|
Claims that deceptive market conditions skewed a recycling
collection report to favour kerbside sort schemes have been
made by a recycling and waste management company.
Greenstar UK chief executive, Ian Wakelin said he
found the conclusion of the Waste & Resources Action
Programmes (WRAP) report - 'Kerbside Recycling: Indicative
Costs and Performance' (Click
Here) - difficult to understand.
�The research has been done at a time when commodity prices
are at an all-time high. Materials recycling facility (MRF)
gate fees have also been historically high due to a lack of
MRF capacity. These two factors sway the result in favour
of kerbside sort� - he said.
�We know that this was a difficult and complex exercise to
undertake, as there are so many variables to consider. We
believe the use of a �28 per tonne gate fee for single stream
with glass and a �21 gate fee for loads without glass, is
completely wrong. These fees do not reflect current levels
which are substantially less and which will, in all probability,
continue to fall as more MRF capacity comes on-stream. This
would make the three collection systems much more comparable.
�Single stream collections do increase the quantity of material
recycled. That is the evidence we have seen from both domestic
and commercial collections. This would yield a landfill saving
which does not appear to be reflected in the cost comparisons.
�If single stream collection is apparently so much more expensive,
why have a third of English local councils opted for this
system? Greenstar uses both systems across its 24 local authority
contracts and our experience tells us that co-mingled collection
can be as cost-effective as other models.�
|
