The recovery goes into spin – Aftenposten

On a relatively small kitchen Rodeløkka in Oslo has family Baruzzo got room for a neat system for recycling in everyday life.

– It is we who shall inherit the earth. Continuing the adults who now are no good soil to live on when we grow up, says Sara Baruzzo (12).

She is already an excessive Environmental Management in the community and at school, hopeful and yet slightly exasperated with the adults.

Recycling has become a part of their upbringing: We save raw materials stone and sand by recycling glass, we save forests by recycling paper,

and by recycling plastic saves us oil. With public orders and regulations are what we before called garbage, become an attractive commodity.

But is it worth it?

– To sort waste under the kitchen sink has almost no effect on the environment.

It says researcher Anne Grete Bruvoll of consulting Vista analysis. She poses a fundamental and heretical question of sparing forests and stone:

“What is the justification for spending time, effort and big money to save this? “

Bruvoll was for many years the environmental researcher at Statistics Norway (SSB). She grew up on the west coast and has been much in the Norwegian mountains.

– To sort waste under the kitchen sink has almost no effect on the environment.

– I literally do not need to save rock in Norway, she says.

The volume of the Norwegian forests has doubled since 1925.

– Norway is becoming overgrown again, so it can not be a lack of forest. On the contrary, it is a political goal to strengthen the forest industry, she said.

In SSB studied Bruvoll economy in sorting and recycling. Her conclusion is that it is difficult to find positive environmental effects from the mandatory source separation of paper, glass and other debris.

Saves tiny emissions

In Oslo and a number of other municipalities are food and plastic pre-sorted in the kitchen sink to be recovered. One of the objectives is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

• Bus’ use of biogas from food waste in Oslo saving 0.02 per cent of Norwegian emissions.
• Source separation and recycling of plastics from households saving 0.09 per cent of total Norwegian greenhouse gas emissions.

Reusing plastic is also possible to save oil. When Bruvoll and a colleague a few years ago counted on this, they found that by recycling plastic one could save a maximum 0.04 percent of Norwegian oil production.

– To achieve this, it was with public Decision initiated a comprehensive recycling in homes and waste treatment plants. Much of the film was then transported abroad and recovered there. Instead, the goal is achieved considerably easier by stopping Norwegian oil production in three to four hours each year, says Bruvoll.

Complicated detours

Recycling of glass and paper in the same league.

– But it takes well less energy to make new glass of old glass and making new paper from old paper?

– It’s not obvious. Recycling processes are also energy intensive. Besides, there are much more targeted to reduce energy use directly, than by cumbersome detours where one does not know the effects, says Bruvoll.

The question is whether the effort and cost are relative to the gains. There are calculations of Bruvoll calls.

Animals, Danish recycling

Denmark have made calculations. Conclusion: It is cheaper to burn the waste than to sort and recycle it. There are set rates on all benefits and all costs, even at the saved emissions and time spent on sorting.

• An expert estimates that more specific options for sorting and recycling is 50-80 percent more expensive than incineration in Denmark.

– As in Norway also varies waste sorting municipalities in Denmark. But mostly the source separation Danes less than Norwegians. They sort out paper and glass by taking it to collection points. The rest goes mostly to combustion, including food waste and plastic, says Eirik S. Amundsen.

He is professor of economics at the University of Bergen and the University of Copenhagen and one of the group’s experts – or “economic vismænd,” as they are called.

Should drop orders and rules

In 2013 concluded Amundsen group that there is “economic arguments to make a particular effort to increase reuse, either in general or for designated critical raw materials.”

The Sages said that recycling and recovery should come by itself when prices and costs in the market make it profitable, not through regulation by the authorities. The precondition for the conclusion was that there is no organizational or institutional barriers to recycling

– If sorting and recycling not happen, it suggests that the cost is greater than revenue. Authorities should not go into the rules and orders to get this started, says Amundsen.

Most expensive regaining

Last year assessed the Magi the Danish government resource strategy Denmark uden waste in 2013. The strategy was the conclusion that increased recycling was still more expensive than burning of waste.

– We criticized the analysis and found that the conclusions were incorrect. When we took into account all costs and benefits for Denmark, was our conclusion that the recovery was considerably more expensive than incineration of waste, says Amundsen.

Our conclusion that the recovery was considerably more expensive than incineration of waste

Wise Men main criticism was that the incineration plants were evaluated for ineffective in the future and that the cost of people’s time spent in sorting at source was not figured into. By adding basic cost of just five minutes per. household every week, increased cost recovery considerably.

Will allow the marketplace

Researcher Bruvoll have tried to find clear objectives to sort waste, then regain it or create energy by it. It proved difficult.

– The usual procedure is to set some goals and then choose the best instruments for achieving them. Here is this turned completely around. Man decides that the instrument is sorting and recycling without defining goals and without considering alternative remedies. Recycling has become an end in itself, but without further justification, says Bruvoll.

– Should we stop recycling, collecting everything in the same bag and burn it?

– If it is economically feasible to collect and recycle waste, then it is good, she says, but concludes that the Danish Magi:

– This should leave it to the market. Central and local authorities should concentrate on reducing emissions and other environmental problems, and to ensure that municipal fees as low as possible, she said.

Taking time and energy

On Rodeløkka Saras mother, Simona Baruzzo, agree with the researcher that waste requires a lot of energy. But she falls still down on a completely different conclusion:

– We must reduce consumption as much as possible, turn Baruzzo fixed.

– It’s about the way we give our children. In the longer term change in these attitudes cause all make better decisions when it comes to the environment – both individuals, politicians and the business world, she says with conviction.

Another environmentalist, adviser Karl Kristensen in Bellona believes Bruvoll arguments do not relate to a historical development or to where we need to move in future.

– Recycling is necessary in a world with limited resources. A market for waste resources necessary for technological development in this area, and this seems to be completely foreign to her, he said.

Small gains for the environment

The researcher considers the case slightly different eyes and think emissions from waste is not different than other emissions.

– Both households and businesses should be confronted charges and regulations of their waste to achieve the objectives. The problem today is that the remedies sorting and recycling is not assessed against the objectives of environmental policy, she said.

Once again, she meets resistance from Bellona counselor. He believes Bruvoll calculations distorts reality.

– In addition invalidates her other environmental benefits in terms of reduced burden on biodiversity and less pollution.

– However, waste sorting and recycling profitable when one takes into account all costs and benefits?

– Recycling is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. If it had not been profitable, would not large corporations gone into this, says Kristensen.

Recycling is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. If it had not been profitable, would not large corporations entered in this

Sorting gives good conscience

Bruvoll stands on its conclusion:

• Pre-sorting and increased recycling can hardly be justified by the aim to conserve resources.
• Sorting and recycling over incineration is not an effective way to cut emissions to the air.

– The combustion of waste is already so pure that emissions are virtually eliminated, says Bruvoll.

She notes that emissions from incinerators is under 1 per cent of the Norwegian total for most gases.

– We get little left to spend huge resources which the positive effects are hardly measurable, she says.

– But can not sorting creating increased environmental awareness, give us a good feeling and acceptance of additional environmental regulations?

– I do not know of research or studies that confirm this. There may indeed be reason to rethink the opposite. Maybe accountability we feel by recycle makes it easier to commit other environmental sins? she asks.

There are such research, argues researcher Einar Strumse at Lillehammer College.

– If you get pressure on themselves to recycle, it does something to you. Many have an inner desire to continue to sort and get an intrinsic value, says Strumse.

The individual’s motive for waste sorting can tell on timeliness should be counted as an expense or benefit.

sorting perceived as an order from the authorities, it is assumed that the effort is a cost. If, however, the sort experienced as nicer or more fun than the alternative use of time, it is assumed that time spent sorting should be considered as an economic benefit.

Flies away savings

In 2009, did Bruvoll calculations as compared to emissions from flights with saved emissions by recycling plastics. Since then, emissions from flights fell slightly and figures relating to the recovery of plastic waste has changed. Bruvoll have not done calculations with new numbers.

But even if one takes hard in terms of emission reductions resulting from aircraft, the figures indicate that it takes hundreds of years of recycling of plastic to save the emissions from a flight round-trip Oslo-San Francisco, is calculated for each. person.

Similarly, it will take decades of recycling plastic to save your emissions to fly from Oslo to Bergen and back again.

– It is a paradox that the environmental focus of so largely geared towards actions with negligible environmental impact, while interest is little to cut down on flights and person motoring, she says.

Kristensen Bellona believes we must be concerned about our personal environmental footprint.

– The additional cost through recycle and reclaim, compared with burn everything, is limited and justified fully by the environmental benefits we achieve, he said.

minister a-ha experience

Climate and Environment Tine Sundtoft (H) believe recycling is much more than a symbolic act.

– Is the effort and costs of recycling and recovery in a reasonable relationship to the benefits, in terms of reduced emissions and saved raw materials?

– Material and waste management provides positive environmental benefits. I think it’s more important how we align our society to think more circular economy. Here, recycling and better use of resources is important, she said.

– What do you think about the statement: Source separation in the kitchen sink is a symbolic act that makes it easier to run a lot of car and go long flights?

– I disagree that this is symbolic act. Source separation benefits the environment. Some define it as resources. Source separation also – where every one of us who annually contribute 441 kg of waste, and 46 kg food waste – a revelation experience. We have a lot to go on to reduce waste in this way.

Hope for the future?

The waste sorter end woman Rodeløkka grew up in Turin in Italy. As a cyclist, in Fiat-city pollution need not she scientists analyzes to be sworn environmentalist, albeit most of their own kitchen. When we tell Baruzzo that researchers are not sure how profitable it is to recycle, she nods in recognition.

– I want more research and accurate calculations. But anyway, I am convinced that recycling and recovery creates an environmental awareness we will benefit from in the long term.

Her hope for the future is that the next generation will generally take second decisions than we do today.

– That I put coffee grounds in the green bag may not mean much in itself. But I think it has a meaning when many do. Consumers need not feel powerless, we must feel we can help themselves, says Baruzzo.

Get with you the main thing that happens in Norwegian and international economy. Follow Aftenposten Economy on Facebook!

Published: 06.jun. 2015 9:24 p.m.