GUF) WASTE INCINERATION - A BURNING QUESTION

Image inspiration - Salvador Dalí - link

For decades, waste incineration has been presented as an alternative to landfill; turning unwanted rubbish into useful energy, but around the world opposition is growing. Are campaigners raising legitimate environmental and public health concerns, or overlooking the important role incineration plays in modern waste management?

Across Britain and increasingly around the world, waste incinerators are finding themselves at the centre of a growing environmental debate. Campaigners are questioning their impact on public health, carbon emissions, recycling and local communities. Some want tighter regulation, others are calling for restrictions on new facilities, while more determined opponents would like to see incineration phased out altogether.

The international picture is certainly changing. Scotland announced a policy opposing further municipal incineration capacity in 2022, with very limited exceptions; Wales introduced a moratorium on new large scale energy-from-waste facilities of 10 MW or more in 2021; and Denmark announced plans in 2020 to reduce incineration capacity in line with an anticipated reduction in residual waste.

On 13 October 2026, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) published The Burn Book: Incinerators that Threaten the Climate, Public Health, and our Finances, examining twenty existing and proposed incinerators around the world. The report formed part of an international campaign challenging the environmental and financial consequences of burning waste. GAIA is an organisation openly opposed to waste incineration and its findings should be considered in that context. Nevertheless, the report illustrates the international reach of the debate. Restricting new facilities is not the same as banning existing incineration, however, and many countries continue to invest in energy-from-waste infrastructure.

In England, incineration has become an increasingly important part of the waste-management system. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, England's local authorities sent approximately 12.7 million tonnes of waste for incineration during 2024/25, representing 50.3% of local authority waste. By comparison, 10.4 million tonnes, or 41.2%, were sent for recycling, composting or reuse, while approximately 1.4 million tonnes went to landfill.

Those figures illustrate how significantly the country's approach to waste disposal has changed but with incineration now accounting for more than half of England's local authority waste management, it seems reasonable to question whether our reliance on this technology has become a tad excessive. Rather than simply accepting or rejecting the arguments of anti-incineration campaigners, perhaps the more useful approach is to examine the principal objections and establish what the available evidence actually tells us.

1. Are waste incinerators dangerous to public health?

Public health is understandably one of the most emotive issues surrounding incineration.

The argument against incineration

Burning waste produces a range of pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, acid gases, heavy metals and potentially dioxins and furans (specifically polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). These substances can be harmful and communities living near incinerators often express concerns about long-term exposure, particularly among children, elderly residents and people with respiratory conditions.

Historically, poorly controlled incinerators were responsible for significant environmental pollution. Consequently, concerns about emissions are not without foundation.

The counterargument

Modern municipal incinerators operate under considerably stricter environmental regulations than their predecessors. Sophisticated combustion controls, filtration systems, chemical treatment, continuous monitoring of key emissions and periodic sampling are intended to minimise the release of pollutants. In June 2025, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) published an updated systematic review of epidemiological research undertaken in Britain and the European Union. Its conclusion supported the agency's existing position that modern, well-operated and regulated municipal waste incinerators do not represent a significant public health risk.

The review found no clear evidence linking emissions from modern facilities with increased rates of cancer, adverse birth outcomes or other investigated illnesses in surrounding communities. It also noted that such incinerators make a relatively small contribution to local air-pollution concentrations compared with other sources. That's an important finding, although an absence of clear evidence does not mean every potential health effect has been conclusively excluded.

Where does that leave the argument?

Health concerns deserve proper investigation, particularly where facilities breach permit conditions or where communities are already exposed to pollution from several sources.
However, the assertion that modern, properly regulated incinerators are routinely causing serious illness is not currently supported by clear epidemiological evidence. That doesn't eliminate the need for effective regulation - it reinforces it.

2. Does burning waste make climate change worse?

This is an increasingly important part of the debate.

The argument against incineration

Burning waste releases carbon dioxide. In particular, plastics manufactured from fossil fuels release fossil CO₂ when incinerated. Unlike recyclable materials, which may be processed into new products, incinerated plastics release their carbon into the atmosphere.

As Britain reduces its reliance on fossil-fuel electricity generation, the climate benefit of producing electricity by burning waste is also changing. The Climate Change Committee (CCC) has highlighted the increasing contribution of energy-from-waste facilities to carbon emissions and recommended preventing additional capacity unless a viable route to carbon capture and storage can be established.

In its June 2026 report to Parliament, the CCC observed that emissions reductions achieved through diverting waste from landfill had been partially offset by increasing emissions from energy-from-waste facilities. There's also an important regulatory development. The government had intended to bring waste incineration within the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) from January 2028, introducing a financial cost for the sector's relevant greenhouse gas emissions, however, in August 2026, the UK ETS Authority confirmed that implementation would be delayed beyond 2028, with no revised commencement date announced.

Although a voluntary monitoring, reporting and verification period began in January 2026, the postponement leaves operators and local authorities uncertain about future carbon costs, potentially complicating long-term investment decisions and waste-management contracts.

The counterargument

Incineration however cannot be assessed against a world in which waste has simply ceased to exist. Much of the material currently incinerated would otherwise require alternative treatment, potentially including landfill. Organic materials decomposing in landfill produce methane, a particularly powerful greenhouse gas. Although modern landfill facilities capture a proportion of that gas, some inevitably escapes into the atmosphere. By diverting biodegradable waste from landfill and generating useful energy, incineration can avoid emissions that would otherwise occur, however, the relative advantage depends heavily on the composition of the waste, the efficiency of energy recovery, landfill methane capture and the type of energy being displaced (ideally the organic material should go to AD and IVC).

Where does that leave the argument?

Historically, incineration has offered climate benefits compared with landfilling mixed biodegradable waste, particularly by avoiding methane emissions from decomposing organic material. However, England's Simpler Recycling legislation now requires separate food-waste collections, reducing the amount of biodegradable material entering the residual waste stream. While incineration continues to generate useful energy, its carbon emissions remain a concern, and the climate advantages of energy recovery are diminishing as electricity generation becomes increasingly cleaner.

Carbon capture may eventually help address this problem. Indeed, the government has supported plans to connect the Protos Energy Recovery Facility to the HyNet carbon transport and storage network, with operation anticipated in 2029 but carbon capture must ultimately be commercially viable and successfully deployed rather than merely included in future plans. The climate objection is supported by measurable evidence and certainly deserves serious attention.

3. Are we burning materials that could have been recycled?

There's an obvious frustration in the thought of valuable resources being destroyed when they could have been reused.

The argument against incineration

Residual waste frequently contains materials such as plastics, paper, cardboard and metals that could potentially be recycled. Once most of these materials enter an incinerator, their value as recoverable raw materials is permanently lost. Campaigners argue that incineration effectively rewards a failure to separate recyclable materials, providing an outlet for waste that should have been recovered further up the waste hierarchy.

The counterargument

There's a big difference between a material being theoretically recyclable and being suitable for recycling in the condition in which it is discarded. Paper heavily contaminated with food, composite packaging, mixed or difficult-to-identify plastics and residues rejected by recycling facilities can present considerable practical and economic difficulties. Recycling facilities themselves generate residual waste, even when householders and businesses have separated materials correctly.

Energy-from-waste facilities provide a treatment outlet for such material. In addition, some resources survive the incineration process. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals can be recovered from bottom ash, with Defra reporting approximately 221,000 tonnes of metals recovered and recycled from incineration residues within England's household waste recycling statistics for 2024.

Where does that leave the argument?

There's little justification for burning materials that can be readily and economically recycled through an available, functioning collection and processing system. Equally, describing everything that enters an incinerator as recyclable would be misleading. The proper question is not simply how much material is being burned but how much could realistically have been prevented, reused or recycled before reaching the furnace.

4. Does incineration discourage recycling?

This objection is closely related to the previous one, but it raises a different concern.

The argument against incineration

Large energy-from-waste facilities require substantial investment and generally operate over several decades. Some long-term waste treatment contracts include minimum tonnage commitments or payment provisions designed to protect the operator's investment. Critics argue that such arrangements can discourage improvements in recycling because local authorities may remain financially committed to delivering waste to an incinerator. In other words, if a council is already paying to burn a certain quantity of waste, reducing that quantity might not produce the savings expected.

The counterargument

There is no inevitable conflict between high recycling rates and the use of energy-from-waste facilities. Several countries, including Germany and Denmark, have historically combined extensive recycling systems with substantial incineration capacity.

A 2023 study, Has Incineration Replaced Recycling? Evidence from OECD Countries, examined the relationship between incineration and recycling across developed economies.
Its statistical analysis identified a negative relationship but the estimated effect on recycling rates was not statistically significant. The researchers also noted that individual countries displayed differing patterns which, in itself doesn't prove incineration never discourages recycling. It means the relationship is more complicated than simply assuming that every additional tonne of incineration capacity represents a tonne lost to recycling.

Where does that leave the argument?

The structure of contracts and the incentives they create deserve scrutiny. A waste treatment agreement should not financially penalise a local authority for successfully reducing waste or improving recycling. However, evidence that some contractual arrangements create poor incentives is not evidence that all incineration facilities undermine recycling. The problem may lie as much in how waste management services are financed and contracted as in the technology itself.

5. Are we building more incinerators than we actually need?

This may prove to be one of the most consequential questions facing the British waste industry.

The argument against incineration

The government is attempting to reduce residual waste through packaging reforms, separate food-waste collections, producer responsibility and improved recycling. If these measures succeed, in theory, less waste should require incineration however, energy-from-waste facilities are expensive, long-lived assets that cannot readily be converted into other types of treatment infrastructure. This creates the possibility of spending hundreds of millions of pounds building facilities that may eventually compete for a shrinking quantity of residual waste.

In December 2024, Defra projected that England could have approximately 18.8 million tonnes of annual energy-recovery capacity by 2035. It also anticipated a reduction in residual waste arising from the government's resource-efficiency and packaging reforms.
The concern is that if we successfully reduce the amount of waste requiring disposal, what happens to the facilities built on the assumption that those volumes will continue?

The counterargument

Forecasts are not guarantees. Recycling targets have repeatedly proved difficult to achieve, changes to packaging systems take time, and some materials will remain unsuitable for recycling even under a much-improved collection system. In addition, waste treatment infrastructure must accommodate regional differences, commercial waste, maintenance shutdowns and variations in the composition and quantity of material collected. A national estimate of available capacity does not necessarily establish that suitable capacity exists in every region.

Defra's December 2024 assessment estimated 19.4 million tonnes of municipal residual waste in England by 2035, compared with 18.8 million tonnes of projected energy-recovery capacity. Those figures do not demonstrate an immediate national surplus, although Defra's wider assessment of residual-waste treatment capacity includes other disposal and treatment routes.

Where does that leave the argument?

There is a credible risk of future overcapacity, particularly if waste prevention and recycling improve substantially but establishing whether an individual proposed facility is unnecessary requires more than comparing two national totals. The location, type of waste accepted, expected lifespan, regional treatment capacity and likely future waste volumes all matter.

Scotland provides a particularly interesting example. On 30 September 2026, Environmental Standards Scotland published an update on its investigation into the country's incineration capacity. It had previously identified concerns that gaps in planning and environmental permitting arrangements, together with the absence of an indicative national residual-waste treatment cap, could allow capacity to increase without sufficient consideration of Scotland's future requirements.

The Scottish Government has since published updated capacity analysis and is developing a residual waste plan, expected in 2027, which will include work towards establishing an indicative treatment cap. The regulator acknowledged that progress was being made but confirmed that important elements remained unfinished which illustrates the difficulty of balancing long-term infrastructure planning against future waste-reduction ambitions.

New investments should therefore be assessed against realistic forecasts that account for both successful recycling reforms and the possibility of slower progress.

6. Is energy from waste genuinely useful energy recovery?

The description energy from waste is central to the industry's justification for incineration, but how much useful energy does the process actually recover?

The argument against incineration

Critics point out that electricity generation from waste is not particularly efficient compared with some other forms of energy production. A considerable proportion of the energy released during combustion can be lost as heat, particularly where facilities have no practical outlet for it. There is also the question of whether recovering energy from materials is preferable to retaining those materials within the economy through recycling.

After all, the waste hierarchy generally places recycling above energy recovery for good reason.

The counterargument

Incinerators do generate useful energy and there are important distinctions between different facilities. Electricity only plants recover energy through steam-driven turbines, while combined heat-and-power facilities can also supply heat to industrial processes, commercial buildings or district heating networks. Where there is a reliable demand for heat, overall energy utilisation can be substantially improved.

Importantly, incineration provides a means of extracting useful energy from waste that might otherwise have been landfilled without recovering its remaining value. There is also an operational benefit in having an established treatment system capable of accepting residual waste that cannot currently be diverted into reuse or recycling.

Where does that leave the argument?

The energy benefit is real, but it varies considerably between facilities. An incinerator supplying both electricity and useful heat cannot simply be judged in the same way as one generating electricity alone. As the electricity grid decarbonises, the quantity of usable heat recovered, the carbon intensity of the waste and the potential for carbon capture become increasingly important. Energy recovery should be demonstrated through performance rather than assumed from the name of the facility.

7. Does incineration merely turn rubbish into another form of waste?

There's a common misconception that incineration makes waste disappear. It doesn't.

The argument against incineration

Incineration produces residual materials, principally bottom ash and air-pollution-control residues, some of which contain concentrated pollutants requiring specialist treatment or disposal. According to Environment Agency guidance, bottom ash typically represents approximately 25% of the original waste input by weight, with air-pollution-control residues and associated fly ash accounting for a further 2.5%. Actual operating figures can differ however.

Tolvik Consulting's UK Energy from Waste Statistics 2024, based largely on operators' annual performance reports, recorded outputs equivalent to 19.2% bottom ash and 3.1% air-pollution-control residues by weight. These figures demonstrate that although incineration substantially reduces the volume of waste, significant quantities of residual material still require careful management.

The counterargument

Not all incineration residues are hazardous, nor are they necessarily destined for landfill. Following appropriate treatment and processing, suitable bottom ash can be used as a substitute for primary aggregates in construction, while ferrous and non-ferrous metals can be recovered for recycling. Indeed, Tolvik's 2024 report indicated that approximately 99% of the 3.2 million tonnes of UK incinerator bottom ash generated that year was sent for recovery. That's a substantial quantity of material being directed away from straightforward disposal, although being sent for recovery does not necessarily mean that every tonne has already been successfully recycled into a new product.

Additionally, incineration substantially reduces the original volume of waste, decreasing the amount of material requiring final disposal and the associated demand for landfill space.

Where does that leave the argument?

Incineration certainly does not eliminate the need for responsible waste management but neither is it accurate to suggest that the process simply replaces the original waste with an equivalent amount of hazardous material. The important questions concern the composition of the residues, how safely they are managed, how much can genuinely be recovered and whether subsequent uses meet appropriate environmental standards.

8. Are local communities being asked to bear an unfair burden?

Not every objection concerns emissions or recycling. Some concern the location and everyday operation of facilities.

The argument against incineration

Residents near waste treatment facilities may experience additional heavy goods vehicle movements, noise, visual intrusion and concerns about odour and litter and there's also an environmental justice argument. A 2020 investigation by Greenpeace's investigative publication Unearthed found that waste incinerators were approximately three times more likely to be located in Britain's most deprived neighbourhoods than its least deprived. The investigation included several categories of incinerator, not solely modern municipal energy-from-waste facilities, but its findings raised important questions about the distribution of waste infrastructure.

Campaigners question whether communities already experiencing significant industrial activity are being asked to accept an unfair share of the country's waste-management burden.

The counterargument

Incinerators require suitable industrial sites, transport access, appropriate separation from sensitive developments and the infrastructure necessary to operate safely. Industrial land is not evenly distributed across the country, so differences in facility locations do not, by themselves, establish that individual planning decisions have been discriminatory. Neither does the presence of an incinerator automatically prove that it is responsible for all pollution or nuisance experienced in an industrial neighbourhood. Some facilities may also provide local employment, infrastructure investment and opportunities to supply heat to nearby developments.

Where does that leave the argument?

The unequal geographical distribution of waste infrastructure is a legitimate subject for investigation. Communities should have meaningful opportunities to examine proposals, question environmental assessments and understand how operators will manage emissions, traffic and nuisance. Even a facility operating within its environmental permit can raise valid concerns about its cumulative effect on local quality of life.

So, should we stop building incinerators?

Having examined the principal objections, it becomes difficult to support either extreme of the debate without qualification. There's credible evidence supporting concerns about carbon emissions, the destruction of recoverable materials and the potential consequences of long-term investment in excessive capacity.There are also legitimate questions about the fairness of facility locations, waste-treatment contracts and the environmental management of residues however, the evidence does not support treating every modern incinerator as an unacceptable public health hazard, nor does it establish that incineration inevitably prevents successful recycling.

If we stopped incinerating residual waste tomorrow, where would that material go?

We cannot assume that all waste currently burned could immediately be recycled. Some would require additional sorting and treatment capacity. Some might be exported for disposal or recovery elsewhere, while some could return to landfill.

That would hardly represent an environmental achievement if the result were simply to exchange one set of problems for another. Neither should we forget the contribution energy-from-waste facilities have made to reducing Britain's dependence on landfill. They have provided a practical treatment route for millions of tonnes of material that might otherwise have been buried.

But that does not mean the future of incineration should necessarily resemble its past.
The expansion of separate collections, improvements in packaging design, advances in recycling technology and the growing importance of waste prevention should all reduce the quantity of material requiring final treatment. As these improvements take effect, the need for incineration capacity should be reassessed accordingly.

There's a meaningful distinction between maintaining sufficient facilities to manage genuinely unrecoverable waste and constructing additional facilities whose economic success may depend on continuing to generate large volumes of it.

The purpose of a circular economy is to keep materials in productive use for as long as possible.
Incineration may remain an important part of dealing with the waste we cannot avoid, but it should never become a reason to avoid dealing with the waste we can. Perhaps the most important question is not whether we should stop burning waste, but how much waste we should still need to burn in the first place? More like this (incineration) - link - note like this (landfill) - link

(GUF) LITHUANIA - HOW TO OPERATE A DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEME

Original illustration inspired by the Symbolist art of Lithuanian painter and composer M. K. Čiurlionis (1875–1911) - link

Last time, I wrote about Brazil's extraordinary success in recycling aluminium drinks cans; an excellent example of what can be achieved when a material has genuine commercial value and a well established collection network.

This time, I'm visiting a different country, with a significantly different approach - Lithuania - a Baltic nation with a population of approximately 2.9 million people, Lithuania has spent the past decade demonstrating something that should interest everyone involved in waste management, not least, Britain. Give people a simple, convenient reason to return their empty packaging and the results can be remarkable; and in Lithuania, it all started with ten cents.

A Small Deposit, an Enormous Difference

On 1 February 2016, Lithuania introduced a Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) covering eligible plastic, metal and glass drinks containers. The principle was effectively the same as most DRS schemes; when someone purchased a drink they paid an additional €0.10 deposit, return the empty container to a participating collection point and they received their ten cents back - no complicated environmental philosophy - no requirement for consumers to understand polymer chemistry - just a simple financial transaction.

Before the scheme was introduced, approximately 34% of Lithuania's PET drinks containers were being collected through the existing system. For comparison, Britain is already starting from a considerably stronger position; according to recycling charity RECOUP's 2024 UK 'Household Plastic Packaging Collection Survey', an estimated 70–80% of plastic drinks bottles were collected for recycling in 2023, without a Deposit Return Scheme.

Although the figures are not perfectly like for like, they highlight an important distinction. Lithuania was attempting to transform a poorly performing collection system. Britain is proposing to introduce an entirely new collection infrastructure into a country where a substantial majority of plastic drinks bottles are already being recovered. This doesn't mean Britain's DRS can't deliver environmental benefits, particularly through reduced littering and improved material quality, but it raises the question whether the additional material recovered justifies the considerable investment in new machines, transport, collection and processing infrastructure, particularly when much of that material is already being collected through existing recycling services?

34 to 92

By the end of 2016, the new Lithuanian scheme had achieved a 74.3% return rate across eligible drinks containers. By the end of 2017, that figure had climbed to 91.9% and this wasn't simply an impressive opening performance followed by a gradual decline. According to reverse vending technology company TOMRA, Lithuania's return rates at the end of 2025 were:

• 90% of PET drinks containers
• 91% of metal drinks cans
• 84% of non-reusable glass drinks containers

Across the scheme as a whole, the reported return rate was approximately 90% and ten years after its introduction, the system continues to deliver.

More Than 700 Million Reasons to Celebrate

According to Lithuania's deposit system administrator, Užstato Sistemos Administratorius (USAD), consumers returned approximately 708.58 million drinks containers during 2024 which included nearly 360 million PET bottles, approximately 303 million aluminium cans, more than 45 million glass bottles and around 800,000 steel cans.

For a country of fewer than three million people, that represents an extraordinary volume of material being returned through a dedicated collection system and there's another benefit; much of this material is collected separately from household mixed recycling, helping preserve its quality and making it more attractive to reprocessors. Anyone who has spent time around a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) will understand why this matters.

There's a considerable difference between receiving relatively clean, identifiable drinks containers and attempting to recover them from a mixture of food contaminated packaging, shredded paper, broken glass and whatever else somebody has bizarrely decided is recyclable. Optical sorting equipment is clever but it isn't magic.

Making Recycling Convenient

One of Lithuania's strengths is the accessibility of its return network. The system operates largely through retailers, with reverse vending machines allowing consumers to return eligible containers and recover their deposits. Like Britain's DRS, larger shops and rural retailers have return obligations while smaller retailers can also participate. Importantly, the deposit isn't simply lost if someone doesn't want to spend it immediately. Refund vouchers can be used towards shopping or redeemed for cash.

There's a commercial incentive running through the entire arrangement. Consumers want their deposits back - retailers participate in the return infrastructure - material processors receive valuable, relatively uncontaminated feedstock and the system administrator coordinates the money, information, logistics and materials. It's a practical example of how environmental objectives and commercial interests can work in harmony with one another.

There Are Qualifications

As impressive as the Lithuanian figures are, there's an important distinction between a container being returned for recycling and confirmation that every gram of that material has actually been recycled into another product. Return rates are not the same measurement as final recycling rates. Processing losses still exist, contamination, rejected material and the efficiency of downstream recycling operations all influence the eventual outcome.

Nor does a 90% return rate mean that the remaining 10% has necessarily been littered. Some containers may still enter other waste or recycling collections; and a deposit system isn't free to operate. Machines require investment, space and maintenance. Containers must be collected and transported - sorting and counting facilities need staff, equipment and energy. Retailers have responsibilities and somebody has to pay the operating costs. These aren't arguments against deposit systems; simply reminders that successful recycling requires considerably more than putting a machine outside a Sainsbury's.

What About Britain?

Our Deposit Return Scheme is scheduled to launch on 1 October 2027, introducing a refundable 20p deposit on eligible single use PET plastic bottles and aluminium and steel drinks cans between 150ml and 3 litres. Wales is taking a slightly different approach by including glass in its scheme, although glass containers will initially carry a zero-pence deposit during a four-year transition period. The scheme administrator, Exchange for Change, has appointed five major recycling and waste management operators to provide logistics and processing services across the country, with new collection vehicles and processing infrastructure planned, but the real test will come when the system becomes operational.

• Will return points be convenient?
• Will the machines be reliable?
• Will retailers have sufficient space?
• Will the collection logistics work efficiently across cities, towns and rural communities?
• What happens to existing kerbside and commercial recycling services when millions of valuable PET bottles and aluminium cans are diverted into a completely separate collection network?

Having worked in waste management for more than four decades, I've learned that there's a substantial difference between a scheme that looks excellent on paper and one that works efficiently on a wet Tuesday morning in November and Lithuania's achievements demonstrate what's possible.

Two Countries, Two Different Approaches

What interests me most is the contrast between Brazil and Lithuania. Brazil has developed an exceptionally effective aluminium can recycling system, supported by the inherent commercial value of aluminium and the people and businesses who collect it. Lithuania has used a modest refundable deposit, retailer participation and coordinated infrastructure to encourage consumers to return their drinks containers. The collection models are different, as are the social and economic circumstances but both demonstrate something fundamental. Recycling performance improves when the people handling the material have a practical reason to recover it and an accessible system for doing so. We can produce all the environmental slogans, targets and sustainability reports we like but ultimately the results depend on what happens to the packaging after the consumer has finished with it. Lithuania has shown that ten cents, backed by a properly organised collection system, can make an enormous difference.

The United Kingdom is preparing to find out what twenty pence can achieve. I shall be watching with considerable interest and knowing the waste industry as I do, I suspect the first twelve months will provide more than enough material for several more articles. More like this (Lithuania) - link - more like this (Brazil) - link - more like this (DRS) - link

(GUF) BRAZIL - LEADING BY EXAMPLE

Image inspiration - the thoroughly brilliant Tarsila do Amaral - link

In 2024 Brazil reported a 97.3% recycling rate for aluminium beverage cans, with 417,700 tonnes recovered. Recicla Latas, the organisation managing the sector’s reverse logistics system puts that at approximately 33.9 billion cans. The rate is also recorded on Brazil’s government waste information platform, SINIR.

For clarity, that figure relates specifically to aluminium drinks cans, rather than all Brazilian waste but within that category, it's an extraordinary achievement and it wasn't an isolated good year. According to Recicla Latas, 2024 marked sixteen consecutive years with rates above 96%. That kind of consistency takes a functioning chain of collection, trading, processing and manufacturing.

An empty can does not make its own way to a furnace. Someone has to collect it and that brings us to the catadores and catadoras; the workers who collect and sort recyclable materials, helping return resources to productive use.

Their work requires knowledge of materials, practical judgement and considerable effort. Through cooperatives, many also organise the selling of recovered materials, share income and make decisions together. As WIEGO, the international network supporting workers in informal employment, describes, these organisations give workers a collective voice as well as a practical way to earn a living.

Belo Horizonte offers a particularly interesting example of how that contribution can be recognised. The International Labour Organization documents the city’s inclusion of ASMARE, an association of recyclable material collectors, in its municipal recycling scheme from 1993. It also describes the development of Redesol, a cooperative network established in 2010 to help workers sell materials collectively, strengthen their bargaining position and improve their businesses.

There's a useful lesson here for anyone discussing a circular economy; the people doing the collecting and sorting need a proper place in the system - and recognition has also translated into further progress. In September 2025, WIEGO reported that negotiations involving Brazil’s National Movement of Waste Pickers had helped bring cooperatives into producer responsibility and reverse logistics arrangements, resulting in payments reaching more than 5,000 workers across approximately 300 cooperatives.

Selling recovered material has value; so does providing the service that makes its recovery possible. Celebrating these achievements should go hand in hand with supporting fair payment, safe working conditions and investment in equipment. Admiring hard work ought to mean wanting that work properly rewarded.

For me, Brazil’s story brings recycling back to something very practical. Materials need somewhere to go, businesses need reliable supplies, and the people connecting the two deserve respect.

PET Recycling

Brazil's achievements extend beyond aluminium. According to the Brazilian PET industry association, ABIPET, Brazil recycled 410,000 tonnes of post consumer PET packaging in 2024, representing 53% of PET packaging discarded by consumers. Of the recycled PET, 37% went into bottle preforms or bottles, while other uses included textiles, sheet materials and strapping.

The connection to the people behind the process continues here too; cooperatives directly supplied 33% of the recycling feedstock reported in ABIPET’s survey. Their contribution reaches well beyond collecting cans, they're also helping keep valuable plastics in productive use. Another Brazilian achievement worth recognising and another reason to give the people doing the work their share of the credit.

To my Brazilian readers: your country has an aluminium can recycling achievement worth sharing and a cooperative movement worth learning from and to the catadores and catadoras whose work helps make it happen: obrigado pelo trabalho de vocês—thank you for the work you do. More like this (Brazil) - link - more like this (cans) - link - more like this (PET) - link

(GUF) ONE MILLION PAGEVIEWS - THANK YOU

Image inspiration - Leonora Carrington - link - more like this - link - more like this - link

(GUF) SMALLEST PACKAGE - BIGGEST PROBLEM

Image inspiration - René Magritte - link

We spend an extraordinary amount of time discussing plastic bottles, carrier bags, straws and food containers; all feature prominently in recycling campaigns, environmental legislation and the endless debate over single use plastics.

One of the most troublesome forms of plastic packaging however receives comparatively little attention. The plastic sachet. That tiny packet of shampoo, instant coffee, detergent, sauce or food seasoning might appear relatively harmless. It weighs next to nothing, costs very little to manufacture and allows consumers to purchase everyday products in small, affordable quantities. Unfortunately, the very characteristics that make sachets commercially attractive also make them an absolute nightmare for the waste management industry and we've managed to manufacture billions upon billions of them.

A packaging format with nowhere to go

The sachet's problem begins with the materials. Many are not made from one straightforward, recyclable polymer but instead, manufacturers combine polyethylene, polypropylene, polyester, aluminium foil and other barrier materials into thin, laminated structures. From a recycling perspective, it's a disaster. These layers are bonded together, making separation commercially impractical using conventional recycling technology. Even sachets manufactured entirely from one polymer can present problems because they're so small, lightweight and are frequently contaminated with the product they once contained.

At a Materials Recovery Facility such small flexible items are difficult to identify, separate and recover reliably. They can be lost among the screening residues or rejected during subsequent sorting and even when they're recovered, the next question is whether anybody actually wants to buy them.

How big is the problem?

A 2019 investigation by the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), based on waste assessments across several communities, estimated that the Philippines was using more than 163 million plastic sachets every day (almost 60 billion a year).

In February 2026, a separate investigation by Break Free From Plastic and GAIA examined almost 300,000 pieces of plastic waste collected across eight Nigerian cities. Sachets were the most common type of plastic waste identified, ahead of bottles, bags and wrappers. These are not simply isolated examples of careless littering. They illustrate the consequences of introducing enormous quantities of low value disposable packaging into markets where collection and recovery infrastructure cannot possibly keep pace. The results are depressingly predictable.

Discarded sachets accumulate along roadsides, in waterways, on beaches and in drainage systems. Where regular waste collection is absent or inadequate, they may be dumped or openly burned. The material might have served its original purpose for a matter of seconds, then the resulting waste remains in the environment for decades, progressively fragmenting into smaller and smaller particles.

Who's responsible?

Between October 2023 and February 2024, environmental organisations working with Break Free From Plastic undertook a dedicated sachet brand audit across India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. 807 volunteers examined 33,467 discarded sachets from 2,678 brands. The companies most frequently identified included: Unilever: 1,851 sachets; Wings (Indonesian equivalent of Unilever or Procter & Gamble): 1,565 sachets; Mayora Indah (Mayora concentrates on food, confectionery, snacks, coffee and powdered beverages): 1,548 sachets; Procter & Gamble: 1,194 sachets; Nestlé: 1,171 sachets. Other prominent names included Wadia Group, Balaji Wafers, Yes2HealthyLife, JG Summit Holdings and Salim Group.

These figures are counts from the surveyed locations, not estimates of the companies' worldwide sachet production. Nevertheless, they're valuable evidence of which manufacturers' packaging is turning up as litter. Around 86% of the discarded sachets examined contained food products, demonstrating that the issue extends well beyond shampoos and detergents.

Unilever deserves particular attention because of the astonishing scale of its sachet business. A 2023 Greenpeace investigation estimated that the company was on course to sell approximately 53 billion plastic sachets that year ~ around 1,700 every second. Unilever has acknowledged the difficulties associated with flexible packaging and invested in collection programmes, redesigned materials and alternative delivery models. Its 2025 sustainability reporting also records reductions in virgin plastic use but the company's own figures show that only 15% of its flexible plastic packaging was reusable, recyclable or compostable in 2025, under its reporting methodology - i.e. there remains an enormous difference between recognising a problem and eliminating it.

Which countries are taking action?

Governments are beginning to respond, although the legislation is considerably less comprehensive than the headlines sometimes suggest.

Sri Lanka introduced restrictions in March 2021 prohibiting plastic and polythene sachets containing 20ml or 20g or less, with exemptions for food and medicines. An important intervention, although its limited scope left manufacturers opportunities to continue selling other sachet formats.

India prohibits plastic sachets for storing, packaging or selling gutkha, tobacco and pan masala under its Plastic Waste Management Rules. This is a specific product restriction rather than a general sachet ban.

Rwanda introduced broad restrictions on single-use plastic products under legislation enacted in 2019, building upon its earlier restrictions on plastic bags. Limited authorisations remain possible where suitable alternatives are unavailable.

The European Union is taking a different approach. Under its Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, from January 2030 certain single-serving condiment and sauce packaging will be prohibited in hotels, restaurants and catering establishments. Miniature disposable toiletries in accommodation are also targeted. There are exemptions, including for takeaway meals and certain medical care settings.

The Philippines, despite its substantial sachet pollution problem, has introduced Extended Producer Responsibility legislation that specifically includes sachets and other flexible plastic packaging. This places recovery obligations on qualifying businesses, but is not a nationwide prohibition on sachets.

In Nigeria, Lagos State's 2025 restrictions on certain single use plastics explicitly exempted drinking water sachets — despite the considerable problems associated with their disposal. The direction of travel is encouraging, but there's still an enormous gap between the scale of sachet production and the scope of existing restrictions.

What about Britain?

We have our own relationship with unnecessarily complicated packaging. Sauce sachets, coffee portions, sample products and single use cosmetics are familiar examples, particularly in hospitality and catering.

England's Simpler Recycling programme was originally intended to introduce mandatory household and workplace collections of flexible plastic packaging in 2027 but no surprise, in July 2026, the Government postponed that requirement until April 2030 and even when and if these collections do begin, an important distinction remains. Collecting flexible plastic is not the same thing as being able to recycle every form of flexible plastic.

Mono-material films with viable reprocessing markets are one thing. Tiny, heavily printed, contaminated, multilayer sachets are quite another.

There is another way

It would be easy to blame consumers, particularly in developing economies for purchasing products in small quantities but that would also be spectacularly unfair. Millions of families simply cannot afford to purchase larger quantities of everyday essentials. Small portions make products financially accessible, even if the unit price is sometimes higher.

In the Philippines, the traditional practice of tingi allowed consumers to purchase small quantities using their own containers - a principle that is being revived. The Kuha sa Tingi project, developed with Greenpeace Philippines and local authorities, has introduced refill facilities into neighbourhood shops where, rather than buying a new disposable sachet every time, customers can purchase the quantity they require using reusable containers.
The initial pilots in Quezon City and San Juan City reportedly prevented more than 50,000 sachets from entering the waste stream. Participating retailers also reported improved profitability.

It's a relatively modest achievement compared with billions of sachets produced annually, but it demonstrates that alternative commercial models can work; they just need investment, infrastructure and manufacturers prepared to support them.

The question manufacturers need to answer

Manufacturers have developed remarkable combinations of materials capable of keeping products fresh, extending shelf life, reducing packaging weight and lowering distribution costs, but too often it appears that the fundamental question of what happens to the packaging after use has been left until late in the design process, if at all and plastic sachets are an almost perfect illustration.

If a manufacturer can engineer five different materials into one tiny disposable packet, surely it can devote some of that ingenuity to designing a better way of delivering the product.

The waste industry cannot keep being expected to solve problems that have been deliberately designed into packaging long before it ever reaches a recycling bin and perhaps that's the real scandal of the plastic sachet - designed for convenience, optimised for distribution and perfected for profit - everything, it seems, except what happens post consumer. More like this (sachets) - link - more like this (Philippines) - link - more like this (Lagos) - link

(GUF) FRESHERS, FRANKENSTEIN & FRUSTRATED RECYCLING

Image inspiration - Leonora Carrington - link

Along with a colleague, I've spent the past week visiting Oxford University colleges, meeting this year's freshers and attempting to unravel some of the mysteries surrounding recycling. Our engagement stand includes a miniature Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) conveyor belt, allowing students to get involved in sorting everyday packaging and deciding what can, and perhaps more importantly, what cannot, go into our Dry Mixed Recycling (DMR) collections.

It's a simple concept, but a remarkably effective one. Rather than standing in front of a poster boring people about what they should be doing, we give them something practical to engage with. They make the decisions, we discuss the results and occasionally we're able to explain why something that looks perfectly recyclable isn't necessarily suitable for our recycling system.

Judging by the participation and interest we've experienced throughout the week, it works. I'm delighted to say that every year, the general level of awareness appears to improve a little; not a dramatic transformation - we haven't suddenly produced an entire generation of recycling experts but there's a noticeable increase in the number of students interested in what happens to their waste, why certain materials are accepted and why others are rejected.

More encouragingly, we're seeing greater curiosity about the packaging itself. Why is one plastic container recyclable and another not? Why can seemingly identical packaging require different disposal routes and why do manufacturers continue to produce packaging that causes problems for the recycling industry? All good questions and they're questions our industry welcomes.

We can invest millions in collection vehicles, processing facilities and recycling technology, but if the person disposing of the packaging doesn't understand what happens next, we're already making the process unnecessarily difficult and sometimes, even when they do understand, the packaging itself conspires against them.

The Pringles Problem – A Frankenstein That Refuses to Die

Few products have better demonstrated the frustrations of packaging design than the infamous Pringles tube. For years, this peculiar creation has combined cardboard, metal, plastic and foil into a single piece of packaging. A masterpiece of product protection but something of a Frankenstein's monster when it comes to recycling.

Over the last year, we've been explaining to students that Pringles has been developing and introducing a redesigned, predominantly paper-based tube, replacing the troublesome metal base and making the packaging far more compatible with conventional paper recycling systems and to be fair, there is evidence that this is happening. The redesigned tube was introduced into the UK market in 2024. It's approximately 90% paper rather than strictly mono-material, but it's a significant improvement over its predecessor. The plastic lid and protective seal still need to be dealt with separately, according to the appropriate local recycling instructions.

The technology has clearly been developed, substantial investment has been made and the redesigned tubes have entered the marketplace but having spent the week explaining all this to Oxford's newest students, I went into Sainsbury's on Saturday, only to discover shelves stacked with the familiar old Frankenstein tubes, apparently alive and well.

I'm not suggesting that manufacturers can transform their production and distribution systems overnight, however, there's something frustrating about explaining the progress being made in recyclable packaging while the very product you're discussing continues to demonstrate the problem. How long should it take for improved packaging design to replace its less recyclable predecessor on our supermarket shelves? It begs the question whether pEPR is having any effect?

Innovation is welcome. Implementation is what ultimately matters and until then, our old friend Frankenstein remains a useful exhibit on the miniature MRF conveyor.

Mentos – When Recyclable Packaging Becomes Difficult to Recycle

Whilst discussing crap packaging design, there's another little frustration worth mentioning. Certain Mentos gum containers, along with packaging produced by other manufacturers, demonstrate another particularly irritating habit: taking an otherwise recyclable plastic container and wrapping it in another, thin layer of plastic. Presumably for presentation, branding, tamper evidence or some combination of the three but unfortunately, what might look perfectly sensible on a supermarket shelf can create problems once it reaches a Materials Recovery Facility. Modern MRFs increasingly rely on sophisticated optical sorting equipment, using near-infrared technology to identify different polymers as they travel along conveyor belts. The equipment needs to recognise what it's looking at, however, when a recyclable plastic container is covered by another plastic film, potentially manufactured from a different polymer, the scanner may detect the outer material rather than the container beneath it resulting in a perfectly recyclable container being misidentified, incorrectly sorted or rejected altogether.

Not every sleeved container will suffer this fate. The materials used, the coverage of the sleeve and the capabilities of the sorting equipment all influence the outcome. Nevertheless, it's a recognised problem and one that better packaging design can help avoid.

It's a wonderful example of how a tiny packaging decision, probably made thousands of miles away from the nearest recycling facility, can have consequences throughout the recovery process. We can spend considerable amounts of money investing in collection systems, optical sorting equipment and recycling infrastructure, only for a few grams of unnecessary plastic packaging to compromise the whole exercise. Surely, in 2026, designing packaging that can actually pass through the recycling systems we've already built shouldn't be too much to ask of Perfetti Van Melle (Mentos), Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Reckitt and others?

Recyclable Doesn't Necessarily Mean Recycled

This is perhaps one of the most important messages we try to communicate during our engagement events. Just because something carries a recycling symbol doesn't mean that placing it in a recycling bin guarantees it will be recycled. Even the familiar three-arrow recycling symbol can indicate that a material is technically recyclable, rather than confirming that it will be accepted by a particular collection scheme. Clear disposal instructions are far more useful, although local arrangements must still be considered. A Materials Recovery Facility isn't a magical machine capable of turning every discarded material into something useful, it's a sorting facility. Its purpose is to separate recoverable materials into grades that can be supplied to reprocessors. However, those materials must meet appropriate quality specifications and, ultimately, there must be someone willing and able to use them.

I've spent more than forty years working in the waste industry, and one principle has remained remarkably consistent throughout that time. A recycling facility is only ever as effective as the markets available for the materials it produces. Without viable outlets for recovered materials, all the sophisticated sorting equipment in the world cannot deliver a sustainable recycling system which makes good packaging design, effective separation and education all the more important.
Education Is a Two-Way Street

Oxford attracts students from across Britain and around the world, many of whom arrive having experienced completely different recycling arrangements. What was acceptable in a recycling bin at home might not be acceptable in their college. That's not necessarily because either system is wrong. Different collection and processing arrangements can mean different materials are accepted. Our job is to explain what happens here, why our system operates as it does and how students can help us recover the greatest possible amount of useful material.

The questions students ask, particularly about packaging, provide a useful insight into how people understand recycling and where the confusion lies. Increasingly, that confusion isn't simply about which bin to use. It's about why the packaging was designed that way in the first place. We continually ask consumers to recycle more effectively, but surely manufacturers must take equal responsibility for ensuring that the products and packaging they place on the market can actually be recovered. There's little point telling someone to recycle responsibly if the packaging they're holding has been designed in a way that makes responsible recycling unnecessarily difficult.

An Encouraging Week

After spending the week meeting students across Oxford's colleges, as ever, I'm left feeling genuinely encouraged. Not because everyone knows precisely what goes where. They don't, and I wouldn't expect them to but because so many are prepared to participate, ask questions and understand a little more about the materials they consume and discard.

If we can encourage students to think twice about what they place in a recycling bin and perhaps even question the packaging they purchase in the first place, we're achieving something worthwhile, and if those questions eventually influence the businesses manufacturing and selling the products, so much the better. Ultimately, successful recycling isn't just about collections, vehicles, MRFs and impressive percentages, it's about people, products, infrastructure and markets all working together.

Sometimes the best place to start that conversation is with a group of freshers, a miniature conveyor belt and a Pringles tube that really ought to have retired by now. A thoroughly enjoyable week, and my thanks to the colleges, students and colleague (TT) who made it possible. More like this (Oxford) - link - more like this (MRF) - link - more like this (Unilever) - link

(GUF) FASHIONABLE RECYCLING

Image inspiration - Salvador Dali - link

Milan Fashion Week is upon us again. For several glorious days, beautiful people sit beside a runway looking thoughtfully at clothes that in almost any other circumstances would result in somebody quietly asking whether you'd dressed in the dark. This is fashion.

Normal rules don't apply. A jacket is no longer a jacket, it's a statement. Trousers cease being trousers and become an exploration of form and if somebody walks onto a catwalk wearing what appears to be a dismantled camping chair, half a duvet and a pair of safety goggles, nobody shouts: “oi mate, you've got your trousers caught in the gazebo', instead, fifty photographers start taking pictures.

Looking at some of the creations appearing around Milan this week, i've reached the conclusion that fashion designers and waste managers have more in common than either profession would care to admit. We both spend an enormous amount of time looking at things and wondering what on earth it's made of? The difference is that the fashion industry then charges £4,800 for it whilst the waste industry charges £59.50 for the consignment note.

However, there is something wonderful happening behind all this theatrical nonsense, because while Milan is busy deciding which entirely serviceable items of clothing we should consider hopelessly unfashionable by next Thursday, another part of Italy has spent decades becoming extraordinarily good at dealing with the crap they made last year. Welcome to Prato.

Prato, in Tuscany is one of Europe's great textile districts and has a long history of taking unwanted textiles, sorting them, pulling them apart and turning them back into useful fibre. In other words, while Milan is busy inventing clothes nobody knew they needed, Prato has developed an industry dedicated to dealing with clothes people have discovered they really didn't.

The Circular Economy 

This is the circular economy, or, as previous generations occasionally called it, not chucking perfectly useful stuff away because you're a fashion victim. The concept is simple - old clothing arrives, sorted, buttons, zips and other unwanted components are removed then the textile can be mechanically broken back down into fibre, blended and potentially made into new material. There's nothing particularly glamorous about textile recycling; no photographers; no champagne; no celebrity sitting in the front row unable to see anything because they're wearing sunglasses indoors. Just machinery, people who understand textiles and an inconvenient appreciation of physics, and therein lies one of the fashion industry's little problems. Fashion exists because fashion changes - deliberately - routinely - rapidly.

If everybody bought six decent shirts, two pairs of trousers, a coat and a jumper and then wore them until they fell apart, Milan Fashion Week would become a very short event indeed. “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen; jumpers are practical and perfectly adequate, see you next year".

The entire fashion machine depends upon newness - new season - new colours - new silhouettes - new fabrics - new collections - new reasons why the thing you bought eighteen months ago now apparently identifies you as an out of date loser, and at the luxury end of the market, the results can become magnificently absurd.

Human beings have been making clothing for thousands of years, but the fashion industry continues to behave as though nobody has quite cracked the problem. Sleeves are questioned - why should they have to be where your arms are? Shoulders expand. Trousers widen until the wearer resembles a yacht under full sail. Then trousers contract until bending over becomes an insurance issue. Occasionally somebody removes half the garment entirely and the price goes up four fold. This, allegedly is innovation.

Meanwhile the environmental consequences of clothing have become considerably harder to ignore. Manufacturing fabric consumes raw materials, energy and water. Clothes are transported enormous distances. Synthetic fibres introduce plastics into the equation. Blended materials can be difficult to recycle and ultimately an enormous quantity of clothing reaches the point where its owner decides they wouldn't be seen dead in it which is unfortunate, because only seventeen months earlier they couldn't be seen dead without it.

Italy already possesses something environmental policy frequently talks about but rather less frequently achieves: an established industrial ecosystem capable of collecting, sorting, processing and manufacturing textiles. Prato has been doing versions of this for generations. Modern technology is now being added to the process - optical sorting, fibre identification and increasingly sophisticated methods of separating materials. The ambition is textile-to-textile recycling; a jumper becomes fibre; the fibre becomes textile; the textile becomes a three armed jumper; the fashion industry photographs it; some mug buys it, then six months later somebody decides three sleeves is so yesterday and the whole thing begins again. This may sound cynical, but there's an important distinction. Recycling is extremely useful, reuse is better, but neither entirely addresses the question whether we're simply making too much stuff? This is where environmental discussions about fashion sometimes become wonderfully complicated.

92 Million Tonnes Of Textile Waste Per Annum

A company may proudly announce that a garment contains recycled material but if we manufacture three billion environmentally improved garments that nobody particularly needed, we've merely created a more sustainable route to having too many clothes; rather like manufacturing biodegradable leaflets explaining the environmental benefits of not printing leaflets. There's also a temptation to confuse the catwalk with the real problem. The bizarre outfits appearing in Milan aren't going to bury Europe beneath discarded twelve-foot feathered hats - catwalk fashion is theatre. The real volumes come from ordinary clothing, mass production, fast fashion, short product cycles, overstock and a culture in which clothes can sometimes be astonishingly cheap and that's where the recycling challenge becomes industrial rather than amusing which brings us back to Prato.

The most interesting thing about textile recycling is that many of its central ideas aren't new at all. Our grandparents reused clothes, clothing was repaired - fabric had value. Buttons were removed, material was saved and garments were handed down, no sustainability consultant standing nearby holding a reusable bamboo clipboard, things simply weren't thrown away if they remained useful.

Modern textile recycling is obviously more complicated, particularly with synthetic fibres and blends but the philosophy is surprisingly old-fashioned.

• Value materials.
• Recover materials.
• Make things last.
• Stop pretending recycling gives us unlimited permission to manufacture disposable rubbish.

So perhaps Milan and Prato represent two halves of the same extraordinary Italian textile story. Where Milan asks what should we wear next, Prato asks what are we going to do with everything you told us to wear last year? One attracts models, celebrities, designers and photographers, the other attracts tonnes of old clothing.

If the current collections in Milan are anything to go by, the distance between the catwalk and the textile recycling centre may occasionally be considerably shorter than anticipated. More like this - (Prato) - link - more like this (textile recycling) - link - more like this (Milan) - link - note like this (Italy) - link - more like this (fashion/PPWR) - link

(GUF) THE DRS CLOCK IS TICKING

Image inspiration - Leonora Carrington - link

Britain's Deposit Return Scheme is due to go live on 1 October 2027. On that morning, millions of drinks containers will suddenly acquire a 20p value and consumers will quite reasonably expect to be able to return them and get their money back.

The concept is simple; the logistics behind it are anything but. As the DRS logistics procurement reaches its final stages, the organisations responsible for physically making the system work face an enormous operational challenge. Government planning documents envisage a national infrastructure capable of dealing with the registration and reporting of more than 20 billion containers, supported by collection vehicles, counting and sorting centres, IT systems, return points and reverse-vending machines and all of it has to work together.

What's going to happen

From October 2027, bottles and cans are not simply going to disappear into existing recycling collections. They'll begin travelling backwards through an entirely new supply chain. Reverse-vending machines and manual return points will receive them. Containers will have to be stored, vehicles will collect them, routes will have to be planned and continually adjusted, depots and counting centres will have to process them. Barcodes must be recognised, deposits reconciled and enormous quantities of data transferred accurately between retailers, producers, contractors and the Deposit Management Organisation.

Vehicles have to be sourced, drivers recruited, depot capacity secured, processing equipment installed, software developed and integrated, staff trained, routes modelled, contingency arrangements created. Then somebody has to test the whole thing under something approaching real-world conditions.

Exchange for Change itself identifies operational readiness, system building and testing as key priorities ahead of October 2027, while its current information says full collection arrangements follow completion of the logistics tender. The danger is therefore not that nobody has thought about DRS, it's that a plan on a screen and an operating national logistics network are two very different things.

Where others have stumbled

Germany provides perhaps the clearest warning. Its mandatory deposit requirement arrived in 2003 but Germany's Constitutional Court later recorded that industry had not built a functioning clearing system ready for the January 2003 introduction. The nationwide standardised DPG system we now associate with Germany did not arrive until May 2006. Today it is exceptionally successful with return rates above 96% but getting there was not instantaneous.

Ireland launched its DRS in February 2024 with more than 2,000 return points. Its first year ultimately became a considerable success with more than 980 million containers returned but that figure also illustrates how quickly a new system has to scale once consumers adopt it.

Romania offers another useful comparison. Its scheme began at the end of 2023 and by its first anniversary consumers had returned more than three billion containers. By November 2024 its monthly collection rate had reached 76%. Again, the lesson isn't that DRS failed — it is that a national return system goes through a very substantial operational ramp-up once real containers replace forecast numbers on spreadsheets.

What needs to be done

Britain needs to spend the remaining implementation period trying to break the system before the public does it for us. Don't just test whether a reverse-vending machine accepts a bottle.

• Test what happens when fifty machines in one area fill simultaneously on a Saturday afternoon.
• Test what happens when a collection vehicle breaks down.
• Test Christmas.
• Test a heatwave.
• Test football finals and festivals.
• Test what happens when actual return volumes are 30% above the model.
• Test the communications network going down, incorrect barcodes, rejected containers, missed collections, overflowing storage areas and processing equipment operating at maximum capacity.

Most importantly, test the interfaces between organisations. A retailer's machine may work perfectly and the haulier may have enough vehicles, but neither helps if the information telling one when the other needs collecting doesn't work.

What we need to be mindful of

The UK DRS does not need to be perfect on day one but it does need to be resilient. There will inevitably be problems. Vehicles will fail, machines will break, forecasts will be wrong and consumers will behave differently from the models. The test of the system will therefore not be whether something goes wrong, it'll be whether sufficient spare capacity, people, vehicles, processing capability and contingency have been built into the system to recover when it does.

Germany eventually created one of the best-performing deposit systems in the world. Ireland's scheme rapidly grew into a major collection system. Romania moved billions of containers during its first year but their experience should remove any temptation to think that October 2027 is simply a date on which Britain flicks a switch.

We are attempting to build an enormous new national reverse-logistics network and the clock is already ticking. More like this (DRS) - link - more like this (Germany) - link - more like this (Romania) - link - more like this (Ireland) - link

(GUF) WASTE TO H2 TO WASTE

Image inspiration - Man Ray - link

Toyota is taking a hydrogen fuel cell Hilux to the Dakar Rally. The DKR GR FC Hilux will compete in the experimental Dakar Future Mission 1000 category in January 2027 covering 1,000 competitive kilometres across 13 stages. Toyota hopes to demonstrate that hydrogen fuel cell technology can withstand heat, dust, vibration and the general mechanical brutality of desert competition.

It's an impressive engineering project but the more revealing test of hydrogen may be taking place at considerably lower speeds, stopping every few yards to empty bins. If hydrogen has a serious future in heavy transport, the waste industry ought to be one of the places where it can prove itself.

Waste collection is not ordinary transport

We already operate fully electric waste collection vehicles, however our initial decision to adopt them was not made without reservations. Most discussions about electric commercial vehicles overlook a fundamental difference between delivering goods and collecting waste. A delivery vehicle generally leaves its depot fully charged and heavily laden. As it completes its round, it becomes progressively lighter. A waste collection vehicle does precisely the opposite. It leaves the depot with a full battery but an almost empty body. As its working day progresses, the remaining charge falls while the vehicle becomes steadily heavier. By the time it is carrying its greatest payload, it has its smallest remaining energy reserve.

Propelling the vehicle is only part of the demand. Energy is also needed to lift containers, operate hydraulic equipment and repeatedly compact the collected material. The vehicle may stop and start hundreds of times during a single round. Regenerative braking can recover some of that energy. Predictable routes and overnight depot charging also make waste collection well suited to electrification but those advantages do not erase its unusual operating profile. A waste collection vehicle is not simply a delivery lorry with bins substituted for parcels.

Is this where hydrogen enters?

A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is still essentially electric. Hydrogen passes through a fuel cell to generate electricity which powers an electric motor. A battery normally provides additional energy storage and handles peaks in demand. Its potential advantage is that additional operating range can be carried as hydrogen rather than through an enormous battery pack. Refuelling can also take minutes rather than hours. For a heavy waste vehicle, that could offer several benefits such as longer working rounds, quicker return to service, less dependence on lengthy charging windows, greater suitability for double shift operations and potentially less loss of payload to battery weight.

That last point matters. Every kilogram occupied by batteries, tanks or propulsion equipment is a kilogram that cannot be used to carry waste. A zero emission vehicle that repeatedly reaches its legal weight before its body is full may be environmentally admirable but operationally expensive. Hydrogen does not need to outperform batteries on every route. It only needs to solve the duties on which battery electric vehicles struggle.

Norba has already built one

This isn't merely a concept waiting for Toyota to finish playing in the sand. Geesinknorba has already participated in the development of hydrogen powered waste collection vehicles. One vehicle produced through the European HECTOR programme used an electric Mercedes Econic low-entry chassis, Geesinknorba collection equipment, a 145 kWh battery and four hydrogen tanks storing a total of 20 kg at 350 bar.

Its anticipated operating range on hydrogen was approximately 120 km. Other vehicles in the programme used different combinations of fuel cells, batteries and storage pressures. Some were designed around 350-bar hydrogen and others around 700 bar. The variation tells us something important, i.e. the industry has not yet settled upon a standard technical formula. These were not mass produced vehicles rolling from a mature production line. They were early generation machines assembled from conventional chassis, specialist waste bodies, batteries, fuel cells and hydrogen storage systems supplied by several different businesses. That's engineering development, not yet straightforward fleet procurement.

The HECTOR experiment

HECTOR—Hydrogen Waste Collection Vehicles in North West Europe was led by the amazingly foresighted Aberdeen City Council and involved vehicles operating in Aberdeen, Groningen, Arnhem, Duisburg, Herten, Brussels and Touraine. Its purpose was to examine fuel cell refuse vehicles under actual working conditions. The project covered urban stop-start collections and longer rural rounds, with operators gathering information on procurement, infrastructure, training, maintenance and vehicle performance. The early financial comparison was sobering.

HECTOR estimated the purchase price of a conventional refuse vehicle at between €220,000 and €300,000. A hydrogen fuel cell equivalent was estimated at between €630,000 and €751,000 (approximately two to three times as much).

The vehicles typically stored between 15 and 20 kg of hydrogen. Expected urban range was around 120 km, potentially rising considerably on rural routes where the vehicle was not constantly stopping, lifting and compacting. One truck was expected to consume roughly one complete 15–20 kg fill during a working day. Operators also had to consider depot alterations, hydrogen detection, ventilation, specialist maintenance, driver training and a secure supply of suitably pure fuel. Planning and constructing a permanent hydrogen station could take up to two years and that's the less glamorous side of hydrogen adoption. Buying the vehicle is only the opening ceremony. Keeping it fuelled, maintained and earning money is the actual project. The HECTOR operational handbook describes both the potential and the considerable practical preparation involved.

The hydrogen question begins before the vehicle moves

A fuel cell vehicle emits water rather than carbon dioxide at the point of use. That makes it attractive in towns and cities where air quality and noise matter, however, “zero-emission” at the tailpipe is not the same as zero-carbon. Most hydrogen is still manufactured from fossil fuels. Green hydrogen, produced by electrolysing water using renewable electricity, offers far greater carbon savings but also introduces a substantial efficiency penalty.

Electricity can be sent directly through the grid into a battery. Producing green hydrogen requires that electricity to be used to split water, after which the hydrogen must be compressed, stored, transported and converted back into electricity inside the vehicle.

At every stage, energy is lost. If an operator can complete the same round using a battery-electric vehicle charged directly from renewable electricity, hydrogen will struggle to make either the environmental or financial case. Its opportunity lies where direct electrification becomes operationally restrictive.

Waste could provide both the demand and the fuel

The waste industry has one further reason to be interested: it does not merely consume energy. It also handles materials from which energy can be produced. Hydrogen can potentially be made using electricity generated from energy-from-waste facilities, landfill gas or anaerobic digestion. It may also be produced from biomethane, although the carbon performance depends upon the feedstock, production method and treatment of the resulting emissions. More controversial proposals involve producing hydrogen through the gasification or pyrolysis of waste. These processes are often promoted using the seductive language of “waste-to-hydrogen”, but the description alone proves very little.

The important questions remain - what material is being used; could it have been reused or recycled instead; how much external energy does the process require; what emissions and residues are produced; how much usable hydrogen emerges and what is the genuine lifecycle carbon saving?

Turning unrecyclable waste into low-carbon hydrogen could create a compelling circular system: waste collected by vehicles powered by fuel made from residual waste. Turning valuable material into expensive hydrogen while disguising fossil carbon behind an attractive label would be rather less revolutionary. The feedstock and the arithmetic matter more than the colour assigned to the hydrogen in the press release.

Batteries have already left the starting line

Hydrogen’s difficulty is not that it has no technical advantages. It's that battery electric vehicles are already improving and entering working fleets. Operators now have practical data on electric RCV routes, charging, driver behaviour, payload and energy consumption. Battery capacity continues to increase, charging becomes faster and manufacturers benefit from a much broader electric-vehicle supply chain. Hydrogen refuse vehicles remain comparatively rare, expensive and dependent upon specialist infrastructure. A fleet manager cannot base a procurement decision on theoretical range alone. The questions are brutally practical:

• Will the vehicle complete the round in winter?
• How much payload does it sacrifice?
• Where will it refuel?
• What does the hydrogen cost per kilogram?
• What happens if the filling station is unavailable?
• Who can repair the vehicle?
• How quickly can parts be obtained?
• What replacement vehicle is available when it fails?
• And what will it be worth at the end of its working life?

Waste does not stop accumulating because an experimental drivetrain is waiting for an engineer.

A specialist tool, not a universal answer

Hydrogen does not have to defeat batteries everywhere to justify its existence. For predictable urban rounds completed within one shift, battery electric RCVs may remain the more efficient and practical option. They can return to a depot, charge overnight and use regenerative braking throughout their stop-start routes. Hydrogen may prove more valuable for the difficult remainder:

• long rural collection rounds;
• high-mileage commercial services;
• vehicles operating two shifts;
• hook-loaders and skip vehicles;
• heavy specialist collections;
• and operations where charging time or battery weight materially reduces productivity.

That's a narrower opportunity than the promised “hydrogen economy”, but it is also a far more credible one.

Toyota’s Dakar Hilux will attract headlines because speed, sand and motorsport make good pictures. A hydrogen refuse vehicle completing an ordinary Wednesday collection round is unlikely to generate the same excitement, but the waste vehicle may be the more important test. The waste industry places exceptional demands on its vehicles. They become heavier as their stored energy falls, while continually powering lifting and compaction equipment. If hydrogen can offer greater productive range, rapid refuelling and acceptable payload without imposing intolerable costs, refuse collection could become one of its strongest applications but the case will not be established through prototypes, launch events or statements about water vapour.

Operators need published figures for availability, payload, fuel consumption, maintenance, infrastructure, whole-life cost and actual carbon intensity. They need performance measured over years, seasons and thousands of working rounds. Electric refuse vehicles are already doing the job. Hydrogen must now demonstrate that it can do the difficult parts better. Until then, it remains a promising fuel awaiting something the waste industry understands very well: Proof of collection. More like this (H2) - link - more like this (waste H2) - link - more like this (Dakar) - link