Countries like Germany, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, and Netherlands are seeing Recycling as one of the most environmental- friendly way to deal with waste. Others push Zero Waste Strategies.

Recycling, Zero Waste or Waste to Energy Plants? What exactly are the differences?

This blog posts explains the approaches and provides facts with the infographic below.

Recycling

What happens to all the recycled material?

• Paper products are sent to paper mills to reproduce new papers, cardboard and paper bags.
• Aluminum gets melted down and made into new cans.
• Glass gets separated by color and sent back to glass manufacturers.
• Plastic is shredded into small pieces, melted and finds reuse in fleece, carpeting or outdoor furniture.

Recycling makes waste reusable in an environmental- friendly way. But what about the waste that cannot be recycled?

Zero Waste

Is Zero Waste better than recycling and what is the difference? Zero Waste is not just another form of recycling. It goes beyond recycling all the way back to the production level and origin of a product. Strategy is that products should not be even produced if they cannot be reused or recycled in the first place. Sending waste to incinerators or landfills is therefore not part of the Zero Waste Concept. This approach implies change of consumer behavior and industrial design at the same time.

Big names like Nestle, GM and Procter and Gamble have implemented zero waste programs or at least started them, with set deadlines for conformity. Waste to re-purpose policies already in place, enable businesses to make best use of their waste by selling it to other companies for re-use. A good example of functioning waste-to-repurpose is Procter and Gamble’s diaper scraps, sold to furniture manufacturers for usage in upholstery fillings.

Waste to Energy Plants

Waste to Energy Plants are based on the concept of trash that is recyclable gets recycled, and the rest gets burned in incinerators. Sweden, for example, has to import waste from other countries to fill their incinerators. Zero waste advocates see this critical, arguing that incinerators destroy resources that could have been otherwise repurposed. Some claim that incinerators are expensive and that it might interfere with the primary goal of high recycling rates in the first place.

That seems to be a good argument but recycling rates in countries like Sweden are high and the mandatory recycling rate of 50% in the European Union by 2020 backs up strong recycling efforts, too.

Conclusion

Whatever approach is taken, seems to be country or region specific. If there is one method better than the other, it’s hard to tell and has arguments for and against it.

Recycling and Zero Waste are definitely a good start in the right direction. Technologies, like RFID and Smart Sensors for waste identification, will enhance that trend even further, tracking waste and making waste disposal more efficient.