SUSTAINABILITY
reuse shops (aka Tip shops). This is a great
way to keep products cycling in the economy.
Over 70% of the local governments that
shared their practices to develop the guide
were non-metropolitan. And many of them
were generating income for selling “junk”, one
large landfill earning roughly $200,000 a year.
Perhaps Australia’s remote communities
actually have more need for a circular
economy, and might be a source of
innovation.
Image: The Shire of Exmouth provides a Trash
or Treasure picking area at the Qualing Scarp
Landfill where reusable household items can
be taken for free.
“We don’t have the
critical mass of materials
to make reuse and
recycling feasible.”
There are two issues here: economic
feasibility and the environmental impact of
transporting things.
Government intervention and the increasing
costs of resources will help the economic
case. By shifting taxes from labour to resource
use and providing financial support for
recycling infrastructure, government has a
big part to play in balancing the equation.
What started as a response to a litter
problem, South Australia’s container deposit
scheme now results in 80% return rates for
beverage containers, jobs at the 126 approved
depots, and financial benefits to hundreds
of community groups, sporting clubs and
charities that collect empty containers for
refund. Whilst recent price fluctuations for
materials such as plastics have wreaked
havoc with recyclers, research still indicates
that prices will increase again, especially of
certain materials such as copper and nickel.
Don’t forget though that recycling is a
last resort in a circular economy. Whilst
reprocessed materials don’t bring in huge
amounts of money, products that are reused or
manufactured retain much more of the value
created during manufacturing. A powerful
example of this is perhaps an iPhone. A
reused iPhone retains around 48 per cent
of its original value, whereas its value as
recyclate is just 0.24% of its original value.
Sweden has recently cut their GST on all repair
activities and France’s laws against “planned
obsolescence” forces manufacturers to tell
consumers how long their product will last and
provide spare parts to facilitate repair.
But I digress, back to recycling. One could
question the real environmental impacts
of traipsing rubbish around the country
to eventually be reprocessed. The answer
changes significantly depending on the
material. If we look at the e-waste example,
the Australia and New Zealand Recycling
Platform (ANZRP) (http://anzrp.com.au/), who
run the not-for-profit TechCollect program
(http://techcollect.com.au) under the National
Television and Computer Recycling Scheme,
has undertaken the first life cycle assessment
of their activities. Whilst the 16,000 tonnes
of computers and televisions they collected
across the country last year are sorted and
disassembled in Australia, we don’t have the
capacity to reprocess the metals onshore.
They have to be sent to fully traceable facilities
scattered around Asia. The study has shown
that despite the intricate logistics that working
in Australia requires, recycling e-waste still
provides a clear carbon benefit.
Conclusion
I don’t suggest that implementing a circular
economy will be easy, but it can be done. It
is just as relevant in Australia as it is in the
rest of the world- and maybe even more so.
GISA’s report into the potential impacts of
transitioning to a circular economy in South
Australia will help paint a picture of what
this could look like in our part of the world,
and will demonstrate a clear benefit in terms
of job creation and greenhouse gas emission
reduction.
If we are going to get anywhere, it is so
important to work in collaboration between
government, industry, research and us as
consumers. When thinking about “circular”,
remember that it doesn’t mean cutting
ourselves off from the rest of the world.
GOVLINK » ISSUE 3 2016
55