Recycling VS innovations
When we live in 2022, the world is producing twice as much waste as it did just two decades ago. Most of this waste ends up in landfills, is incinerated or is spilled into the environment. Only 9% is recycled successfully, according to a new OECD report, and up to 22% of global waste is mismanaged and uncollected litter, meaning 91% of the waste doesn’t actually get recycled.
When you think about it a little more, you will be forced to wonder if the real benefits of recycling are worth it? At least on the basis of current knowledge, it cannot be said that the world will be saved by this, and especially if we think about how much plastic, for example, will be produced at the end of this decade.
The recycling system is by no means simple and is not just a scalable activity. It requires insanely large equipment and production facilities to materialize. Of course, the employment effect is guaranteed even in these conditions, so you can pick up those gold tops from here as well.
Anyone who has found out about it will not go as simply as you might think. Plastic can only be recycled 1-2 times before its technical properties deteriorate so substantially that the material can no longer be reused anywhere. One of the world’s largest plastic producers, the Coca-Cola company, launched a new campaign to make plastic recycling look so good that Greta Thunberg’s bellowing to decision makers about climate crisis is completely pointless.
Well, what’s left for us then, if the data shows that recycling is tangled, and future waste amounts grows?
Luckily there is another layer in this cake. It’s the new material innovations.
People can be a jerk in some situations, but people can also be wise and come up with new innovative solutions for the big picture of the future. New materials are no exception.
Wood, coffee beans, eggshells, spent grain, etc. are model examples of how we can leverage existing reserves and raw materials to replace old, worse solutions from the market. Such a plug and play application as Granulous biocomposite, which utilizes used grain, is a very easy choice for the producer. There is no need to change anything other than the material in the production and the work continues as before. Granulous material at the end of its life cycle is also thought to match real life solutions. The material decomposes under normal home compost conditions without micro-plastic, so when it ends up in nature, it does not harm its environment in any way.
The materials should be thought of according to the end use and not in such a way that it goes everywhere and lasts for a thousand years. The toothbrush is a great example of how fucked up this thinking model really is. You brush your teeth with one brush for about 3-4 months and then throw it in the trash. When it ends up in nature, it takes about 500 years for the toothbrush to disintegrate in the soil, while leaving microplastics in the environment. After all, it just doesn't make sense that a product that has only been used for a few months will still be here after a few centuries. This was just one example.
Fortunately, there is no need to really decide between the two, but we need both to achieve a common goal that is a cleaner and more vibrant nature.
