Steve Morriss, head of Circular Economy for the Close the Loop Group, weighs in on recycled content targets for circular soft plastics from packaging waste and calls for a balanced approach that will boost Australia’s recycled content recovery.
The time is right for improving our performance related to the circularity of plastic packaging, especially soft plastics. If we follow the quality mantra of Plan / Do / Check / Act, we’ve planned and done much work over the past 10 years and an honest check shows we need to act differently going forward.
APCO is working hard behind the scenes, including on a collaborative project to draft a ‘Recycled Content Options Paper’ that considers, among other things, drivers of markets for recycled materials.
My research has led to the conclusion that with big business lobbying for chemical recycling, backed by an unnecessary drive for food grade to food grade as the only objective, any targets we might set under these conditions are at risk of failure, again. Chemical recycling is great in theory, and I truly hope it works in practice, both environmentally and economically, but I’m calling for a level playing field for mechanical recycling, which must include incentivising the use of recycled content (RC) from all plastic packaging in non-food, and even non-packaging applications as well.
If our objective is truly to create a circular economy of soft plastics, then it must be a low carbon transition, and we must take all the legacy materials – hundreds of different chemicals and materials in each bale of post-consumer mixed soft plastics – with us.
One way to de-risk the next stage of this journey is to give equal incentives to brands (via eco-modulation) to build new markets and support existing markets for RC from post-consumer packaging waste. Australia could lead the world with a very simple show of support for the reuse of atoms and molecules from recycled plastic into non-food grade packaging, secondary packaging (such as shipping pallets, tubs, crates), or large volume non-packaging applications like asphalt additives. [Author’s note: I need to declare a vested interest in some of these solutions but there are many other quality recyclers with similar alternative solutions that need a level playing field as well.]
If big brands want to convert RC back into food grade packaging, and they can achieve that over time with environmental outcomes better than using virgin plastic, then it’s a good outcome. The big brands will get first access to food grade film with RC anyway. But if other brands, particularly SMEs, want to use circular shipping pallets made from their own waste, or other pathways to using RC to replace virgin polymers in their supply chains, then why not encourage this too?
I’ve spoken to many experts on this subject at events, in working groups, and one-on-one, and more often than not, the conversation feels encouraging at first and then goes nowhere. I don’t really know why, but I think it is because the original APCO targets for RC are specifically focused on food-grade to food-grade recycling and those involved are stuck on this objective.
I’d really appreciate someone explaining to me why we need to be so fixated on food-grade to food-grade? After all, the APCO targets and those of all Australian governments are attempting to create markets for any commercially and environmentally viable products of recycled content, aren’t they?
[The views expressed here are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of Close the Loop Group.]
