Raise your hand if you recycle. This means you are creating what is known as separate waste. Its pickup and retrieval is called separate collection. Plastic goes in one bin, cans and other tin and aluminum waste in another, and paper goods in a third, right? Well, that is how it is supposed to work, but let me dazzle you with some statistics.
In 1972, approximately 26,500 tons of aluminum cans were recycled and today that number is estimated to be as high as 800,000 tons. Over 100,000 Aluminum cans are recycled every minute in the U.S. alone. Every can that is recycled means more resources that are available at a lesser cost. Even though the economic benefits are straightforward, there are still many hundreds of thousands of tons of aluminum cans every year that are being disposed of alongside roadways, in dumpsters, and in office trash cans.
The average employee consumes 2.5 aluminum cans worth of beverages per day. Because of this, places of employment have implemented recycling programs by placing bins in break rooms, hallways, and offices. This helps prevent aluminum cans from landing in landfills and diverts them to the recycling centers like they should be (so that they can be recycled and back on store shelves within sixty days). It only takes about 6 weeks to manufacture, fill, sell, recycle and then remanufacture a beverage can. Used aluminum cans are recycled and returned to a store shelf as a new can in as few as 60 days.
Please notice the sentence about how many cans are left on roadways, in dumpsters, and in trash cans. If that much aluminum -- the easiest trash to sort and recycle -- is still ending up in landfills, what can we conclude about our other junk, including industry waste that is harder to dispose of but chock full of valuable natural resources?
Aluminum is the most abundant metal on earth, but the carbon footprint for extracting and processing aluminum ore is enormous. If we are talking about sustaining a supply chain, we don't foresee an aluminum shortage anytime soon. But if we are talking about sustaining the earth by slowing down the consequences of climate change, we need to consider how to become as efficient as possible in our recycling.
Here is another quote from the Wastecare article: "Recycling aluminum saves 95 percent of the energy that is required to make cans from virgin bauxite ore." Energy savings on that scale is worth our attention.
In a study conducted by the European Commission with respect to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive, it was discovered that 65 percent of the electric and electronic equipment waste placed on the market in 2008 had already been recycled, but more than half of it may have been treated improperly and exported illegally. Even when properly treated, there were no records of the treatment, either by content or weight. In other words, there were no reliable metrics for judging the success of the EU's waste management initiatives.
The latest recast of the directive, dated July 12, 2012, will require every recycling service provider to keep records of the amount of WEEE coming into their facility, as well as the weight, content, and volume of materials reclaimed and put back into the market. If you want to know how far you have come, you have to know where you started.
I know we have all gone to the dump to get rid of an old washing machine or refrigerator, but do you recall how much you had to pay to get rid of it? You already paid for it when you bought it. Should you have to pay for it again when it is just going into a landfill? No. It was not recycled. It was buried in the ground or dropped into the ocean. Things are changing in the United States, but not with the vigor we see in other countries.
The Environmental Protection Agency leads US efforts to improve recycling rates and reduce household and commercial waste. Today the US recycles about 28 percent of its waste, the EPA says -- a rate that has almost doubled during the past 15 years. So we are getting better, right? Recycling rates vary from state to state. Alaska, Wyoming, and Montana recycle less than 9 percent of their waste. New York, Virginia, and five other states have rates higher than 40 percent.
I would say we have room to improve. Suppose every US state were as conscientious as New York and Virginia. Clearly it is possible. They did it. Are you feeling proud yet? The European Commission has set a target of 85 percent for WEEE recovery. That means recyclables are built into the designs of products, collection management tightens up, and people don't have to pay a penalty for turning in used goods.
Any manufacturer shipping into the EU must ensure that 55 percent (by weight) of the product is recyclable. The producer must identify and pay for the recycling cost and must identify the recyclers that will be involved in the recovery process.
There is a worldwide electronic part counterfeiting problem, mainly due to the uncontrolled diverting of WEEE to reclamation centers that practice blacktopping -- remarking old parts as new. The counterfeiters will also market random ICs with entirely different, more expensive part number labels.
Waste is not just waste. That is the underlying philosophy of one of Europe's greenest countries. For decades, the Danish environment policy has been to regard waste as a resource. To regard it as anything else… well, that is just a shameful waste.
Yes, it is very simple. Follow Germany, recycling system is so simple but so effective. If you compare to that, it feels like north America do not have much of waste recycling system as yet.
@-hm, That is a true statement. But having Germany as an example shows that it is possible to achieve. The real benefit will come when the manufacturers stop packaging in a manner that is excessive. They are going for appearance and the cool package design without consideration for the environment. In the design for recycling world, meeting minimal packaging material mass should be encouraged. 35% of all plastics are used in packaging.
@_hm, Here is what I found: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/how-40-of-our-food-goes-to-waste/261498/ Is this what you were referring to?
I doesn't surprise me, but it is indeed desapointing when we know that many people in poor countries don't have enough to eat and how difficult it is for them to make ends meet.
I think European countries are ahead of many nations across the world. 55 percent of the product to be recyclable is really a great requirement from any electronic product company. But are other countries going to follow European regulations.
Well its a good percentage indeed and this is a good stepping stone for other countries to follow if they really do care. I feel we should create more awareness regarding the subject
There should be more stress in education from early childhood. Also, US student should more frequently visit and stay there for year or more to deeply understand their approach. This may be way to improve culture slowly.
In general, in Germany and may be in Europe they do revere earth and environment as Goddess.
Waste management philosophy seems to be better defined in Germany.
"Avoidance, recovery, disposal. This is the principle of the waste hierarchy which is the basis for waste management in Germany. In the past waste was simply landfilled, but it has since been recognised that waste contains valuable raw materials which can be used to conserve natural resources.
Waste avoidance means consuming less raw materials and reducing burdens on the environment.
Waste recovery means that raw materials and energy are reintroduced into the economic cycle. German waste management is an important industrial sector and provides high-quality technology for the efficient use of waste as a resource and the environmentally sound disposal of the remaining residual waste." (From General Information Waste Management in Germany)
" For decades, the Danish environment policy has been to regard waste as a resource."
If we look at nature we can't find waste therefore we must act in the same way. All the products we produce must be recycled, otherwise in a few decades we have to find another planet to destroy.....
Whoa! I was taught that Nature is ultimately waste, in that all processes ultimately increase chaos in the universe. (That jibes with the theological idea that the universe is "broken.") At least that's what I learned about the laws of thermodynamics when I studied engineering.
Nevertheless, I get your point. "Life processes" on a planetary level seem to recover waste materials very effectively (with the injection of energy from the Sun and from some chemical and nuclear processes on the Earth). We should copy that, because for a system to be viable in the long term, it must have a way to obtain inputs, even if it means recovering waste (if that recovery is cheaper overall than obtaining new input).
"Cheaper overall" depends on how "long term" is defined. Society's definition should include multiple generations, to as long as we can plan, if society wants to continue. Many individuals and probably most businesses look at a much shorter definition, which selfishly foists the problem onto the shoulders of coming generations. To force the definition to a multi-generational span probably requires government, since that span is outside the outlook of most businesses and individuals, but is inside the interests of society.
Likely, companies will initially adopt these measures as marketing tools, as long as "green" is still popular, then continue to adopt under orders from government, and then eventually adopt them as the only viable business strategy that makes new materials available at a reasonable cost.
As materials become more scarce, business Dawinism will ensure that only companies that have mastered the art of recycling waste will continue.
Probably I'm saying (if you mean me) that recycling is a good idea, but that, since Nature was brought in as an example of a perfect recycler, we might want to realize the limitations of recycling, even for Nature. Then I talked about how the definition changes of what constitutes a sound reason to recycle when you adjust the time horizon of the problem, and how that in turn probably might require intervention because of market failure in managing such long-term problems.
Great point, Rich. I do agree that by having policies like BYOD companies are getting rid of the hassle of managing the recycling of hardware and ensuring their processes remain green. Although I'm not sure if it's really a bad idea to let the users handle the recycling part on their own.
"Although I'm not sure if it's really a bad idea to let the users handle the recycling part on their own."
I felt we had that licked years ago, when many companies required deposits on bottles to make sure they would come back for reuse (and not just recycling). I made enough money picking up bottles and returning them to the store to buy some comic books that way. I understand some states still have deposits on bottles. Maybe the idea should be revived and extended. This way, the cooperation of the user will be better achieved.
@Rich: Considering your example, do you think it can be a good technique if companies start paying out a certain incentive to consumers who bring the devices back to the manufacturers once their useful life is over? Would that help in improving the recycling process?
Unfortunately, some of what's happening today is merely to be compliant with the law and not because of a serious concern about the environment. The profit impetus is just way too strong and the short-term, deliver-first mentality driving businesses means the comprehensive program we need to undertake as a society will probably take way too long to happen.
We do design for maximum profit rather than design for sustainability, which means most of the electronic equipment we buy and other products aren't designed to have the minimal impact on our society we desire but the highest profit we can garner.
Bolaji, you are absolutely correct and I agree with the point you have raised. For example, a current estimate reveals the ICT industry is expected to generate 53millions tonnes of e waste by 2012. Only 13% of this waste is reported to be recycled with or without adequate safety procedures. As you are aware, the potential human impacts from this are toxic. . So what then happens now?
I think (though like you mentioned a comprehensive programme may take too long) the challenge is to raise further awareness among all actors, policy makers, producers, consumers and recyclers - in order to be aware of the environmental impact and realise the innovation potential that could lead to sustainable design and consumption.
Its remarkable to see the awrareness common people have in countries like US. Even the social communities like residential appartment building also do recycling and all the waste is categorized. Hope in Asian countries also common man start doing it.
Exactly and according to my knowledge there is lot of wastage happening in the US itself and its not only in the field of technology but in other areas like food, medicine, etc... If there is a solution where you can recycle whatever which is due to go into the garbage basket, then lot of money can be saved.
@nimantha, Good point. My wife and I worked in Manila with a medical team serving 5000 families that lived on a garbage dump. The entire family made a "living" be picking through the garbage for old rice bags, rubber tires that could made into sandles, metal, and just about anything else that could be washed and reused. A day's wage was one dried fish, a scoop of rice, and a gallon of water. It was amazing to watch the people put together a livilihood off of waste products.
Exactly Douglas and this is something that the US government should address quickly. Its not just a wastage of food and products basically wastage of national economy.
RFID makes it possible not only to increase the quantity and types of products streaming through the supply chain, but also to build higher-level products and services.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This