Plastic recyclers opposing exports to Far East

Archiv – The European recycling body EuPR is calling European and national authorities to limit the export of waste plastics to Far Eastern countries like China, and stimulate European treatment. From 1 August 2009, the Chinese authorities accept the import of additional plastics waste into their country. They allow the import of ethylene, styrene, PVC, PET bottles and CD-ROM scraps. Belgium | The European recycling body EuPR is calling European and national authorities to limit the export of waste plastics to Far Eastern countries like China, and stimulate European treatment. From 1 August 2009, the Chinese authorities accept the import of additional plastics waste into their country. They allow the import of ethylene, styrene, PVC, PET bottles and CD-ROM scraps.
EuPR – who says it comprises about 80% of the European recycling capacity- claims this new policy will ’deteriorate the fragile state in which European recyclers are found’. From 2000 to 2008, the European exports of plastics waste have risen by 250%, reaching 2.27 million tonnes – approximately 5 million tonnes are annually recycled in Europe. 87% of these exports are going to China (including Hong Kong). ’The financial downturn seems to have worsened the situation, as the first quarter of 2009 has seen a 33% increase in export compared to the previous year’, says Brussels-based EuPR through its spokesman Antonio Furfani.
From an environmental viewpoint, the export of the European plastics waste to be treated in the Far East is far from being a sound policy. According to a recent study, ’recycling nearly 300,000 tonnes of PET bottles into fibre in Europe, rather than in China, cuts global emissions by a further 175,000 tonnes a year’.
Second, there is a tax flow from Europe to the Far East. The European tax payers are financially penalised for every products they buy (Green Dot fee passed to the customer) and throw (garbage bag tax). ’This huge amount of money should be used to increase the collection systems’ efficiency, permitting better recycling rates at a lower cost and with a lower environmental impact. However, at present, part of this money indirectly supports the Far East recyclers who have lower costs than the European ones,’ claims the European recycling body.
EuPR also says the social conditions in the Far East cannot be compared to European standards: ’From an ethical point of view, Europeans cannot tolerate that their waste is treated by companies that do not apply with European social standards, working security and, in the worst cases, child labour.’