Greenwashing - who's good at it and why organisations don't care - link
Thursday, 14 May 2026
(CON) NIGERIA, RUBBISH AND FASHION
Workers load plastic waste into bags, Nigeria. Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP via Getty Images
On any street in Lagos, Abuja or Port Harcourt, you’ll find abandoned plastic bottles lying around. Each year, about 2.5 million tonnes of plastic waste are produced in Nigeria and much of it winds up in landfills or in the environment. But plastic waste can be useful. In some places it’s converted to textiles and clothing. Adidas, a global shoe and apparel maker, uses ocean plastics to produce sneakers, and the clothing brands H&M and Patagonia have put their money into recycled polyester collection. They collect post-consumer plastic waste (like used plastic bottles), clean it, shred it into flakes, melt it down into pellets, and then spin these pellets into polyester yarn, which is used to make new sportswear and footwear.
We’re a team of sustainability researchers and social scientists with expertise in circular economy, ethics and plastic waste management. In a recent study, we reviewed the opportunities and challenges of using recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastics (the type of plastic used in beverage bottles) in Nigeria’s fashion industry.
Evidence from other regions, such as Europe and North America, shows that producing polyester fibres from recycled PET rather than unused materials can cut carbon emissions by over 45%. But little is known about its potential in Nigeria.
Our review mapped and analysed academic studies, industry reports and policy documents to identify technical, economic, environmental, social and regulatory factors shaping the adoption of recycled PET in Nigerian fashion.
We developed a theoretical model showing how knowledge from local crafts, industrial design, environmental science and policy frameworks interact to influence this emerging practice. And we made some proposals about how to foster a socially inclusive, ethically responsible and environmentally sustainable textile industry in Nigeria.
We believe that incorporating plastic waste into the Nigerian textile industry could reduce pollution, generate employment and cut a niche in the world of sustainable fashion.
Barriers beyond technology
Plastic bottles don’t have to be a social or environmental hassle. They can be a source of economic power. The concept of “waste to wealth” is more than a catchphrase – it has the potential to revive the textile industry.
But there are a number of obstacles.
Poor infrastructure: Nigerians do not have large recycling plants. Recycling tends to be small scale or informal. Recovered PET bottles are typically exported or down-cycled into low-grade products like mats or stuffing.
Consumer perceptions: In a recent survey conducted in Lagos only 18% of consumers had heard about recycled textiles. Nigerians think of recycled clothes as a sign of poverty or as second-hand goods, not as quality clothing.
Comfort: Recycled polyester is often uncomfortable to wear in hot, damp climates, as the fabric tends to retain moisture and heat. Nigeria’s average daily temperatures range from 25°C to 35°C with high humidity. The uptake among consumers will not improve until these technical problems are addressed.
Policy gaps: In Europe, companies must assume responsibility for the end of their products’ lives. In Nigeria there are no comparable regulations, incentives or infrastructure supporting sustainable textiles. This leaves local brands with little motivation to innovate.
Lessons from global and local experiments
Other countries and brands have shown what’s possible. Adidas has transformed thousands of tonnes of plastic taken from the oceans into sneakers and sportswear. H&M operates a take-back programme worldwide which gathered over 14,768 tonnes of worn garments in 2022. Patagonia has a programme called Worn Wear which invites customers to repair and reuse their clothes.
Nigeria can learn from these examples, but also has its own sources of innovation. Startup enterprises such as Chanja Datti in Abuja are testing community-based recycling and recovery. Circular fashion – where clothing is designed to be reused, repaired and recycled instead of discarded – can also be cultural fashion, as designers in Nigeria like Maki Oh are incorporating traditional textures and sustainable practices. More of this article (The Conversation) – link – more like this (Nigeria) – link – more like this (PET) - link
Tuesday, 12 May 2026
(GRI) MARDI GRAS' RUBBISH
Brian Lawdermilk / AP Photo
When cleaning crews dug deep into New Orleans’ clogged drains in 2018, they pulled up leaves, mud and 46 tons of Mardi Gras beads.
The sheer magnitude of waste accumulated over decades of Carnivals — and its impact on the flood-prone city’s drainage system — shocked many residents and city officials. “Once you hear a number like that, there’s no going back,” then-Public Works director Dani Galloway said at the time. “So we’ve got to do better.”
But nearly a decade later, New Orleans is generating more Mardi Gras garbage than ever. During the roughly five weeks of this year’s Carnival season, crews collected 1,363 tons of beaded necklaces, beer cans, plastic cups, and other refuse along the city’s parade routes — a 24 percent increase from the year before and the highest total on record. The trash tonnage is the equivalent of 741 cars. In New Orleans terms, it’s roughly the weight of the Steamboat Natchez or more than 1 million king cakes.
“To see the waste go up that much, it’s just absurd,” said Brett Davis, founder of Grounds Krewe, a nonprofit group trying to make Mardi Gras more sustainable through recycling and waste reduction efforts.
It’s a century-old tradition for riders on parade floats to shower crowds with beaded necklaces, toys, and other items — collectively known as “throws.” Most are cheap plastic trinkets. The beads are often laden with toxic chemicals, including unsafe levels of lead. Many throws are dropped moments after they’re caught, then crushed under feet and eventually swept up and hauled to landfills.
City officials initially blamed the rise in rubbish on the popularity of this year’s festivities, which ran from January 6 to February 17 and included more than 30 float parades. An estimated 2.2 million people visited downtown New Orleans during the Carnival season, about 10 percent more than in 2025, according to the Downtown Development District, which drew on data from location analytics company Placer.ai. “The increase from last year was directly associated with the larger crowds,” Matt Torri, the city’s sanitation director, told the City Council in March. “Anybody who was out at this year’s parades definitely took note that there seemed to be more people enjoying the Carnival season, which is great for the city.”
But a Verite News analysis of annual attendance and city cleanup records shows no clear relationship between crowds and trash levels. Overall, Mardi Gras waste tonnage has trended upward over the past decade, regardless of the year-to-year changes in attendance. The Mardi Gras season in 2020, for instance, drew more people — about 2.4 million — but produced roughly 241 fewer tons of garbage than in 2026.
In the early 2010s, trash tonnage hovered around 880 tons. It spiked in 2017, surpassing 1,320 tons, and has not fallen below 1,000 tons since. The only exception was 2021, when no trash was recorded because the city canceled parades and most Carnival festivities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. more of this article (Grist) - link - more like this (New Orleans) - link - more like this (plastic beads) - link
But nearly a decade later, New Orleans is generating more Mardi Gras garbage than ever. During the roughly five weeks of this year’s Carnival season, crews collected 1,363 tons of beaded necklaces, beer cans, plastic cups, and other refuse along the city’s parade routes — a 24 percent increase from the year before and the highest total on record. The trash tonnage is the equivalent of 741 cars. In New Orleans terms, it’s roughly the weight of the Steamboat Natchez or more than 1 million king cakes.
“To see the waste go up that much, it’s just absurd,” said Brett Davis, founder of Grounds Krewe, a nonprofit group trying to make Mardi Gras more sustainable through recycling and waste reduction efforts.
It’s a century-old tradition for riders on parade floats to shower crowds with beaded necklaces, toys, and other items — collectively known as “throws.” Most are cheap plastic trinkets. The beads are often laden with toxic chemicals, including unsafe levels of lead. Many throws are dropped moments after they’re caught, then crushed under feet and eventually swept up and hauled to landfills.
City officials initially blamed the rise in rubbish on the popularity of this year’s festivities, which ran from January 6 to February 17 and included more than 30 float parades. An estimated 2.2 million people visited downtown New Orleans during the Carnival season, about 10 percent more than in 2025, according to the Downtown Development District, which drew on data from location analytics company Placer.ai. “The increase from last year was directly associated with the larger crowds,” Matt Torri, the city’s sanitation director, told the City Council in March. “Anybody who was out at this year’s parades definitely took note that there seemed to be more people enjoying the Carnival season, which is great for the city.”
But a Verite News analysis of annual attendance and city cleanup records shows no clear relationship between crowds and trash levels. Overall, Mardi Gras waste tonnage has trended upward over the past decade, regardless of the year-to-year changes in attendance. The Mardi Gras season in 2020, for instance, drew more people — about 2.4 million — but produced roughly 241 fewer tons of garbage than in 2026.
In the early 2010s, trash tonnage hovered around 880 tons. It spiked in 2017, surpassing 1,320 tons, and has not fallen below 1,000 tons since. The only exception was 2021, when no trash was recorded because the city canceled parades and most Carnival festivities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. more of this article (Grist) - link - more like this (New Orleans) - link - more like this (plastic beads) - link
(CGN 12) BATTERIES
Batteries are one of the smallest items we throw away, and potentially one of the most dangerous.
For years, waste batteries were treated as little more than an inconvenience: a few AA cells in a drawer, an old mobile phone battery, a disposable vape tossed into a bin. Today, however, batteries sit at the centre of one of the fastest-growing safety and compliance challenges facing the waste and recycling sector.
From fires in refuse vehicles and recycling plants, to exploding vapes and damaged lithium-ion batteries entering general waste streams, the risks are becoming very real, very costly and increasingly difficult to ignore.
CGN 12 – Batteries - has been created to provide practical, straightforward guidance on:
- the main battery types,
- what legally constitutes a waste battery,
- why lithium batteries are different,
- safe storage and segregation,
- transport considerations,
- why simple actions like taping battery terminals genuinely matter.
As with all Circular Guidance Notes, this document is designed to be useful rather than overcomplicated - focusing on practical handling, safety, compliance and common sense rather than technical jargon because in waste management, one incorrectly discarded battery doesn’t just disappear into a bin, sometimes, it starts a fire.
I hope you find this CGN useful. CGN 11 - link - more like this - (EU) - link - more like this (batteries) - link - more like this (the waste files) - link
CGN Disclaimer & Community Review
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
Monday, 11 May 2026
(CGN 11) PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS
This CGN is one of the most important guidance notes in the series so far because it deals with a difficult truth that much of the recycling and reuse world is still struggling to fully accept. For years, we were encouraged to repair, reuse, recycle and keep materials circulating for as long as possible.
In principle, that remains absolutely correct; however, some legacy materials now present a serious legal and environmental challenge due to the presence of Persistent Organic Pollutants - better known as POPs. These chemicals, commonly found in older upholstered seating, electrical plastics, cables and insulation materials, were originally introduced to improve fire safety and product performance.
The problem is that many of them do not easily break down, they accumulate in the environment and are now tightly controlled under UK and international law which itself creates a major compliance issue for organisations attempting to recycle or refurbish older furniture and WEEE items.
A sofa may look recyclable. A foam cushion may appear reusable. An old cable may seem harmless. Yet if those materials contain POPs above legal thresholds, they cannot legally be recycled back into new products and may instead require destruction through specialist high-temperature incineration routes.
The purpose of this guidance note is not to criticise repair, reuse or recycling organisations, many are acting with genuinely good environmental intentions. Rather, it is to explain where modern waste legislation places limits on the circular economy and why ‘doing the green thing’ still must remain legally compliant.
Basically, if foam or plastic contains POPs, it is not a recycling product; it is a destruction waste.
This CGN summarises the current UK guidance surrounding:
- upholstered domestic seating containing POPs
- WEEE plastics and cables
- legal disposal obligations
- the growing operational impact these rules are having across universities, businesses, charities and the wider waste industry
Relevant guidance referenced within this CGN includes: Manage waste containing Persistent Organic Pollutants – link - Manage waste upholstered domestic seating containing POPs - link - Classify some waste electrical devices, components and wastes from their treatment - link - CGN 10 - link - more like this (POPs) - link
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
Saturday, 9 May 2026
(MOT) ROUNDUP - GOING STRONG IN CALIFORNIA
An artist's rendition. But some locals fear spraying Roundup in the Lassen National Forest and vicinity threatens their “little slice of heaven.” Billie Carter-Rankin; George Rose/Getty
In remote Northeast California, about 10 miles outside the lumber mill town of Chester and a half-hour’s drive from the old hunting cabin I bought and fixed up about a decade ago, I steer my old Toyota Tacoma down a bumpy dirt road to where the Lassen National Forest gives way to private timberland. Lilly rides shotgun.
We’d come to this exact spot seven years ago. Lilly, my sharp-eyed border collie, had jumped out of the truck and chased a rabbit through a meadow of knee-high grass, returning covered in mud and burrs. The landscape was straight out of an L.L.Bean catalog: a flower-dotted meadow buzzing with life. Douglas firs, incense cedars, and some of the tallest sugar pines on the planet sheltered protected species ranging from gray wolves to Pacific fishers and northern goshawks. The Sierra Nevada red fox, one of California’s rarest mammals, was known to live nearby, amid the vast patchwork of private and public lands. The Lassen area is where I come to reset, forage for wild mushrooms, and let stress evaporate.
But today, I’m looking out over a barren, sun-bleached expanse that stretches across the former meadow and up the sides of denuded mountains as far as the eye can see. No birds. No animals. No insects. No big trees. Just some waist-high piles of volcanic rock, a nod to the still-active Lassen Peak nearby. It is eerily quiet—desolate. The Dixie Fire roared through here in July 2021, burning nearly 1 million acres. The Park Fire three years later took out another 430,000 acres nearby. But the fires aren’t directly responsible for what I’m seeing today. People did this.
Just a few minutes down the road, nature has crept back to life. There, I saw vibrant green mountain whitethorn bushes, rabbitbrush, and purple-tinged bull thistles, with energetic bees bopping from flower to flower. The towering trees were gone, but new saplings abounded—cedars, pines, firs, and more—scattered randomly amid the greenery, already a foot or two high. No such verdant revival is visible on the private timberland before me. No bees, no flowers—it’s a virtual dead zone where the only life consists of row upon row of manually planted, tightly packed conifer saplings, all less than a foot tall.
This is because, unbeknownst to most people, logging companies and the US Forest Service have been spraying massive amounts of herbicide in clear-cut and fire-ravaged forests of California—and throughout the nation. And not just any herbicide, but glyphosate, a potent and problematic weed killer best known by the brand name Roundup. More of this article (Mother Jones) - link - Melissa Lewis - link - more like this (glyphosate) - link - more like this (California) - link
(CGN 10) EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
CGN 10 takes on one of the biggest changes currently reshaping the waste and packaging sector - Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR).
In this Circular Guidance Note, we explore:
- why EPR matters
- how the RAM (Recyclability Assessment Methodology) could become one of the UK’s most important waste policy tools
- why procurement decisions now carry long-term financial consequences
- how “cheap packaging” may become expensive packaging
- why some producers may simply pass additional costs straight back to customers instead of redesigning poor packaging
Importantly, this CGN is not anti-EPR. In fact, parts of the framework, particularly RAM may finally begin linking packaging design to real-world recyclability and real-world financial consequences which, being honest, the industry has needed for a very long time.
More than ever, with the introduction of pEPR, good recycling starts in procurement. CGN 09 - link - more like this - (pEPR) - link - more like this (CEAP) - link
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
(CGN 09) LITTERING
Littering is often dismissed as a minor nuisance; a dropped can, a cigarette end, a takeaway wrapper left on a wall but in reality, littering sits at the very front line of waste management, public behaviour and environmental responsibility.
Every piece of litter has a cost: someone has to clean it up, someone has to pay for it and somewhere downstream, it impacts communities, wildlife, drainage systems and public perception.
CGN 09 explores the legal and operational framework surrounding littering and fly-tipping in England and Wales, including the legislation commonly used by councils and enforcement officers, the difference between littering and fly-tipping, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), enforcement powers and the wider practical implications for businesses, local authorities and the public.
Importantly, this guidance note is intended to inform rather than instruct. As with all CGNs, I have aimed to keep the document grounded in publicly available legislation, guidance and operational practice while remaining accessible to everyday readers. Report littering - link - CGN 08 - link - (still in writing) - CGN 07 - link - more like this (littering) - link - more like this (FPN) - link
TCGN Disclaimer & Community Review
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves, and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
(CGN 08) FOOD WASTE
For years, most organisations treated food waste as little more than “wet general waste” - something scraped into a black bag and forgotten about but under the UK’s new Simpler Recycling reforms, that approach is rapidly disappearing.
Businesses with more than ten full-time employees at a single location are now required to separately collect food waste, with household collections expanding across England in the years ahead. In other words, food waste is no longer simply a sustainability choice, it's becoming standard operational compliance.
But unlike many environmental obligations, this one actually makes genuine environmental sense.
When separated correctly and sent to Anaerobic Digestion (AD), food waste becomes a renewable energy source capable of generating electricity, biogas and agricultural digestate while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to landfill or residual disposal.
This latest Circular Guidance Note (CGN 08) explores:
- the legal requirements behind food waste collections,
- the environmental benefits of Anaerobic Digestion,
- the difference between AD and In-Vessel Composting (IVC),
- the growing industry frustration around so-called “compostable” packaging.
One of the biggest myths in modern waste management is that “compostable” automatically means environmentally beneficial which isn't always the case.
As always, the aim of the CGN series is not greenwashing, jargon or virtue signalling — but practical circular thinking grounded in real-world waste operations and compliance. CGN 07 - link - more like this (Anaerobic Digestion) - link - more like this (food waste) - link - please note - website address is incorrect.
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
Friday, 8 May 2026
(CGN 07) CREAM CHARGERS
CGN 07 focuses on a growing problem quietly making its way through the waste industry: nitrous oxide cream chargers.
Used widely by coffee shops, bakeries, catering outlets and commercial kitchens, these large gas canisters are increasingly being discarded into general waste and recycling streams despite still containing residual pressure and oxidising gas hazards.The problem is simple: They look empty. They are often not.
Once inside compactors, balers, MRFs or incinerators, these cylinders can cause fires, explosions, equipment damage and significant operational disruption.
This Circular Guidance Note explains:
- why cream chargers remain hazardous after use
- their correct technical classification
- why they should never enter routine waste streams
- and the correct route for compliant treatment
Because pressure vessels belong in specialist treatment - not general waste. RPS 289 - link - More like this (aerosols) - link - more like this (CGN 06) - link
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
Thursday, 7 May 2026
(CGN 06) COMING SOON - THE CARBON SLEDGEHAMMER
More like this (CGN 05) - linkCGN Disclaimer & Community Review
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
(CGN 05) EPR - THE FULL SET
Over the next few years, a series of new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes will fundamentally change who pays for waste management, how materials are designed, collected and recycled, and ultimately what businesses are allowed to place on the market.
For decades, the true cost of dealing with difficult, non-recyclable and waste heavy products has largely fallen on local authorities, businesses and taxpayers. The new EPR framework aims to reverse that model by shifting the financial and operational responsibility back onto the producers placing materials onto the market in the first place.Packaging is only the beginning.
The UK is now moving towards wider producer responsibility schemes covering sectors such as batteries, electrical equipment, textiles, tyres, furniture and other hard to recycle waste streams; many of which have historically escaped meaningful end of life accountability.
Alongside Simpler Recycling, Digital Waste Tracking, the Deposit Return Scheme and future carbon legislation, EPR will become one of the defining drivers shaping procurement, packaging design, recycling systems and disposal costs throughout the late 2020s and beyond.
In simple terms:
The era of “someone else will deal with it at the end” is slowly coming to an end.
This document provides an overview of the proposed and emerging UK EPR schemes, what they are intended to achieve and what organisations should now be preparing for. more like this (EPR) - link - more like this (tyres) - link - more like this (CGN 04) - link
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
Saturday, 2 May 2026
(XIN) DEPOSIT RETURN SCHEME - CHINESE STYLE
People work at Huge Recycle, a company handling household waste recovery and recycling, in Hangzhou, east China's Zhejiang Province, Jan. 14, 2026. (Xinhua/Jiang Han)
Scanning a code, opening a hatch, and tossing in bottles, Yuan Meirong completes the recycling process in less than 10 seconds. With a ding, 0.8 yuan (11.6 U.S. cents) is credited to her account.
"It's so convenient," said the resident from Hangzhou, capital of east China's Zhejiang Province, gesturing at a smart recycling bin. "Now I can easily recycle delivery boxes and bottles for a little reward. It's fun."
Operated by the internet recycling firm Lovere, the smart bin is one of 870 units deployed across nearly 400 residential communities in Hangzhou's Xihu District since its July 2024 pilot launch.
Residents can enter a phone number or scan a QR code to recycle items such as plastic bottles, cardboard, old clothes, and takeout containers. The bin automatically weighs the items and pays about 0.6 yuan per kg directly to the user's account.
More than a mere convenience, the bins demonstrate how technology is monetizing waste streams across Chinese cities, transforming passive disposal into people's active participation in the circular economy. Since deploying the smart bins, recyclable-sorting accuracy has reached 98.5 percent, with monthly recycling volume averaging 1,000 tonnes, said Zhang Yixiang, Lovere's Hangzhou chief.
The company has placed over 50,000 bins in 38 cities and has recycled 2 million tonnes for 30 million users. In Xihu District alone, residents have used the bins 2.58 million times, receiving 4.2 million yuan in total. The top user recycled 9 tonnes, earning 5,400 yuan, according to the company. Zhang Kang, Lovere's Hangzhou operations head, said the sensors trigger pickups only when bins are full, and an automated sorting center categorizes materials into more than 80 types for sale.
"With scale, the business is expected to become profitable," he said. The Communist Party of China Central Committee's recommendations for formulating the 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-2030) for the country's economic and social development propose promoting a circular economy.
At Xianyu, a leading second-hand trading platform of China's internet giant Alibaba, 7 million used items were listed on average every day in 2025, with daily trading volume up 30 percent year on year. "Every transaction is users' participation in a green lifestyle," said Ding Jian, the platform's CEO.
From April 2024 to March 2025, Xianyu users reduced carbon emissions by 11.8 million tonnes through trading and recycling -- equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of 7.4 million households, Ding said. According to the China Association of Circular Economy, the circular economy accounted for about 30 percent of the country's carbon reduction from 2021 to 2025, and this share is expected to rise to 35 percent by 2030.
In Hangzhou's Yuhang District, resident Chai Yuyong praised "Huge," a door-to-door recycling service, which collected his old sofa and table for free in 20 minutes. Residents place orders via an app, and a worker arrives within an hour to collect, weigh and pay for items such as old appliances. "Living on a high floor, I found it a hassle to dispose of the bulky old furniture by myself. Now, with just a tap on my phone, they come to collect and carry them for free. It's a real relief," Chai said.
Hu Shaoping, vice president of the company Huge Recycle, said that over the past 10 years, the company has built an end-to-end chain from household collection to sorting, dismantling and resource reuse. The service offers transparent pricing for used appliances of different sizes. Residents are paid in "green coins," which can be redeemed for cash or spent at Huge's online mall, further driving green consumption.
To date, the company has issued nearly 500 million yuan in green coins. Xu Lin, a professor at Zhejiang University, noted that smart technology has made recycling and green consumption as simple as a phone scan. These small actions, he said, show how the public has moved from being told what to do to taking the lead in the circular economy. More of this article (XINHUANET) link - more like this (DRS) - link - more like this (China) - link
(BBC) COUNCIL REJECTS ELECTRIC
Wakefield Council has been trialling using an electric rubbish collection truck
A council has announced plans to replace its "ageing" bin lorries with a new fleet of diesel vehicles after attempts to go electric were unsuccessful.Wakefield Council began trialling an electric rubbish collection vehicle four years ago as part of efforts to become a carbon neutral authority.
But Lou Redpath, the council's service director for environmental services, told a meeting that manufacturers had been unable to find "anything sustainable enough" to allow the council to switch to an electric fleet long-term.
Members of the council's environment scrutiny committee described the move as "disappointing", especially during the ongoing global fuel shortage. The council declared a climate emergency in May 2019 and pledged to be fully carbon neutral by 2030. In 2022, senior councillors agreed to spend £4.9m to introduce zero-emission battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and an additional £1m on charging infrastructure.
At the time, a report said about 12% of the authority's greenhouse gas emissions were produced by its fleet of 1,100 cars, vans and other equipment.
The document also said bin wagons and gritters would continue to use diesel due to "uncertainties with technology and performance" of larger vehicles, but pledged to keep trialling an electric refuse vehicle. More of this article (BBC) - link - more like this (Council waste EVs) - link - more like this (electric waste vehicles) - link - more like this (Carbon Neutral) - link
(CGN 04) THE WASTE FILES
THE WASTE FILES – THE MANIFESTO - By Guff House
What is this going to be?
Wastipedia (or whatever I end up calling it) is/will be a free, open and evolving library of practical waste management knowledge built from over forty years of real-world experience existing for one simple reason: to make waste management clearer, more accurate and more honest.
• No subscriptions.
• No gatekeeping.
• No pretending theory works when it doesn’t.
Why it's needed
Too much of this industry runs on outdated guidance, misinterpreted legislation (That’s how we’ve always done it”) and the occasional confident guess dressed up as fact. Somewhere between legislation, operations and procurement, things get muddled. Wastipedia (or whatever) will exist to un-muddle them.
What you’ll find here
Documents that answer real questions, such as:
• What is this waste actually classified as?
• Can this really be recycled — or is that wishful thinking?
• What should I be buying if I want to avoid disposal problems later?
• What does the legislation say… and what actually happens on site?
Each document is/will be designed to be practical, clear, usable under pressure and grounded in reality, not theory.
The Principle: Reality Over Rhetoric
Every piece of content will follow one rule - if it doesn’t work in the real world, it doesn’t belong here. Where there’s a gap between guidance and practice, we will say so. Clearly, honestly and without dressing it up.
Open to Correction – Not Open to Chaos
Wastipedia (whatever) will never be static. If something is wrong, outdated, incomplete or could be improved, you are invited to challenge it; and as long as you can back it up (guidance, regs or real operational experience), keeping it practical, constructive, every document will be versioned, reviewed and updated where necessary. Contributors who improve content can be credited (if they wish) because accuracy matters and so does accountability.
What this is not going to be
Wastipedia will not be:
• A marketing exercise
• A compliance box-ticking tool
• A place for vague sustainability claims
Who it’s going to be for
Anyone who has ever stood in front of a bin thinking: “Right… what actually happens to this?”
My aim
To build something people can rely on. Not because it looks good but because it’s right.
Built from experience - Improved by those still doing the job - Open to challenge - closed to nonsense.
Wastipedia (or whatever I end up calling it) is/will be a free, open and evolving library of practical waste management knowledge built from over forty years of real-world experience existing for one simple reason: to make waste management clearer, more accurate and more honest.
• No subscriptions.
• No gatekeeping.
• No pretending theory works when it doesn’t.
Why it's needed
Too much of this industry runs on outdated guidance, misinterpreted legislation (That’s how we’ve always done it”) and the occasional confident guess dressed up as fact. Somewhere between legislation, operations and procurement, things get muddled. Wastipedia (or whatever) will exist to un-muddle them.
What you’ll find here
Documents that answer real questions, such as:
• What is this waste actually classified as?
• Can this really be recycled — or is that wishful thinking?
• What should I be buying if I want to avoid disposal problems later?
• What does the legislation say… and what actually happens on site?
Each document is/will be designed to be practical, clear, usable under pressure and grounded in reality, not theory.
The Principle: Reality Over Rhetoric
Every piece of content will follow one rule - if it doesn’t work in the real world, it doesn’t belong here. Where there’s a gap between guidance and practice, we will say so. Clearly, honestly and without dressing it up.
Open to Correction – Not Open to Chaos
Wastipedia (whatever) will never be static. If something is wrong, outdated, incomplete or could be improved, you are invited to challenge it; and as long as you can back it up (guidance, regs or real operational experience), keeping it practical, constructive, every document will be versioned, reviewed and updated where necessary. Contributors who improve content can be credited (if they wish) because accuracy matters and so does accountability.
What this is not going to be
Wastipedia will not be:
• A marketing exercise
• A compliance box-ticking tool
• A place for vague sustainability claims
Who it’s going to be for
Anyone who has ever stood in front of a bin thinking: “Right… what actually happens to this?”
My aim
To build something people can rely on. Not because it looks good but because it’s right.
Built from experience - Improved by those still doing the job - Open to challenge - closed to nonsense.
If you know something - add to it.
If you see something wrong - fix it.
If you’ve ever questioned how this industry works - you’re in the right place.
If you see something wrong - fix it.
If you’ve ever questioned how this industry works - you’re in the right place.
More like this (The Waste Files) - link - more like this (legislation) - link - more like this (knowledge) - link - download 'Bin It Right - Buy It Better' - here
As with all documents within the CGN (Circular Guidance Note) series, every effort has been made to ensure the information provided is factual, practical, and helpful at the time of writing however, legislation changes, guidance evolves and occasionally mistakes happen. If you spot anything within this CGN that is incorrect, misleading, outdated or could be better explained, please leave a comment below together with supporting information or clarification. Following review and verification, corrections or revisions will be made where appropriate and contributors will happily be credited for their input should they wish. The aim of the CGN series is not simply to publish information but to build a growing, reliable, real-world resource library for everyone involved in waste, recycling, compliance and circular economy discussions.
I have always believed that in waste management, getting it right matters more than pretending to already know everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)