DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Circular Economy – Waste Management in the EU

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards a Circular Economy – Waste Management in the EU Towards a circular economy – Waste management in the EU STUDY Science and Technology Options Assessment EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) PE 581.913 Towards a circular economy - Waste management in the EU Study IP/G/STOA/FWC/2013-001/LOT 3/C3 September 2017 Abstract This report examines the role of waste management in the context of a circular economy transition. Key challenges relate to moving beyond the perception of ‘waste as a problem’ to ‘waste as a resource’. To this end high levels of cooperation are needed between the waste industry and enterprises engaged in circular economy business models. Collecting high quality waste streams for re-use, remanufacturing and recycling also requires citizen engagement and integrated infrastructure development from the municipal to the EU level. Ultimately, both waste prevention as well as a widespread growth in circular economy activities will require a coherent and holistic approach that takes recovery options into account at every stage of the product life cycle. Co-benefits will include reducing environmental burden as well as creating both high-skilled and low-skilled jobs for an inclusive, green economy. In concrete terms, this report examines five waste streams identified in the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan: municipal waste, packaging waste, food waste, bio-waste and critical raw materials. It looks at the current state of policy development, presents trends and data comparing Member State performance, reviews the state of technological development, and assesses employment opportunities relevant to each waste stream in the overarching context of assessing progress toward the circular economy transition in the EU. Case studies of specific options for collecting and treating waste based on experiences in Denmark, Italy and Slovenia complement the more macro-level analysis of trends. Finally, key policy options are identified, in particular focused on ways to prevent waste, align circular economy and waste management objectives and improve the quality and reliability of indicators toward more robust monitoring. PE 581.913 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment The STOA project 'Towards a circular economy – Waste management in the EU' was carried out by Oakdene Hollins (UK) at the request of the Science and Technology Options Assessment Panel, and managed by the Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS) of the European Parliament. Revision and finalisation of the study was performed by the Wuppertal Institute (DE), Circular Economy Research Unit, at the request of STOA. AUTHORS Oakdene Hollins: Peter Lee, Edward Sims, Olivia Bertham, Harry Symington, Nia Bell, Lucie Pfaltzgraff and Pernilla Sjögren. Wuppertal Institute: Henning Wilts and Meghan O’Brien, with support from Justus Benke. STOA ADMINISTRATORS RESPONSIBLE Lieve Van Woensel and Nera Kuljanic Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services European Parliament, Rue Wiertz 60, B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact STOA or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.ep.europa.eu/stoa/ Manuscript completed in September 2017 Brussels, © European Union, 2017 DISCLAIMER This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy. PE 581.913 ISBN 978-92-846-1548-3 doi: 10.2861/978568 QA-02-17-937-EN-N 2 Towards a circular economy – waste management in the EU Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................................................5 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................6 LIST OF BOXES..................................................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................................9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................11 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................15 1.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT – WHAT IS THE CHALLENGE? ........................................................................................... 15 1.2 WASTE MANAGEMENT IN THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY ............................................................................................ 16 1.3 THE OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THIS STUDY .......................................................................................................18 2 THE CURRENT POLICY FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................20 2.1 THE POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY .......................................................................................... 20 2.2 POLICY INSTRUMENTS IN THE CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT SECTOR ...................................................................22 2.3 WASTE PREVENTION.....................................................................................................................................23 2.4 MUNICIPAL WASTE.......................................................................................................................................24 2.5 PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE................................................................................................................ 25 2.6 FOOD WASTE .............................................................................................................................................. 26 2.7 BIO-WASTE AND RESIDUES............................................................................................................................. 27 2.8 CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS.............................................................................................................................. 28 2.9 WASTEWATER............................................................................................................................................. 28 2.10 TRANSPOSITION OF EU LEGISLATION.............................................................................................................. 29 2.11 REGIONAL SUPPORT ...................................................................................................................................29 3 MONITORING CURRENT PERFORMANCE: KEY TRENDS AND INDICATORS ...............................................31 3.1 WASTE GENERATION, TREATMENT AND TRENDS IN THE EU-28 ............................................................................. 31 3.2 TOWARD A CIRCULAR ECONOMY ..................................................................................................................... 50 3.3 KEY CHALLENGES RELATED TO DATA, MONITORING AND INTERPRETATION................................................................ 58 4 TECHNOLOGIES FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT ...........................................................................................63 4.1 MUNICIPAL WASTE.......................................................................................................................................63 4.2 PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE................................................................................................................ 67 4.3 BIO-WASTE AND RESIDUES (INCLUDING FOOD WASTE)......................................................................................... 70 4.4 CRITICAL RAW MATERIALS.............................................................................................................................. 73 4.5 KEY CHALLENGES.......................................................................................................................................... 76 5 EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRY CONSIDERATIONS...................................................................................78 5.1 CURRENT EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES................................................................................................................. 78 5.2 FUTURE EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS................................................................................................................ 81 3 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment 5.3 EMPLOYMENT BY ACTIVITY............................................................................................................................. 83 5.4 POTENTIAL SKILL REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................................... 84 5.5
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Extended Producer Responsibility and the Role of Social Economy Re-Use Operators: Implementing a Socially Inclusive Waste Hierarchy
    27 August 2020 Extended Producer Responsibility and the role of social economy re-use operators: Implementing a socially inclusive waste hierarchy Introduction Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a tool placing responsibility on producers, importers and retailers to financially and/or physically manage the post-consumer phase of certain goods. EPR aims to prevent the unnecessary production of waste, manufacture better designed goods and participate in the achievement of waste collection, prevention, preparing for re-use and recycling targets. Various EPR models have developed organically across European countries, including France which covers the largest amount of waste streams (including textiles, furniture, and leisure equipment among others). In this context, distortion of the internal market may occur. This is why EU wide minimum requirements for EPR have been included within the updated Waste Framework Directive (WFD) published in 20181. In addition to waste streams such as WEEE where EPR is mandatory at EU level and high re-use potential exists, the new Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP) also indicates that EPR for textiles should be considered at EU level2. However, according to the experience of RREUSE members, practical implementation of EPR often conflicts with the waste hierarchy3, prioritising recycling over re-use. Unfortunately, this usually limits the role that re-use operators, notably those from the social economy, play in implementing EPR. To counter this trend, this paper provides a number of practical suggestions as to how EPR, for example, if applied to household goods such as furniture, textiles and electronics, can better support re-use and waste prevention notably through targets, access to re-useable goods and encouraging better product design.
    [Show full text]
  • Sixstepstosavingmoneyandred
    Seattle Public Utilities’ Resource Venture program provides free assistance to help Seattle-area businesses lower utility costs, obtain rebates, comply with regulations and receive public recognition, all while protecting the environment. Contact us today for assistance! Email: [email protected] Phone: (206) 343-8505 The Seattle Business Recycling Guide is designed to lead your business through six easy steps that save money by reducing waste. This guide provides information about regulations, free resources, helpful links, and success stories from area businesses. Read on to get started today! Recycling is good business Cost savings and efficiency: Commercial recycling and compost services can save you 30-50 percent on your garbage service bill. Reducing garbage service immediately saves your business money. Customer/employee demand: Customers increasingly want to support ‘green’ businesses, and 82 percent of American adults say they are aware of a business’s green practices.1 Recycling and waste reduction practices are some of the most visible ways to demonstrate your commitment to green practices. Compliance: The City of Seattle prohibits businesses from putting recyclables such as cardboard, paper, yard debris, and selected construction materials in the garbage.2 The City also bans certain materials, such as Styrofoam™ and single-use plastic bags, from being given out to customers. Creating effective recycling programs for these materials will help ensure your business is in compliance and avoids fines. Environment: Businesses have a substantial impact on climate change through everyday activities. The U.S. EPA has estimated that the full life cycle of materials – from sourcing to use and disposal – makes up nearly half of our collective carbon footprint.3 By adopting waste reduction practices, business can lower their greenhouse gas emissions, create less pollution, and support a healthier community.4 Economy and jobs: Recycling protects and expands U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Recycling, Waste Management and Resource Productivity for Business CONTENTS
    LIFTING THE LID ON WASTE A guide to recycling, waste management and resource productivity for business CONTENTS • FOREWORDS 4 • SETTING THE SCENE 6 • FROM CLIMATE CHANGE TO EMPLOYMENT –THE IMPORTANCE OF TURNING WASTE INTO WEALTH 11 • HOW WILL YOU BENEFIT FROM TURNING WASTE INTO WEALTH? 12 • TURNING YOUR WASTE INTO WEALTH: QUESTIONS, ACTIONS AND STORIES 19 • A BUSINESS GUIDE FOR GREATER RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY AND RESPONSIBLE WASTE MANAGEMENT 23 • CONCLUSION 33 • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 35 • ENDNOTES 36 LIFTING THE LID ON WASTE: A GUIDE TO RECYCLING, WASTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY FOR BUSINESS This guide sets out the opportunities that rethinking resource and waste transformation can bring, explaining how to eliminate avoidable waste and turn ‘waste’ into ‘wealth’. For any business that recognises its responsibility to change, this is the starting place. CAMPAIGNING TO ELIMINATE WASTE The Lifting the Lid on Waste Guide aims to help everyone involved with material resources and Business in the Community’s Waste to Wealth waste – landlords, tenants, property managers, campaign brings together business, facilities managers, procurement teams and government, academia and civil society to employees – to understand how to eliminate unlock opportunities to double the nation’s avoidable waste and turn any ‘waste’ created resource productivity and eliminate avoidable by your business into ‘wealth’ through waste by 2030. Over 160 organisations have reduction, reuse and recycling. It focuses already joined the campaign by signing up to specifically on reducing and better managing the Waste to Wealth Commitment1 or becoming waste as part of a wider circular economy our Waste to Wealth Partners. strategy, recognising that waste is value leaking from our economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Waste Hierachy
    R ethinking the Waste H i erarchy Environmental ASSESSMENT INSTITUTE MARCH 2005 INSTITUT FOR MILJ0VURDERING E nvironmental Assessment Institute Reference no.: 2002-2204-007 ISBN.: 87-7992-032-2 Editors: Clemen Rasmussen and Dorte Vigs0 Written by: Clemen Rasmussen (project manager), Dorte Vigs0, Frank Ackerman, Richard Porter, David Pearce, Elbert Dijkgraaf and Herman Vollebergh. Published: March 2005 Version: 1.1 ©2005, Environmental Assessment Institute For further information please contact: Environmental Assessment Institute Linnesgade 18 DK -1361 Copenhagen Phone: +45 7226 5800 Fax: +45 7226 5839 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.imv.dk E nvironmental Assessment Institute Rethinking the Waste Hierarchy March 2005 Recommendations A number of specific recommendations for achieving cost-effective waste policies can be made based on both the US experience presented by Ackerman and Porter and on the analysis of European waste management presented by Pearce and Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh. The results of this project relate to both the target setting and the regulatory implementation of waste policy in the EU. The main recommendations for future waste policies in the EU and Member States are: ■ The waste hierarchy must be considered a very general and flexible guideline for formulating waste policies. What is environmentally desirable is not always a preferred solution, when considered from a socio economic perspective. The reason is that some environmental benefits may come at a comparably so­ cially high cost. The marginal costs and benefits will vary depending on mate­ rial and locality. It is recommended that social costs and benefits of new recy­ cling schemes should be analysed and that a critical assessment be made on to determine if further steps are in fact socially desirable.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Waste
    Copyright © 2012 SAGE Publications. Not for sale, reproduction, or distribution. Mineral Waste 553 ity for many local governments in the early 21st cen- Water; Public Health; Residential Urban Refuse; Toxic tury, and this has led to budget cuts in public ser- Wastes; Waste Management, Inc. vices. In some places, this means less funding for waste management, which has led to policies like Further Readings twice-per-month garbage collection. Other finan- Environmental Protection Agency. “Illegal Dumping cially strapped places do not offer convenient loca- Prevention Guidebook.” http://www.epa.gov/wastes/ tions for disposal. Perhaps the most problematic conserve/tools/payt/pdf/illegal.pdf (Accessed July for residents are locations that charge high fees for 2010). waste disposal and recycling programs. In tough “Nonprofit Agencies Shoulder Burden of Illegal economic times, there is often not enough money Dumping.” Register-Guard (Eugene) (June 3, 2003). in the household budget to make ends meet, much Sigman, Hillary. “Midnight Dumping: Public Policies less to afford these garbage costs. This is especially and Illegal Disposal of Used Oil.” RAND true for low-income residents. These segments Journal of Economics, v.29/1 (1998). of the population often resort to more economi- cally viable measures, like midnight dumping, in order to dispose of their waste. There also tend to be higher crime rates in these areas, which law Mineral Waste enforcement gives a much higher priority than ille- gal dumping. Consequently, midnight dumping Mineral waste is the solid, liquid, and airborne by- goes unchecked. products of mining and mineral concentration pro- cesses. Although mining and metallurgy are ancient Solutions arts, the Industrial Revolution launched an accel- As a way to curb illegal dumping activity, the erating global demand for minerals that has made Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has sug- waste generation and disposal modern industry’s gested implementing “pay-as-you-throw” (PAYT) most severe environmental and social challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management
    Environment Committee Waste management The Environment Committee is investigating aspects of London’s waste generation, handling and disposal, to inform the development of work under the Mayor’s Environment Strategy and other policies. The three aspects for particular focus are: • Waste reduction and the circular economy • Recycling • Energy from waste The investigation will seek to build on past work of the committee and identify recommendations to the Mayor and perhaps other London actors. Background London generates a huge amount of waste (about 20 million tonnes in 20101), of many types from earth and cement to plastics, paper and organic material. The main destinations for London’s bulk waste are recycling, incineration as fuel to generate electricity and/or heat buildings, and landfill. Of course the amount of waste to manage can be reduced by using less material in the first place, or by passing goods on to another user, rather than discarding them with the rubbish. The waste hierarchy The ‘waste hierarchy’ places these alternatives in a preferred order based on their environmental and quality of life impacts. 1 Of which, nearly half was construction, demolition and excavation waste (CDE), nearly a third commercial and industrial waste, with municipal (mainly household) waste only 20%. Most CDE waste is re-used or recycled in some form; municipal waste has the lowest recycling rate and the highest landfill. Data from the (previous) Mayor’s Business Waste Strategy https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/environment-publications/mayors-business-waste-management- strategy (see p25) and Municipal Waste Strategy https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/municipal_waste_final.pdf (see p26) Page 1 of 11 Environment Committee Waste management Since 2000, landfill (at the bottom of the hierarchy) has reduced considerably, but in recent years waste reduction and recycling (high to medium in the hierarchy) have stagnated and further waste diverted from landfill has instead shifted to incineration (low in the hierarchy).
    [Show full text]
  • Rates 2017.Xlsx
    Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges GENERAL Basic Gate Fee $50 per ton Minimum Gate Fee Charge for Waste $5.00 Recyclable Materials Drop Off No Charge TYPE OF MATERIAL HOUSEHOLD TRASH Up to 200 lbs. minimum Gate Fee $5.00 $0.50 each additional 20 lb. increment or fraction CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) C&D with no concrete, recyclables, green waste or chipable wood $50 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated Concrete $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Separated chipable wood $25 per ton minimum $5.00 Mixed C&D (household trash, recyclables, green waste and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 GREEN WASTE Lawn Clippings/Leaves, Up to 400lbs. Minimum Gate Fee $5.00 yard waste, brush, shrubs, $.0.50 each additional 40lb. Increment or fraction trees, branches, woodchips. Tree Stumps $4.00 less than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 $12.00 greater than 24" plus Gate Fee $5.00 Mixed Debris (Green waste, household trash,recyclables and/or concrete in the load) $175 per ton minimum $5.00 ANIMALS Small (less than 25 lbs.) $5.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Medium (25-200 lbs.) $10.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee Large (more than 200lbs.) $30.00 each + $5.00 Gate Fee FURNITURE $5.00 minimum Gate Fee plus $4.00 per item ELECTRONIC WASTE No Charge UNIVERSAL WASTE No Charge RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE No Charge COMMERCIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE Not accepted SEPTAGE Inyo $65.00 first 3,000 gallons $42.00 per additional 1,000 gallons or increment Out of County $130.00 first $3,000 gallons $84.00 per addional 1,000 gallons or increment Facilities with Scales - Schedule of Charges March 2017 Description Charges TIRES Auto & light truck $4.00 for 19" rim or less + $5.00 Gate Fee $8.00 for 20" - 24.5" rim + $5.00 Gate Fee Tractor/Heavy Equipment Tire $30 For Up to 100 lbs + $5.00 Gate Fee $40 over 100 lbs.
    [Show full text]
  • 00 Gate Fee Schedule
    EFFECTIVE Nov. 17, 2020 GATE FEE SUMMARY Walker Transfer Station / Lanfill Mono County Solid Waste Program *All prices for waste that must be transported off-site include a $20/ton Transportation Surcharge GREEN ITALICIZED TEXT = RECYCLED MATERIAL Category / Item Description Unit Cost Minimum Gate Fee ....................................................................................................................... $5.00 per load Household and Commercial Waste. “First” Garbage Can(s) (up to 82 gallons, or any portion thereof) .................................................. $5.00 Additional Cans (up to 41 gallons each, or any portion thereof) ............................................. $2.50 Mixed Waste, Generally ......................................................................................................... $11.75 per cu. yd. Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Mixed Building C&D Debris -- 2 CUBIC YARD DAILY LIMIT (painted wood, furniture, drywall, insulation, plumbing fixtures, mattresses, cementitious building products, carpet, other misc. bldg. debris) ..................................................................................................................... $16.50 per cu. yd. Recyclable Building C&D Debris (un-painted lumber, engineered wood products) …$5.00 per cu. yd. Wood, Green Waste, and Similar Organics. Organics8 (clean loads of bark, hay, grass clippings, sod, tumbleweeds) ............................... $5.00 per load Wood (clean loads of prunings, brush, tree limbs and trunks less than 18”
    [Show full text]
  • Pay As You Throw
    FEATURE By Lisa Skumatz, economist and environmental/recycling/energy consultant, Town of Superior trustee and CML Executive Board member pay AS YOU THROW PAY AS YOU THROW is a trash rate put out more garbage – usually • Manual or automated collection strategy that charges households a measured either by the can or bag of trucks; higher bill for putting out more trash for garbage. Paying by volume (like paying • Wheelie or other types of containers; collection. Sounds fair — fee for service, for electricity, water, groceries, etc.) just as households are charged a higher provides households with an incentive • Urban (Boulder), suburban bill for using more water, electricity, etc. to recycle more and reduce disposal. (Lafayette) and small/rural areas (Aspen, Boulder County); and More than 7,000 (25 percent) of Communities have been implementing communities nationwide agree PAYT trash rate incentives in earnest • Set up by ordinance (Boulder and use some form of PAYT. since the late 1980s. The programs can County, Fort Collins), by contract The U.S. Environmental Protection provide a cost-effective method of (Lafayette) or city-run (Loveland). Agency Region 8 hopes to help more reducing landfill disposal, increasing How PAYT works Colorado cities and towns adopt PAYT recycling and improving equity, among The most common types of PAYT with a new program, offering free other effects. systems are: workshops, a dedicated Web site Experience in these 7,000 communities • Variable can or subscribed can (www.paytwest.org) and free consulting – including some right here in Colorado programs ask households to sign up for interested communities. – shows that these systems work very for a specific number of containers PAYT (also called variable rates, well in a variety of situations: (or size of wheelie container) as volume-based rates and other names) • Private haulers (Lafayette), multiple their usual garbage service and get provide a different way to bill for garbage haulers (Fort Collins) or city systems a bill that is higher for bigger service.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 the Economics of Marine Litter
    Chapter 14 The Economics of Marine Litter Stephanie Newman, Emma Watkins, Andrew Farmer, Patrick ten Brink and Jean-Pierre Schweitzer Abstract This chapter aims to provide an overview of research into quantifying the economic impacts of marine litter. From an environmental economics perspec- tive it introduces the difficulties in measuring the economic costs of marine litter; reviews those sectors where these costs are notable; and considers policy instru- ments, which can reduce these costs. Marine litter is underpinned by dynamic and complex processes, the drivers and impacts of which are multi-scalar, trans- boundary, and play out in both marine and terrestrial environments. These impacts include economic costs to expenditure, welfare and lost revenue. In most cases, these are not borne by the producers or the polluters. In industries such as fisher- ies and tourism the costs of marine litter are beginning to be quantified and are considerable. In other areas such as impacts on human health, or more intangible costs related to reduced ecosystem services, more research is evidently needed. As the costs of marine litter are most often used to cover removing debris or recov- ering from the damage which they have caused, this expenditure represents treat- ment rather than cure, and although probably cheaper than inaction do not present a strategy for cost reduction. Economic instruments, such as taxes and charges addressing the drivers of waste, for instance those being developed for plastic bags, could be used to reduce the production of marine litter and minimise its impacts. In any case, there remain big gaps in our understanding of the harm caused by marine litter, which presents difficulties when attempting to both quantify its economic costs, and develop effective and efficient instruments to reduce them.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Waste LONDON ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 253
    LONDON ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 251 Chapter 7: Waste LONDON ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 253 INTRODUCTION Cutting waste and recovering value • once waste reduction and reuse AIM from more of it can provide a number of opportunities have been exhausted Our linear economy (take, make and benefits including jobs, apprenticeships, there must be a focus on maximising London will be dispose) is unsustainable. It produces secondary materials, and affordable the recycling of materials that are left too much waste, with around 7m tonnes low carbon energy. Effective waste a zero waste coming from London’s homes, public management delivering high quality • generating low carbon energy from buildings and businesses each year, materials to market can give local truly residual waste leaving very little city. By 2026 no too much of which goes to landfill and authorities a reliable high value income waste going to landfill incineration. Of this, only 52 per cent is stream. This can help to offset costs biodegradable or currently recycled and performance has associated with service improvements. • ensuring that there is sufficient stagnated. Landfill and incineration are More of London’s reusable items infrastructure to support these recyclable waste undesirable, costly and an inefficient use like furniture, fittings and electrical actions within London helping to of resources. The capacity of landfills appliances need to be kept in use. create opportunities for businesses will be sent to accepting London’s waste is expected Redistributing them to where they developing reuse, repair and to run out by 2026 and London’s waste are needed can create local work, remanufacturing services landfill and by 2030 bill is now in in excess of £2bn a year keep resource costs down and help and rising.
    [Show full text]
  • Shameek Vats UPCYCLING of HOSPITAL TEXTILES INTO FASHIONABLE GARMENTS Master of Science Thesis
    Shameek Vats UPCYCLING OF HOSPITAL TEXTILES INTO FASHIONABLE GARMENTS Master of Science Thesis Examiner: Professor Pertti Nousiainen and university lecturer Marja Rissanen Examiner and topic approved by the Council, Faculty of Engineering Sci- ences on 6 May 2015 i ABSTRACT TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Master‘s Degree Programme in Materials Engineering VATS, SHAMEEK: Upcycling of hospital textiles into fashionable garments Master of Science Thesis, 64 pages, 3 Appendix pages July 2015 Major: Polymers and Biomaterials Examiner: Professor Pertti Nousianen and University lecturer Marja Rissanen Keywords: Upcycling, Textiles, Cotton polyester fibres, Viscose fibres, Polymer Fibers, Degradation, Life Cycle Assessment(LCA), Recycling, Cellulose fibres, Waste Hierarchy, Waste Management, Downcycling The commercial textile circulation in Finland works that a company is responsi- ble for supplying and maintenance of the textiles. The major customers include hospitals and restaurants chains. When the textiles are degraded and unsuitable for use, a part of it is acquired by companies, like, TAUKO Designs for further use. The rest part is unfortunately sent to the landfills. We tried to answer some research questions, whether the waste fabrics show the properties good enough to be used to manufacture new garments. If the prop- erties of the waste textiles are not conducive enough to be made into new fab- rics,whether or not other alternatives could be explored. A different view of the thesis also tries to reduce the amount of textile waste in the landfills by explor- ing different methods. This was done by characterizing the waste for different properties. The amount of cellulose polyester fibres was calculated along with breaking force and mass per unit area.
    [Show full text]