[5/6: What can still be done?] SG's plastic use.

Making recycled plastic market competitive

Without the recycled plastic being market competitive with virgin plastic, recycling cannot be a profit-making, growing business. There are many factors that make recycled plastic less appealing than virgin plastic.

The dropping price of oil in recent years has sunk costs of virgin plastic production. Virgin plastic production can be “far cheaper” than producing recycled plastics, according to a National Geographic article. Nina Bellucci Butler, CEO of the consulting firm More Recycling, said in an interview with Chemical and Engineering News, that from a business perspective, recyclables were unable to beat new plastics:

“Recycling isn’t attractive when oil is below $100 per barrel… Companies aren’t ready to pay 20% premiums for a product that is not at the same level of quality as virgin unless there is a marketplace incentive to producing a product with a lower carbon footprint.”

In addition, Mr Teri Teo, a project consultant at recycling firm LHT Holdings said in an interview with Channel NewsAsia that the Government does not offer enough financial support to make recycling a sustainable business model in Singapore. He also said that the Government should subsidise manufacturers of such products, so that they are competitive in the market.

China’s ban on importing all recycled plastics but the cleanest ones have had a domino effect on the recycling industries worldwide. Many, having nowhere to transfer their recyclables to, became no longer profitable. For instance, California’s RePlanet had to shut down all 284 of its recycling centres in August 2019.

Furthermore, there is also said to be a perception among Asians that recycled plastic is dirtier than virgin plastic, and its use will not bode well for their business. Taking into account economic, social and environmental factors, improving the market for recycled plastic can be done in three ways:

a) Providing financial incentives for manufacturers to choose recycled plastic over virgin plastic,

b) Regulating the content in plastic products so that products are easy to recycle, and

c) Conducting scientific research to advance recycling technology so recycling gets cheaper, faster and more effective

a) Providing financial aid or drawing up taxes

Giving subsidies or implementing taxation policies will encourage businesses to consider incorporating recycled plastic into their products.

Similar policies are present in other countries. Britain is planning to tax manufacturers of plastic packaging with less than 30 percent recycled materials.

b) Regulating the content in plastic products so that products are easy to recycle

Plain packaging, or only producing easy-to-recycle plastics, helps to extend the lifespan of plastics. For example, bottles made out of polyvinyl chloride cannot be recycled. Most recycling centres lack the appropriate recycling facilities for these bottles.

A North Carolina government article explains why:

“the high levels of hazardous additives... may comprise up to 60 percent of a PVC product's weight. Of all plastics, PVC uses the highest proportion of additives…

one stray PVC bottle in a melt of 10,000 PET bottles can ruin the entire batch…

PVC recycling is particularly problematic because of high separation and collection costs, loss of material quality after recycling, the low market price of PVC recyclate compared to virgin PVC and, therefore, the limited potential of recyclate in the existing PVC market.”

Similarly, Norway recently adopted a system in which makers of single-use plastic bottles pay an “environmental levy” that declines as the return rate for their products rises. The bottles must be designed for easy recycling, with no toxic additives, only clear or blue color, and water-soluble labels. That's the secret to how Norway manages to recycle almost 97% of all plastic bottles, with 92% of such high quality they can be remade into plastic bottles again. In fact, some of the plastic has been recycled more than fifty times - all these completely overturns the long-held notion that recycled plastics are of a lower quality and cannot be reused again.

During a parliamentary discussion on Singapore’s new Resource Sustainability Bill, NMP Professor Theseira mentioned the Diamond Good Effect, where packaging is perceived as a sign of a product’s quality, as well as a valuable tool to signify the brand of the company. When contacted via email, Prof. Theseira confirmed that he would support a plain packaging law. This emphasis on plain packaging also ties in with the emphasis to avoid blending in multiple feedstocks where possible, as that ultimately prevents recycling.

c) Conducting scientific research to advance recycling technology so recycling gets cheaper, faster and more effective

Singapore, like many other countries, export recyclable plastics to other countries. In fact, 93% of all recycled plastics are shipped overseas. While suggestions have been made before to expand recycling facilities locally, there is the difficulty of competing land use in a land-scarce Singapore, and thus one of the best perceived options is to improve our recycling technology.

Furthermore, while incineration as a waste management strategy is local, recycling is globally coordinated. There is much controversy surrounding incineration, and more eco-friendly alternatives are often lauded. Advancements in recycling technology and effective recycling campaigns would be measures embraced by many nations, thus bringing efforts made locally to a global scale.

Various green technologies have proven that it is commercially viable to make a business out of plastic waste. Scientists at the National University of Singapore (NUS) have discovered a method for converting plastic bottle wastes into Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) aerogels. Taraph Technologies, another home-grown startup, multiplies the price tag of plastic waste ten times by transforming it into chemicals normally produced in oil refineries.

Some argue that market forces will see this technology rise to become more widespread. Mark Morgan, vice president of chemical consulting at IHS Markit said that the economics under different conditions is “pretty scale dependent”. He gives an example of how the production cost of hydrocarbon oil can drop by up to forty percent with an expansion of its operations.

Still, with the increasing rate of plastic use, some throw doubt on the ability of technology to keep up with the mounting volume of plastic waste. Neil Tangri, science and policy director for the environmental group Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, thinks a cap on output is a better approach. “There is no way any downstream solution, no matter how good the technology is, is going to scale up and keep pace with that level of production,” he said.

Making reusables as convenient an option as disposables

MEWR’s survey showed that convenience was the most common reason for recycling regularly. Similarly the survey I conducted showed that out of those who do not try to reduce their plastic footprint, convenience trumped the other reasons as well. Ms Melissa Low of NUS Energy Studies Institute also agreed that this convenience-first mindset is also the reason why disposables are so rampant in Singapore.

With the convenience-first culture heavily embedded into the Singaporean culture, making reusables on par with disposables in terms of convenience is likely to be necessary in helping Singaporeans make the transition.

A variety of initiatives working on this concept have started islandwide.

Plastic-Lite Singapore works with malls and grassroots organizations to expand its Bounce Bags initiative. It provides a reusable bag sharing platform for people to donate their excess bags, and take the bags should they forget to bring one.

Bounce Bags Point from Heartbeat@Bedok

Image from Plastic-Lite Singapore.

A similar concept was initiated by Zero Waste SG, where reusable bags are collected in a donation bin located at eight supermarkets islandwide.

In September 2019, the month-long trial for a plastic bag surcharge at participating NTUC Fairprice outlets also involved such donation bins, as seen in the picture taken from a Channel NewsAsia article below.

The National University of Singapore’s (NUS) environmental group, Students Against the Violation of the Earth, launched an initiative to spur people to opt reusables over disposables. Titled Project Box, participants are rewarded each time they buy takeaway food in reusable boxes. With the accumulation of points, people can enjoy food or beverage discounts.

Yet sometimes success is not always achieved. Last year, Eco-Business writer Robin Hicks wrote about the failure of the reusable box sharing initiative, Makanai Box Concept:

“But after the one-month trial, which ran from 7 October to 8 November, of the few thousand people who work at the Ascent building complex... 82 people signed up to use the service. It was actually used just 32 times.”

Hicks suggests that issues included poor marketing, inappropriate location chosen, or its failure to be as convenient an alternative to single-use plastic containers. He also highlighted that the sharing economy for food containers has yet to be popularized, pointing out the failure of Revolv, another container rental service launched earlier this year.

Regional cooperation on waste management

With the date of Semakau Landfill reaching peak capacity fast approaching, and with no message of a new landfill conveyed to the public yet, one wonders about Singapore’s next approach to waste management. According to an NEA report,

“If waste disposal continues to grow at this rate, we would need to build one new waste- to-energy incineration plant every 7 – 10 years and a landfill the size of the present Semakau Landfill (350 ha) every 30 – 35 years.”

Incinerators are expensive to build, and need a continuous stream of waste to run. Since three of the top five countries contributing to plastic pollution are from Southeast Asia, if Singapore takes more steps to reduce our waste production substantially, there is the possibility that Singapore can import waste from other nations, similar to what Taiwan, Sweden and Norway have done. By helping countries in the region with waste management, it helps curb the pollution that environmentalists around the world have been working on for so long., In doing so, Singapore could seek to institute a deal exchanging our technologies and cleanup efforts for extra space to build another offshore landfill.

After all, improper waste management has already generated international tensions. In May 2019, Philippines was engaged in a diplomatic spat with Canada over the import of waste. In September 2019, protests against the building of a new landfilling site erupted in Northern Russia. In October 2019, Indonesia accused Singaporeans of importing 87 containers of plastic scrap without the right permits. As recently as January 2020, Singapore had also been shamed as one of the thirteen countries that had exported waste to Malaysia. If there was an international deal on waste management that benefitted both the giver and taker, we might make headways in reducing conflicts arising from waste.

When sharing this idea with some participants of the survey I conducted, some agreed that it would be good. Less local waste, more imported waste. Waste reduction becomes not just knowing that one is saving space on Semakau - Singaporeans could be doing it for the “peace, health and prosperity of other nations, especially in Southeast Asia”. Another participant suggested that waste reduction could even be “honourable thing to do”.

However, MP Mr Louis Ng felt otherwise. He highlighted that ASEAN operates by two principles. One, respecting every country’s sovereignty. Two, topics discussed must be based on consensus. Other more urgent issues such as the Rohingya refugee crisis could not be discussed for these reasons. Naturally, waste management and environmental problems would be low on the agenda.

Ms Melissa Low of NUS Energy Studies Institute also found the idea of Singapore importing waste unfeasible, as not all countries find incineration to be an effective waste management strategy.

When MP Mr Louis Ng was asked if Singapore could provide more aid to her regional neighbours to combat plastic pollution, similar to what Norway has done in the ASEAN-Norway Cooperation Project on Local Capacity Building for Reducing Plastic Pollution in the ASEAN Region (ASEANO), he felt the possibility was unlikely. The fundamental difference in culture and policies between Norway and Singapore would prevent the realization of that possibility. Singapore had a far lower Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 7% in comparison to Norway’s Value-Added Tax (VAT) of 25%. Hence, he felt that Norway was in a better position to provide financial aid.