(REF) MAKING FUEL FROM BATTERY ACID AND WASTE PLASTICS

The acid from spent car batteries can now be used to produce clean hydrogen, thanks to research out of the University of Cambridge - Depositphotos

In a "triple win" for green research, scientists at the University of Cambridge have developed a new sunlight-activated reactor that uses one waste stream to tackle another – all while producing clean hydrogen, and promising to be profitable at commercial scale.

According to Our World in Data, a statistical-compilation site formed in partnership with the University of Oxford, plastic production now reaches 450 million tonnes per year, a staggering increase since 1950, when only 2 million tonnes were produced. The bulk of that plastic winds up in landfills (and about 0.5% lands in our oceans) after it is used, with only about 18% getting recycled and another 24% handled by incineration. That means finding a way to deal with plastic waste is of critical importance.

Current mechanical recycling methods can handle large amounts of plastics, but they have their issues. Contamination from food and other materials can foul large batches of potentially recyclable plastics. Also, new plastic produced this way is often inferior to the original product, so the process really results in downcycling more than recycling or upcycling.

Chemical recycling methods are much more effective, especially when a photocatalyst is used to alter the constituent building blocks of plastics using light. But to reach that point, acids are often used to initially break down the plastic, and most photocatalysts can't stand up to the harsh environment created by these acids.

However, the Cambridge study showed a path forward that makes use of both acids and photocatalysts.

A near accident

“The discovery was almost accidental,” says Cambridge's Erwin Reisner, who led the research. “We used to think acid was completely off limits in these solar-powered systems, because it would simply dissolve everything. But our catalyst developed didn’t – and suddenly a whole new world of reactions opened up.”

As a first step inside the new reactor, plastics are broken down using sulphuric acid through a process known as hydrolysis. In this case, the acid came from discarded car batteries. When applied to the plastics, the long molecular chains from which they were made are snipped apart at their chemical joints. In testing, when the battery acid was applied to PET plastics, such as the plastic that comprises drink bottles, it resulted in two chemical compounds: terephthalic acid (TPA), which settled to the bottom and could be easily removed, and ethylene glycol, the main component in antifreeze.

Next, the new powdered catalyst engineered by Reisner and his team was introduced. This catalyst consists of three basic components: carbon nitride, a yellowish powder good at absorbing visible light; molybdenum disulfide, a component in some greases; and small amounts of cobalt, that acted as a kind of turbocharger, boosting the conversion of the plastic components into hydrogen by a factor of three.

Once introduced to the liquid acid mixture, simply exposing the system to sunlight (well, an LED-simulated equivalent, anyway) allowed it to convert the ethylene glycol molecules into hydrogen and acetic acid, the main component of vinegar.
In testing, the team reports the reactor generated "high hydrogen yields" and ran for 260 hours without any loss in performance.

Because the catalyst doesn't use any precious metals, as is often the case with such chemicals, it is affordable and scalable. But most critically, it was able to do its job even in the presence of the harsh acid from the discarded car batteries, which are 20-40% acid by volume. That acid usually has to be neutralized before the batteries can be properly disposed of, which is a resource-heavy procedure.

“It’s an untapped resource,” says said lead author Kay Kwarteng, a PhD candidate in Reisner’s research group, who developed the photocatalyst. “If we can collect the acid before it’s neutralized, we can use it again and again to break down plastics: it’s a real win-win, avoiding the environmental cost of neutralizing the acid, while putting it to work generating clean hydrogen.”

At the moment, the amount of hydrogen produced by the system is modest, so the study functions more as a proof-of-concept effort than a deployable reactor. However, the researchers now plan to commercialize the system with the support of Cambridge's innovation arm, Cambridge Enterprise. More of this article (refractor.io) - link - more like this (batteries) - link - more like this (University of Cambridge) - link - more like this (chemical recycling) - link

(GUF) WASTE BROKERS - A WAKE UP CALL

(Inspiration - Leonora Carrington - link)

For decades we've focused regulatory attention on the companies operating waste facilities, driving vehicles, managing hazardous waste sites and carrying environmental permits. Meanwhile, anybody with a telephone, a laptop and a basic understanding of waste terminology could register as a broker and begin selling waste services with little or no technical competence requirement. Defra reforms may be about to change that.

The End of the Amateur Waste Broker?

Since the beginning of time, one of the great anomalies of the waste industry has been that the people making the most important compliance decisions often needed the fewest qualifications. A waste transfer station manager requires permits, inspections, technically competent managers, environmental management systems and regulatory oversight. A hazardous waste treatment facility requires even more; yet a waste broker could arrange the movement of hazardous waste, clinical waste, POPs, chemicals, batteries and even international waste shipments with virtually no formal demonstration of technical competence whatsoever.

Finally, that may be about to change. At first glance, Defra's review of the Waste Carrier, Broker and Dealer system appears to be little more than a renaming exercise; Carriers become 'Transporters', Brokers and Dealers largely become 'Controllers' - but importantly the system moves into/towards the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

Whilst it sounds simple enough, it isn't. Buried within the consultation documents are clues that suggest something far more significant is happening. The original consultation proposed that applicants for 'Controller' permits should demonstrate "appropriate technical competence" and specifically described a 'Controller' as somebody capable of assessing waste and determining suitable destinations.

Subsequent commentary has reinforced this direction by confirming that 'Controllers' and 'Transporters' will eventually operate under Environmental Permitting Regulations with regulators requiring evidence of competence at application and renewal. More importantly, Defra has stated that the competence model is being developed using existing permit competence frameworks as a template and that should make everybody in the industry sit up and take notice.

The Shift Nobody Is Talking About

Historically, the waste industry has been built around operational competence. Can you safely operate a transfer station? Can you manage a treatment facility? Can you transport waste legally? The new proposals appear to recognise a different risk.

Increasingly, the most critical environmental decisions occur long before a waste vehicle arrives when someone decides how the waste is classified, whether it's hazardous, which EWC code applies, which treatment route should be used, whether a carrier is suitable, whether the receiving site is permitted to accept it and whether exports are lawful. In many cases that 'someone' is not the treatment operator, it's the broker, or rather, under the new terminology, the 'Controller'.

The person making compliance decisions is becoming more important than the person physically moving the waste. That is a fundamental change in regulatory thinking.

Why Brokers Should Be Paying Attention

Some brokers provide significant technical value through national account management, reporting and compliance support. Others operate largely as intermediaries, relying heavily on advice supplied by the contractors undertaking the work.

Some brokers may argue that they do not determine treatment routes and therefore should not be held to the same competency standards as permitted operators. However, the act of selecting a contractor is itself a compliance decision. If a controller appoints an unsuitable carrier, directs waste to an inappropriate facility or fails to undertake adequate due diligence, environmental harm can still occur. The regulator may increasingly view these decisions as requiring technical competence regardless of who physically handles the waste.

Many brokers simply obtain prices from waste management companies, add a margin and pass information between customer and contractor. The technical advice they provide is frequently little more than a reworded version of advice supplied by the waste company actually doing the work and the current system allows both models to operate under exactly the same regulatory framework.

Defra appears increasingly uncomfortable with that position because if a 'Controller' is responsible for ensuring proper classification, suitable treatment routes and lawful management arrangements, then competence becomes difficult to avoid.

Could Controllers Need WAMITAB Qualifications?

Not immediately, but eventually - possibly, and perhaps even probably. The consultation documents stop short of requiring Certificates of Technical Competence however, they repeatedly return to one theme: competence; which raises the obvious question - how can somebody demonstrate competence in waste assessment without understanding WM3 Hazardous Waste Assessment, The List of Waste, Mirror entries, Hazardous properties, Duty of Care requirements, Digital Waste Tracking, ADR interactions, Permit conditions, and and even International shipment controls.

For many experienced waste professionals, these subjects form part of everyday life.
For many brokers, they do not.

What Might the Future Look Like?

The most likely starting point - a mandatory qualification covering waste classification, Duty of Care, hazardous waste awareness, waste tracking and permit awareness - perhaps a one-day course with an assessment. This would be relatively inexpensive and consistent with Defra's indication that costs should remain proportionate.

A more structured approach in my opinion would be 'Controllers' nominate a technically competent individual who must hold an accredited qualification and undertake periodic refresher training. This model would mirror many existing environmental permitting arrangements.

Controllers may eventually require formally qualified personnel, continuing professional development and demonstrable technical oversight. In effect, a Controller would begin to resemble a permitted operator. The irony is that some of the highest-risk organisations under the proposed framework may be those that have historically operated with the least technical expertise.

A Controller is expected to make decisions about classification, treatment and destination.

If those decisions are wrong, environmental harm can follow and Defra's reforms appear designed to close that gap and so they should. For too long the industry has operated on the assumption that responsibility sits with the company physically handling the waste.

By 2030, I expect the UK to have a dedicated Waste Controller Competence qualification. It will probably sit somewhere between a basic Duty of Care course and a full WAMITAB Certificate of Technical Competence - likely delivered through organisations such as CIWM, WAMITAB or equivalent accredited bodies.

And when Digital Waste Tracking, pEPR and the new permitting regime are fully operational, waste classification knowledge may become one of the most valuable skills in the industry. For forty years the waste sector has largely valued the person driving the wagon.

The next decade may belong to the person who understands what is in it. Government information - link - more like this (absence of guilt) - link - more like this (brokers) - link

(GUF) HENRY NOWAK - R.I.P.

I've never, at any point in my life, judged whether someone deserves help based on their race, sexuality, religion or any other characteristic. 

If I see a person suffering and I believe I can help, my instinct is simply to help. Their humanity comes first.

‘Forever 18’: Henry Nowak’s sister shares tribute to murdered brother - link - Police Anti-racism and racial equity document - link - knife crime (The Ben Kinsella Trust) - link 

(REF) BLUE MOUNTAINS & PFAS

Forever chemicals can persist in nature for decades. Madalina Todica's Images/Canva

An article by:- Ian A. Wright, Amy-Marie Gilpin, & Katherine Warwick, Western Sydney University/ The Conversation

The fresh air, picturesque vistas, and pristine bush of the Blue Mountains west of Sydney draw millions of visitors a year.

Unfortunately, the Blue Mountains are also the site of a controversial investigation into water contamination with “forever chemicals”, also called PFAS. Our recent study investigated long-term PFAS contamination from two incidents, both involving petrol tanker crashes and fires. Both accidents occurred in drinking water catchments, and our study found contamination was present but undetected for 24 and 33 years, respectively. We have searched the international literature and could not find similar examples.

PFAS (Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a broad category of thousands of synthetic chemicals used in numerous consumer and industry products. Exposure to PFAS is associated with a greater risk of several illnesses. Our research shows how vulnerable drinking water supplies are to long-term PFAS contamination. It also shows how contamination can remain hidden due to an absence of PFAS monitoring.

Two historical accidents

The 1992 petrol tanker accident in the Blue Mountains at Medlow Bath caused PFAS contamination of the local drinking water supply. And 32 years later, it forced the closure of two storage reservoirs.

Despite limited data, we identified the source of contamination as a type of foaming material used globally by firefighters to help extinguish burning fuel fires. This foaming substance was mixed with water using perfluorooctane sulfonate, a type of PFAS.

Firefighters used this substance to form a foam “blanket” and coat burning materials and extinguish liquid fires. The PFAS foams were used for decades before their harmful human health and environmental impacts were understood.

Nine years after the first petrol tanker accident, another fuel tanker crash and fire linked to PFAS contamination occurred in 2000, near Ourimbah on the NSW Central Coast. The fuel tanker was carrying 40,000 litres of fuel, and the crash and fire were triggered by a collision with a car. This resulted in the tragic death of two people. Similar to the Medlow Bath accident, news footage showed water and foam were used to control the blaze. It also showed a foamy runoff draining from the accident.

Why are PFAS a problem?

PFAS, often called “forever chemicals”, are a broad category of thousands of synthetic chemicals. They are used in numerous products, such as non-stick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, takeaway food packaging and even cosmetics. PFAS molecules don’t easily break down and readily accumulate in the tissues of wildlife across the globe. Exposure to small amounts of PFAS sees the chemicals build up in the vital organs of animals and people. Analysis of human autopsy tissue revealed accumulation of PFAS in the brain, lungs, liver, kidney, and bones.

In 2025, an Australian Bureau of Statistics report revealed nearly all Australians have PFAS chemicals accumulating in their bodies.

Should we be worried?

Exposure to PFAS is associated with a greater risk of several illnesses. These include decreased fertility, higher blood pressure, increased risk of cancer (particularly prostate, kidney and testicular cancers), liver disease, higher cholesterol, and obesity. One of the ways humans are likely to consume PFAS is through eating foods containing PFAS and drinking water.

The Upper Blue Mountains water supply serves about 40,000 people, and is operated by Sydney Water Corporation. It reported that one of the most hazardous forms of PFAS, PFOS, reached 16.4 nanograms per litre in the local drinking water on June 25 2024. This is double the safe amount, according to the recently revised Australian drinking water guidelines.

Discovery of PFAS triggered the closure of two drinking water reservoirs downstream of the Medlow Bath petrol tanker crash and fire. Although a lack of testing data creates uncertainty, it is likely PFAS contamination was undetected in the Blue Mountains drinking water supply for more than 30 years.

What our study showed

Our study showed contaminated creek water contained 2,000–2,400ng/L of PFOS in October 2025. This is 250–300 times the maximum safe concentration (less than 8ng/L) recommended by the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. More of this article (refractor.io) - link - more like this (PFAS) - link - more like this (Australia) - link

(TST) WAITING TO DIE - RECYCLING IN VIETNAM

A woman picking up plastic waste at a landfill on the outskirts of Hanoi. - PHOTO: AFP

Crouched between mountains of discarded plastic, Lanh strips the labels off bottles of Coke, Evian and local Vietnamese tea drinks so they can be melted into tiny pellets for reuse.

More waste arrives daily, piling up like technicolour snowdrifts along the roads and rivers of Xa Cau, one of hundreds of “craft” recycling villages encircling Vietnam’s capital Hanoi where waste is sorted, shredded and melted.

The villages present a paradox: They enable reuse of some of the 1.8 million tonnes of plastic waste Vietnam produces each year, and allow employees to earn much-needed wages but the recycling is done with few regulations, pollutes the environment and threatens the health of those involved, both workers and experts told AFP.

“This job is extremely dirty. The environmental pollution is really severe,” said 64-year-old Lanh, who asked to be identified only by her first name for fear of losing her job. It is a conundrum facing many fast-growing economies, where plastic use and disposal has outpaced the government’s ability to collect, sort and recycle. Even in wealthy  countries, recycling rates are often abysmal because plastic products can be expensive to repurpose and sorting rates are low.

But the rudimentary methods used in Vietnam’s craft villages produce dangerous emissions and expose workers to toxic chemicals, experts say. “Air pollution control is zero in such facilities,” said Mr Hoang Thanh Vinh, an analyst at the United Nations Development Programme focused on waste recycling. Untreated wastewater is often dumped directly into waterways, he added. The true scale of the problem is hard to judge, with few comprehensive studies. In Minh Khai village, Mr Vinh said, a sediment analysis found “very high contamination of lead and the presence of dioxins”, as well as furan – all of which have been linked to cancer.

And in 2008, the life expectancy for residents of the villages was found to be a full decade shorter than the national average, according to the Environment Ministry. The local authorities and the ministry did not reply to AFP’s requests for comment.
Lanh believes the toxic waste in Xa Cau gave her husband blood cancer, but she still spends her days sorting rubbish to pay his medical bills. “This village is full of cancer cases, people just waiting to die,” she said.

Sickness and wealth

No data exists on cancer rates in the villages, but AFP spoke to more than half a dozen workers in Xa Cau and Minh Khai who reported colleagues or family members with cancer.

Vietnam Zero Waste Alliance coordinator Xuan Quach said sustained exposure to the “toxic environment” made it inevitable that residents face “health risks that are of course higher”.

A 60-year-old villager known as Dat has been sorting plastic in Xa Cau for a decade and said the job “definitely affects your health”. “There’s no shortage of cancer cases in this village.” But there is also no shortage of workers, keen for the economic lifeline recycling provides. In Xa Cau, plastic piles up around multi-storey homes, some with ornate facades noting the years they were built.
“We get richer, thanks to this business,” said 58-year-old Nguyen Thi Tuyen, who lives in a two-storey home. “Now all the houses are brick houses... In the past, we were just a farming village.” Most of the waste the villagers recycle is home-grown, researchers and residents say. But even though Vietnam recycles only about a third of its own plastic waste, it also imports thousand of tonnes annually from Europe, the US and Asia.

Imports soared after China stopped accepting plastic waste in 2018, though recently Vietnam has tightened regulations and announced plans to phase out imports too.
For now, US and European Union trade statistics show shipments to Vietnam from the two economies reached over 200,000 tonnes in 2024. In Minh Khai, the owner of a plant producing plastic pellets said domestic supply “is not enough”.
“I have to import from overseas,” 23-year-old Dinh, who gave only one name, explained over the whir of heavy machinery.

Most domestic waste does not get sorted, so it cannot easily be reused. There have been efforts to improve the industry, including a ban on burning unrecyclable waste and building modern facilities. But burning continues and unusable waste is often dumped in empty lots, according to Mr Vinh. He said the government should help recyclers move to industrial parks with better environmental safeguards, formalising a sector that handles a quarter of the country’s recycling.

“The current way of recycling in recycling villages... is not good to the environment at all.” AFP - more of this article (The Straits Times) - link - more like this (Vietnam) - link - more like this (health) - link

(GUF) BATTLE FOR THE BOTTLES

(Inspiration - Man Ray - linklink)

The next battle in the recycling world isn't going to be about collecting the bottles – it's going to be about who gets them afterwards.

Deposit Return Schemes were designed to answer the return issue. Consumers pay a small deposit when purchasing a drink, return the empty container and receive their money back. In theory, everybody wins; litter reduces, recycling rates increase and valuable materials are recovered for reuse, hoorah.

For decades, this has been the holy grail of beverage recycling but what happens when we actually succeed? What happens when the bottles come back, because the next challenge may not be collecting them at all, instead, it will be deciding who controls them once they're returned.

DRS Creates Something Very Valuable

The UK Deposit Return Scheme is expected to generate enormous volumes of highly segregated material and to quote Depeche Mode, 'everything counts in large amounts'. Being specific, were not talking mixed plastics; not contaminated kerbside collections and not reject material from a Materials Recovery Facility.

Instead, DRS produces something far more valuable - clean PET bottles; clean HDPE containers, clean aluminium cans; all highly predictable material streams representing a consistent quality feedstock. In other words, exactly the type of material every recycler wants.

For years, the conversation around DRS has centred on recycling. Increasingly, particularly following the Government's decision to recognise chemically recycled content within Plastic Packaging Tax obligations, the conversation may need to shift. DRS is not simply creating recycling; it's creating one of the largest sources of clean, segregated plastic feedstock the UK has ever seen.

Most discussions about DRS quietly assume the same thing. The consumer returns bottle, the bottle gets recycled, the bottle becomes another bottle, job done, but there's a hidden assumption within that model. It assumes the traditional recycling industry will always be the preferred destination for that material, but what if that assumption is wrong?

Enter government endorsed chemical recycling - a process marketed as the solution for plastics that conventional recycling struggles to handle including flexible films (in scope - Simpler Recycling in March 2027), laminated packaging, mixed plastics, contaminated plastics, basically, the difficult stuff.

Chemical recyclers face the same challenge as every industrial process: feedstock quality matters a lot which raises an obvious conclusion - if a chemical recycling facility has access to millions of tonnes of clean, sorted PET and HDPE generated through DRS, why would it ignore them? Why would it deliberately choose lower-quality, contaminated materials when higher-quality material is readily available?

The Petrochemical Industry Twist

The waste industry often discusses chemical recycling as though it is simply another recycling technology but what if it evolves into something else entirely? What if chemical recycling becomes the next branch of the petrochemical industry? After all, plastic is fundamentally a hydrocarbon.

Chemical recycling seeks to convert plastic back into hydrocarbon feedstocks capable of becoming new plastic products and viewed through that lens, a returned PET bottle is no longer waste, it's a raw material, a resource, a feedstock and feedstocks attract competition.

Who Controls The Bottles?

Imagine a future where DRS return rates exceed 90%. Billions of containers are returned every year. The material is clean, consistent and has value which means suddenly multiple sectors are interested.

• Traditional recyclers want it.
• Bottle manufacturers want it.
• Supermarkets interested in closed loop packaging may want it.
• Environmentally aware brands may want it.
• Chemical recyclers will definitely want it.
• Petrochemical companies will want it.

At that point the question is no longer can we collect the bottles; the question becomes who gets them?

DRS As A Feedstock Harvesting System

The first generation of recycling policy focused on collection. The second generation focused on recovery. The third generation will without doubt focus on ownership and viewed like that, DRS begins to look less like a recycling scheme and more like a sophisticated feedstock harvesting system. More like this (DRS) - link - more like this (chemical recycling) - link - more like this (oil industry) - link

(MOJ) POTOMAC - AMERICA'S MOST ENDANGERED

Pipes divert raw sewage into the C&O Canal around a broken section of the Potomac Interceptor on Feb. 16 in Cabin John, Md.Chip Somodevilla/Getty via Inside Climate News

The warning signs were years in the making. And yet, regulators failed to heed the writing on the wall, according to Dean Naujoks.

An investigator with the Potomac Riverkeeper Network, Naujoks spent three years documenting what he calls a systemic failure that culminated in dual environmental catastrophes now threatening the health of the entire Potomac River system, which is already stressed.

In January, a 60-year-old sewer pipe known as the Potomac Interceptor, running along the Maryland shoreline of the Potomac, collapsed near the Clara Barton Parkway corridor in Montgomery County, releasing an estimated 243 million gallons of raw sewage into the river over approximately three weeks.

But even before that spill, another crisis had already begun to unfold elsewhere in the watershed. At Joint Base Andrews in Prince George’s County, a fuel system failure on Dec. 11 led to thousands of gallons of jet fuel entering the headwaters of Piscataway Creek, a tributary that feeds directly into the Potomac. The leak continued for months before state regulators were notified.

Stretching more than 400 miles, the Potomac River is a source of drinking water for more than 5 million people in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. In April, American Rivers, a conservation nonprofit, named it the most endangered river in the country, citing both the sewage spill and the rapid expansion of data centers.
Piscataway Creek, an 18.6-mile tributary of the Potomac, begins at the edge of Joint Base Andrews and slips back into the Potomac at Fort Washington Park. Its name derives from the indigenous Piscataway people, who’ve stewarded these waters for thousands of years and maintain a living relationship with the creek and the river to this day.

Naujoks believes neither crisis happened in a vacuum.

He first began tracking contamination in Piscataway Creek around 2022, after reports emerged of tainted fish. A researcher named Pat Elder, Naujoks said, who worked for an organization called Military Poisons, which investigates PFAS contamination at military bases across the country, initially raised the alarm.

More of this article (Mother Jones) - link - more articles by the brilliant Aman Azhar - link - more like this (PFAS) - link - more like this (sewage) - link

(GUF) ALDI & LIDL - DOING IT FOR THEMSELVES

 

(Inspiration - René Magritte - link)

The UK Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) is still over a year away, yet rumours circulating within the retail sector suggest the scheme may already be evolving into something rather different from the model many originally envisaged.

Two developments are attracting particular attention. Firstly, there's increasing speculation that Aldi and Lidl may choose to recover much of their own in-scope drinks packaging through their existing logistics networks rather than fully participate in a wider public-facing return infrastructure. Secondly, there are growing reports that the urban retailer exemption threshold could increase from 100m² to 250m² (or even 300m²) replicating the Irish model, potentially removing thousands of smaller retailers from any obligation to provide a container return service.

Individually, neither development is necessarily surprising, but together, they raise the question; is the UK building a national Deposit Return Scheme or quietly evolving towards a supermarket led container recovery system?

Aldi & Lidl – Doing It For Themselves?

Based on the Scottish DRS preparations and the operational models both companies already employ, it’s easy to see why industry observers believe Aldi and Lidl may favour recovering containers through their own systems.

Both retailers have spent years building logistics networks that many competitors are only now attempting to replicate. Their business models rely upon highly centralised distribution networks, simplified product ranges, efficient backhaul logistics, extensive recovery of cardboard, plastic films and transit packaging, reusable transport packaging systems and closed-loop supply chain principles.

In many respects, both retailers have been quietly practising elements of the circular economy long before the phrase became fashionable and this matters because Deposit Return Schemes are fundamentally logistics systems disguised as environmental policy.

The real challenge is not recycling aluminium cans or PET bottles. The real challenge is collecting, transporting, storing and consolidating millions of containers efficiently and at the lowest possible cost and if any retailers can operate their own closed-loop container recovery systems, Aldi and Lidl would sit near the top of the list.

Their operational efficiency, distribution discipline and material recovery infrastructure are widely regarded as amongst the strongest in European retail. So if the retailers best equipped to recover containers increasingly do so themselves, what ultimately becomes the role of the wider national DRS network?

The 100m² to 250m² Question

At the same time, discussion within the retail sector continues regarding the possibility of increasing the automatic urban retailer exemption threshold from 100m² to 250m² similar to the Irish model.

Current published guidance still references the 100m² threshold. However, if that threshold were increased to 250m², the impact could be significant. The UK convenience sector contains approximately 47,000 to 50,000 stores. A substantial proportion of these operate between 100m² and 250m² in sales area which includes many independent convenience stores, forecourt shops, small Co-op stores, Spar stores, Costcutter stores, Premier stores and neighbourhood retailers.

If the exemption threshold moved to 250m², it is entirely plausible that thousands of additional stores would no longer be required to provide a return service. The practical effect would be a very different DRS landscape. Rather than a highly distributed network of local return points, container recovery would become increasingly concentrated around larger supermarkets and destination retail sites with the space, staffing and logistics capability to manage returns efficiently. That concentration would naturally strengthen the position of retailers such as Aldi and Lidl who already possess high-volume stores, relatively simple store layouts, significant storage capacity, established reverse logistics systems and centralised material recovery operations. In other words, recovering their own containers may simply be easier than participating in a fragmented national collection network.

The Convenience Question

Supporters of a higher exemption threshold may argue that concentrating returns at larger stores improves efficiency, and there is logic to that argument as fewer return points mean lower scheme administration costs, reduced equipment requirements, better utilisation of Reverse Vending Machines (RVMs) and simpler collection logistics resulting in higher volumes per collection point.

However, critics may reach a different conclusion. The countries with the highest-performing DRS schemes generally make container returns easy, local and convenient. If thousands of neighbourhood stores cease to act as return points, consumers may increasingly find themselves in a situation where they buy a drink from a local shop, paying the deposit, then take the container home, then having to travel elsewhere to redeem the deposit.

Importantly, this does not mean smaller retailers are keeping the deposit. The deposit follows the container through the scheme's financial system and is reimbursed when redeemed, however, from a consumer perspective the experience may feel very different - "I paid my deposit at the corner shop but now need to visit a supermarket to get it back” and that distinction matters because one of the key reasons DRS schemes achieve high return rates is convenience. The easier it is to return containers, the more likely people are to participate.

The more exemptions introduced into the system, the greater the risk that convenience begins to erode.

A Different Kind of DRS?

Whether by design or by consequence, increasing the exemption threshold from 100m² to 300m² (Carlsberg Group document) would move the UK's Deposit Return Scheme further away from a neighbourhood-based return network and closer to a supermarket-led redemption model.

If the Aldi and Lidl rumours prove correct, the UK's DRS could ultimately resemble a series of interconnected supermarket collection networks rather than the universal return scheme many originally expected which is not necessarily a flaw in that it could prove more efficient.

The challenge for policymakers is that efficiency and convenience are often opposing forces. Every return point costs money. Every exemption reduces convenience. The sweet spot lies somewhere between the two. As October 2027 approaches, the real question may not be whether the UK can build a Deposit Return Scheme – instead, it may be deciding what type of Deposit Return Scheme it actually wants?  Lidl DRS - link - Aldi DRS - link - More like this (DRS) - link - more like this (Lidl) - link

(GUF) CHEMICAL RECYCLING: WHY BIG OIL WILL TAKE IT OVER

(Inspiration - Leonora Carrington - link)

For years, chemical recycling has been presented as the future solution to the plastics problem. The answer for crisp packets, flexible films, laminated pouches, contaminated plastics and all the awkward materials traditional recycling systems struggle to handle.

Instead of mechanically shredding and remoulding plastics, chemical recycling proposes something more advanced; breaking plastics back down into hydrocarbons, oils or molecular feedstocks capable of becoming new plastic once again.

In theory, it all sounds like the golden goblet, the missing piece of the circular economy. In practice however, the sector is beginning to reveal, not necessarily a technological failure, but perhaps the beginning of a major industrial shift, because the deeper you look into chemical recycling the possibility begins to emerge that chemical recycling may not remain within the waste management industry at all but instead become the next evolutionary stage of the petrochemical industry itself.

The Economics Are Starting To Tell A Story

Recent reports surrounding the struggles of chemical recycling facilities across Europe suggest a recurring pattern of high capital costs, weak margins, unstable markets, low-value feedstocks, neighbour opposition and difficulty competing against cheap virgin polymer - I could go on.

And therein lies the core problem. Virgin plastic is more often than not cheaper, cleaner, more consistent, easier to process and technically superior to recycled alternatives. Manufacturers are not irrational. If they can legally buy a material that performs better and costs less, most will, which means the market for recycled polymer increasingly appears to exist not because of natural demand but because governments are constructing legislation designed to force demand into existence.

Plastic taxes - minimum recycled-content mandates - ESG targets - Extended Producer Responsibility - Carbon accounting - Procurement rules. The circular plastics market is becoming increasingly legislated into existence. The most difficult materials to recycle are often the least valuable and yet these are precisely the materials now demanding the greatest technological effort, the highest processing costs, the largest infrastructure investment and the most political intervention.

When society begins spending enormous sums trying to recover materials with very low intrinsic value, the conversation stops being about recycling and starts instead becoming a discussion about economics, thermodynamics and government/industrial policy.

The Petrochemical Industry Is Perfectly Positioned

Traditional waste companies may understand collections, sorting, gate fees, tonnage and disposal logistics but chemical recycling increasingly resembles refinery-scale hydrocarbon processing, and companies such as ExxonMobil, Shell and TotalEnergies already possess the vast cracking infrastructure, petrochemical expertise, hydrocarbon logistics, thermal processing systems, polymer manufacturing capability and enormous capital reserves required.

To them, waste plastic is not emotionally viewed as rubbish; on the one hand it's a political, environmental and optical embarrassment, but on the other, it's a hydrocarbon feedstock and that distinction changes everything because if governments mandate recycled content while simultaneously permitting chemically recycled polymers to count toward compliance targets, then vertically integrated petrochemical companies may gain the ability to retain control of the entire lifecycle from oil extraction, through polymer manufacture, plastic production, waste-derived feedstock recovery, recycled-content certification resulting in circular polymer manufacture and at that point, chemical recycling stops looking like a disruption to the petrochemical industry and starts looking more like its adaptation.

For decades, environmental thinking largely assumed that recycling would weaken dependence on petrochemical giants, yet chemical recycling could unintentionally strengthen their position instead, not through conspiracy or secret coordination but through infrastructure, economics and the natural direction of modern regulation.

The companies best positioned to operate large-scale chemical recycling systems may simply be the same companies that already dominate hydrocarbons and plastics production in the first place and if/ when that happens, the future of plastic circularity will increasingly move away from traditional waste management operators and back into refinery scale industrial systems. The oil industry would not disassociate from plastics, it would instead evolve with them.

From Waste Management To Carbon Management

Perhaps the biggest shift of all is philosophical. Chemical recycling may represent the moment where plastic waste stops being viewed primarily as an environmental/disposal problem and starts being viewed as a managed carbon resource stream.

The future winners may not necessarily be the best recyclers. They may be the organisations best equipped to manage carbon molecules at global industrial scale.

The Big Question

I'm not suggesting that any of this proves chemical recycling is good or bad, nor do I suggest some grand conspiracy but it does raise the question: What if chemical recycling is not evolving into a standalone recycling revolution but rather the mechanism through which the petrochemical industry adapts itself to the regulated circular economy? Because if that is where the economics, infrastructure and legislation naturally lead, then the future of plastics recycling may look far less like municipal waste management and far more like the next evolution of the refinery itself. Industry issues - link - like this (chemical recycling) - link - more like this (ExxonMobil) - link - more like this (TotalEnergies) - link

(GUF) WHEN RECYCLING STOPS MAKING SENSE

(Inspiration - Man Ray - link)

Every year, the UK gets through an estimated six billion crisp packets. Depending on weight and format, that equates to approximately 10,000–15,000 tonnes annually.

On paper, that doesn't sound enormous. The UK produces far larger tonnages of paper/cardboard, food waste, glass, metals and rubble but crisp packets are deceptive because they're amongst the lightest, bulkiest, lowest-value and most technically awkward packaging materials in the entire waste system, and from March 2027, under England’s Simpler Recycling reforms, they're expected to become part of routine kerbside recycling collection which raises the question - are we about to build a nationwide collection infrastructure for one of the least economically attractive waste streams in Britain?

And if we are, how exactly do we measure whether it was worth it?

First question:- are crisp packets actually included under Simpler Recycling? Yes, probably, definitely, it depends on who you ask. Plastic films and flexible packaging are certainly due to enter mandatory kerbside collection systems by March 2027 and industry guidance already being circulated commonly includes, bread bags, cling film, frozen food bags, carrier bags, sweet wrappers and crisp packets within the expected scope.

However, there is an important complication. Crisp packets are not simple plastics. They're usually metallised laminated films made from multiple bonded layers including polymers, coatings, inks, adhesives and metallic barriers which makes them excellent at preserving food and notoriously difficult to recycle economically; precisely why crisp packets spent decades outside mainstream kerbside recycling systems in the first place.

Collecting crisp packets is not the same thing as recycling them. To recycle crisp packets nationally, the UK requires new collection systems; new sorting infrastructure; significantly more and improved optical separation technology; wash plants; decontamination systems; extrusion capability; end-market manufacturing demand; transport logistics and public communications campaigns.

All of the above for a packaging stream with very little intrinsic commodity value and because crisp packets weigh almost nothing, the logistics become peculiar. You can fill bins, compactors and countless walking floor trailers with them and still recover comparatively tiny tonnages which means collection costs per tonne become disproportionately high.

So What Might This Actually Cost?

Nobody yet knows the true long-term national cost, but we can make some broad back of the envelope observations. Kerbside film collection will require additional vehicle capacity, extra sorting stages and almost certainly reduce MRF efficiency. It will also demand greater contamination management, increased labour input and specialist downstream processing but unlike materials such as aluminium or copper, crisp packets have very limited material value to offset those additional costs which means the economics increasingly rely on Extended Producer Responsibility funding, modulated packaging fees, PRNs, legislation, carbon accounting and public policy intervention. If crisp packet recycling were naturally economically viable, would governments need to mandate it? Of course not.

That doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't happen but it does change the nature of the discussion - the Waste-to-Energy argument nobody wants to touch

Here's the part of the debate the industry often tiptoes around. Crisp packets are fundamentally hydrocarbon based materials which means they also possess significant calorific value. Modern Energy-from-Waste facilities already recover energy from residual waste streams extremely efficiently compared with historic landfill disposal so the question emerges - is it actually environmentally better to collect, transport, sort, wash and process crisp packets for recycling or (shock horror) to recover energy from them locally through EfW?

How Do We Measure Success - (is success measured by):

• recycling rate?
• carbon reduction?
• landfill diversion?
• resource circularity?
• energy recovery?
• public perception?
• litter reduction?
• behavioural change?
• fossil fuel displacement?
• financial cost?
• carbon per tonne handled?

Because these do not always point in the same direction. A crisp packet may perform terribly in recycling economics but badly in litter terms yet efficiently in transport emissions while performing reasonably well in energy recovery - meaning the best environmental option becomes far less obvious than social media slogans suggest.

Other Countries Are Already Doing It

The UK is not entering entirely unknown territory. Countries including the Netherlands, Germany, Australia and parts of Scandinavia already operate flexible plastic collection systems with varying degrees of success. Some use advanced optical sorting, chemical recycling, mass balance systems, dedicated film recovery plants and producer-funded infrastructure.

Many of these systems work because the economics are supported collectively through national policy frameworks rather than relying on material resale value which matters enormously because it suggests the future of difficult-material recycling may not depend on whether the material itself is valuable but whether society collectively decides the environmental outcome is worth paying for.

The Bigger Question Hidden Inside A Crisp Packet

This crisp packet debate is no longer about crisp packets. It's about what modern recycling is becoming. Historically, recycling worked best where the materials were valuable, the sorting was simple, contamination was low; the logistics made sense and soft plastics recycling challenges all four assumptions simultaneously.

Perhaps that's why March 2027 matters so much because Britain is about to discover whether society is prepared to fund recycling systems not because they are profitable (quite the opposite) but because politically, environmentally and morally, throwing things away increasingly feels unacceptable and that's a very different philosophy from the recycling industry of twenty years ago. More like this (crisp packets) - link - more like this (kerbside collections) - link

(GUF) RECYCLING FOR THE RIGHT REASONS

(Inspiration -René Magritte - link)

Are we recycling because it makes economic sense or because governments collectively decided it makes environmental sense? Those are not the same thing.

If recycling is commercially viable on its own, why does it require:

• PRNs
• PERNs
• pEPR
• modulated fees
• landfill tax
• ETS
• subsidies
• mandates
• recycled content laws
• export controls
• behavioural legislation
• DRS incentives

Historically, recycling existed because metals, paper, cloth and glass had some value. Modern day recycling however increasingly exists because landfill is politically toxic, carbon, resource security and public optics matter more than ever; and that’s a completely different economic model.

The more materials society attempts to recycle, the more expensive and technologically difficult recycling becomes which simply means that the final percentages of 'circularity' are often the least economically rational.

The recycling industry’s fear of PRN reform unintentionally reveals that parts of the system do not currently stand on their own economically but perhaps the future debate should become less about whether recycling is 'good' and more about which materials genuinely justify the energy, infrastructure, legislation and cost required to recover them because once an industry depends permanently on subsidies to function, it stops being purely a market and becomes a political choice. More like this (recycling) - link - more like this (DRS) - link - more like this (landfill) - link.

(RMI) WASTE BARK TO CLEAN WATER

Eucalyptus bark, usually stripped from logs and treated as waste, could be repurposed to help clean polluted water, filter dirty air and capture carbon dioxide, according to new research from RMIT University.

Researchers at RMIT have shown the bark can be converted into a highly porous form of carbon that traps pollutants as water or air flows through it. The findings point to a practical way of turning a common forestry by‑product into a useful environmental material using a relatively simple processing method.

Turning waste into a filter

Porous carbon materials are already widely used in water filters, air purifiers and industrial gas treatment systems. Their effectiveness comes from their structure rather than the source material itself.

These materials contain a network of microscopic pores. As air or water passes through, unwanted molecules are captured and held within the tiny spaces.
PhD researcher Pallavi Saini, who led much of the experimental work, said the performance of eucalyptus bark was unexpected.

“It is usually treated as low‑value waste, but with a simple process we were able to convert it into a highly porous material with strong adsorption performance,” Saini said. “It highlights how overlooked biomass can be transformed into something useful.”

In the study, the researchers used a relatively simple, one‑step activation process to produce porous carbon from eucalyptus bark. While similar approaches have been explored using other biomass sources, many porous carbons are still produced through more complex, multi‑stage routes that require additional energy and infrastructure.

Why eucalyptus bark?

Plant-waste based carbons are being studied worldwide using feedstocks ranging from agricultural residues to forestry and industrial waste. These materials are typically assessed based on availability, sustainability, processing complexity and performance.

Dr Deshetti Jampaiah said eucalyptus bark compared favourably on several of these measures, particularly in Australia.

“The strength of this approach lies in its simplicity,” Jampaiah said.
“We are converting a widely available waste material into a functional carbon with promising performance, without relying on complex processing steps. That makes it highly relevant for real‑world environmental applications.”

Australia is home to more than 900 species of eucalypt and related trees. As a next step, the researchers plan to work with Indigenous people and organisations with deep knowledge of eucalyptus species to help identify which species may be best suited for this type of application.

The team says there is potential to further optimise the material by understanding species‑specific chemical and structural characteristics, guided by both scientific analysis and long‑standing ecological knowledge. Any future work would be undertaken through genuine, respectful collaboration.
Because the bark comes from existing forestry operations, it does not compete with food production and aligns with circular‑economy and waste‑reduction goals. More of this article (RMIT Australia) - link - more like this (trees) - link - more like this (water treatment) - link - more like this (Australia) - link

(CGN 14) AEROSOLS

Deodorants, spray paints, lubricants, air fresheners, expanding foams, pesticides - most workplaces and households use them every day without a second thought.

To most, an aerosol looks like simple packaging; but to waste operators, MRF managers, ADR specialists and fire investigators, aerosols occupy a strange and often misunderstood space somewhere between recyclable metal packaging and dangerous goods.

At the same time that Simpler Recycling encourages the recovery of more metal packaging, hazardous waste and transport legislation still recognise that many aerosols remain pressurised, flammable, toxic or capable of causing fires long after people assume they are 'empty'.

CGN 14 has been designed as a practical decision-making guide for anyone handling aerosols in the real world; from cleaners and caretakers through to waste contractors, facilities teams and hazardous waste producers.

Rather than simply listing legislation, this guidance walks through the questions that actually matter:

• Is the aerosol genuinely empty?
• Does it belong in recycling?
• Could it still be hazardous?
• Which EWC code applies?
• When do ADR and UN numbers matter?
• What should happen if it’s damaged, leaking or partially full?

Because in waste management, 'it looked empty to me' is rarely a defence anyone wants to rely on. CGN 13 - link - more like this (hazardous waste) - link - more like this (Simpler Recycling) - link

This Circular Guidance Note (CGN) is intended as a practical awareness and reference document only. It does not replace legal duties, competent technical assessment, site-specific risk evaluation, or professional waste classification advice. Responsibility for the correct storage, handling, classification, transport and disposal of waste remains with the waste producer and all parties within the duty of care chain.

This document should be used in conjunction with relevant legislation and technical guidance including (but not limited to): Technical Guidance WM3 - link - The List of Wastes (England) Regulations 2005 - link

Where uncertainty exists, competent environmental, dangerous goods, or hazardous waste advice should always be sought before disposal or transportation.

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.

(GUF) IS IT RECYCLING - OR JUST MASS BALANCING?

(Inspiration - René Magritte - link)

From April 2027, the UK government will introduce one of the most important and potentially controversial changes yet to the Plastic Packaging Tax (PPT).

On the surface, it sounds technical. Chemically recycled plastics will be allowed to count toward the 30% recycled content threshold needed to avoid PPT and businesses will be permitted to use a ‘mass balance accounting’ system to allocate recycled content across plastic outputs but underneath the accounting language lies something so much bigger:

The UK is quietly redefining what counts as recycling.

From 1 April 2027, chemically recycled plastic will officially count as ‘recycled content’ for Plastic Packaging Tax purposes. Businesses will be able to use mass balance accounting to allocate recycled content across plastic production systems.

Pre-consumer waste such as factory offcuts, trim waste and in-house production scrap will no longer count as recycled content for PPT purposes and that final point is more significant than it first appears.

For years, manufacturers could effectively count portions of their own production waste as ‘recycled content’. From 2027, the government is drawing a philosophical line: - Reusing your own manufacturing waste is now being treated as normal good practice; not recycling and that is a notable shift toward rewarding genuine post-consumer recovery rather than internal process efficiency.

Why Is Government Supporting Chemical Recycling?

The answer lies in the uncomfortable reality of modern packaging design. Some packaging formats were never realistically designed for mechanical recycling in the first place. Flexible films, laminated pouches, multi-layer barrier packaging, food-grade plastics contaminated with oils, residues or adhesives - these materials create major operational problems within traditional recycling systems; contamination, difficult separation, expensive washing requirements, weak resale value and complex polymer mixes.

While simple packaging formats such as aluminium cans, steel and cardboard often retain strong intrinsic recovery value, many modern plastic packaging systems do not, so rather than redesigning all packaging into simpler mono-material formats, governments are increasingly supporting technologies designed to recover value from difficult plastics through chemical processes such as pyrolysis and depolymerisation and that’s the real significance of the 2027 PPT reforms.

What Is ‘Mass Balance Accounting’?

In many chemical recycling systems, recycled and virgin feedstocks are mixed during production. The recycled content is then allocated mathematically through an accounting model across different plastic outputs which means a plastic product may legally qualify as containing ‘30% recycled content’ even though the molecules within that specific item may not physically contain 30% recycled material.

In effect, the system tracks recycled content through paperwork as much as through polymer.

· Supporters argue this is a practical and necessary way to scale chemically recycled plastics within existing petrochemical infrastructure.

· Critics rightly argue in my opinion that it risks creating a system based partly on accounting allocation rather than direct physical traceability.

That tension sits at the centre of the debate. To supporters, mass balance accounting is simply the next evolution of recycling infrastructure. It may (in theory) unlock investment in advanced recycling; help process difficult plastics previously destined for energy recovery or landfill, support food-grade recycled plastic applications; even accelerate recycled-content targets but critics worry the system could (will) become increasingly difficult for consumers and even businesses to meaningfully understand.

If recycled content is being allocated mathematically across production systems, then the question begins to emerge - are we measuring actual recycling or confidence in accounting systems? That does not necessarily make the system illegitimate, but it does move recycling into a far more complex territory than the traditional public understanding of ‘this bottle became another bottle’.

The Bigger Packaging Question

The reforms also expose a deeper issue within the modern packaging economy. Over the last two decades, packaging has increasingly evolved toward lightweight composites, laminated barriers, convenience-focused flexible films, highly engineered shelf-life optimisation via multi-material formats difficult to separate mechanically. Many of these innovations improved product performance, reduced transport emissions and extended food life but they also made recycling significantly more complicated.

Chemical recycling may ultimately become part of the solution however there remains a difficult question underneath the tax reforms and accounting systems - are we now redesigning packaging to fit recycling or redesigning recycling policy to accommodate problematic packaging?

That debate is only just beginning.

The nervousness surrounding wider recycling support mechanisms such as PRNs hints at an even larger issue sitting quietly behind the sector.

None of this means chemical recycling is unnecessary. Without technological and financial intervention, large parts of the modern plastics stream may remain commercially or technically difficult to recycle at all but the 2027 PPT reforms represent something far larger than a tax adjustment; they signal a transition in how governments may increasingly approach circularity itself: not purely as a physical process of recovering materials but as a system supported by chemistry, policy, accounting models and economic intervention and that raises one final question:

· At what point does circularity remain a physical process of recovering materials?

· At what point does circularity become a mathematical allocation model designed to compensate for packaging that was never circular to begin with?

More like this (PPT) – link – more like this (chemical recycling) – link – more like this (recycling) - link - more like this (mass balancing) - link - British government backs chemical recycling - link

(GUF) £600 MILLION P/A TO RECYCLE SOFT PLASTICS

(Inspiration - Man Ray - link)

One of the biggest misconceptions surrounding 'soft plastics' is the idea that all flexible packaging has an equal chance of being recycled. It really doesn’t. In reality, the UK’s future flexible plastic system will almost certainly logically favour the materials that are easiest to identify, easiest to wash, easiest to process and easiest to turn back into usable polymer.

The preferred materials will be ones that the recycling infrastructure already understands. So, hypothetically, but logically (in my opinion) here are the four materials and packaging types I think are most likely to dominate successful collection and recycling under Simpler Recycling from March 2027 onwards.

Carrier Bags & Retail Bags - (Likely Polymer: LDPE)

Examples:- supermarket carrier bags, shopping bags and convenience store bags; due to the fact that they’re already widely collected through retailer take-back schemes; they're a relatively clean polymer stream, usually mono-material LDPE and established recycling routes already exist.

They'll most likely become refuse sacks, agricultural films, the ubiquitous plastic lumber/outdoor furniture and lower-grade film products. This is probably the 'golden egg' of future soft plastic recycling.

Stretch Wrap & Pallet Wrap - (Likely Polymer: LLDPE / LDPE)

Examples:- pallet wrap, transit protection film, warehouse stretch film and shrink wrap around bulk goods.

They'll most likely become a commercially valuable, high-volume stream due to being relatively clean when segregated and already widely recycled commercially so easily turned back into new stretch film, refuse sacks and industrial plastic products,

Of all flexible plastics, this is arguably the material the industry most wants. Clean pallet wrap is practically the recycling equivalent of finding copper pipe in a builder's skip.

Bread Bags & Bakery Film - (Likely Polymer: LDPE)

Examples: - sliced bread bags, bakery packaging films, rolls and pastry bags.

These are especially promising because they're lightweight mono-film which is a relatively simple polymer structure and they're already accepted in many retailer collection schemes.

They'll most likely become bin liners, film products and composite plastic goods. This is one of the clearest examples of household film that could genuinely become recyclable at scale.

Multipack Bottle Wrap & Toilet Roll Outer Wrap - (Likely Polymer: LDPE)

Examples: - bottled water multipack wrap, soft drink shrink film, toilet tissue outer packaging and kitchen roll packaging.

These are especially likely because they're cleaner than food-contact films, of a reasonably consistent polymer composition and easy for optical sorting systems to recognise so the MRFs like them.

They'll most likely become non-food grade films, bags and plastic sheeting and are likely to become a major part of the kerbside flexible plastic stream.

The Cost ~ £250 - £600 Million per Annum

Hypothetically, but using existing FlexCollect trial data, WRAP modelling and current local authority collection economics, the national collection and processing of just these four of the UK’s most 'recyclable' soft plastic streams (carrier bags, stretch wrap, bread bags and multipack bottle wrap) could potentially recover around 300,000 tonnes of additional material annually.

On paper, that sounds transformational. In reality, however, this might only increase the UK’s household recycling rate from roughly 44% to just over 45%. 

The even more fascinating figure is the likely cost. Depending on contamination levels, sorting complexity and collection systems, the nationwide collection and processing bill could realistically sit somewhere between £250 million and £600 million per year.

In other words, Britain may soon spend the equivalent of a minor space programme teaching the public how to empty bread bags in order to gain roughly one additional percentage point of recycling performance; a reminder that modern recycling is no longer chasing the easy materials like cans and cardboard, but increasingly expensive, lightweight and operationally awkward plastics that were never truly designed for circularity in the first place. More like this (recycling at cost) - link - more like this (Simpler Recycling) - link - more like this (rubbish) - link