EUthanasia to waste: can it be voluntary?

Linda Forbes Unit B1 March 2007

EU Directive 75/442/EEC, more commonly known as the ‘Waste Directive’,

offers the following definition:
‘waste’ shall mean any substance or object in the categories
set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required
to discard.
whereas the Kaizen (or continuous improvement) approach to productivity
as adopted by manufacturers such as Toyota considers waste as "activities
that add cost but do not add value" (Wikipaedia, 2007a).

This philosophical difference in approach to waste lies at the heart of this

essay, which builds on several lectures from Module B1 including Waste
Policy (Manson, 2007) and Getting Things Built (Pooley and Scott, 2007). If
the goal of sustainable development is to be achieved this essay discusses
how a positive, innovative attitude towards waste can, and must, be
encouraged.

EU DIRECTIVES AND THEIR ROLE

Since the EEC enacted the Waste Directive in 1975 there has been
increasing recognition by EU governments that society cannot continue to
discard valuable resources, some of which might pollute the environment
for centuries to come. Consequently, further legislation in the form of the
Landfill Directive was introduced in 1999, which makes waste disposal by
this means ever more costly, with its escalating charge per tonne each year.

Originally designed to support the principle of Reduce-Reuse-Recycle, the

Waste Directive was recently replaced by EU Directive 2006/12/EC, which
brings together a number of earlier amendments, such as the inclusion of
agricultural wastes within its ambit and definitions of hazardous wastes.

Furthermore, the EU has introduced a number of waste-specific Producer

Responsibility Directives in support of its commitment to protect the
environment. These directives can be divided into two groups: the first
applying to organisations or individuals who have waste for disposal; the
other to the original manufacturers or distributors of the item(s) being sent
for disposal. The first group would include EU Directives 1994/62/EC
(Packaging and Packaging Waste) and 2006/66/EC (Batteries and
Accumulators and Waste Batteries and Accumulators) whilst the second
encompasses EU Directive 2002/96/EC (Waste Electrical and Electronic
Equipment) and 2000/53/EC (End-of-Life Vehicles).

WASTE TONNAGES, PAST AND PRESENT

The diagram overleaf (DEFRA, 2006a) shows the breakdown of waste arisings
for the UK in 2004: note those from mining and quarrying are exempt from
the Waste Directive. However, it must be borne in mind that these statistics
do not include tonnages for waste generated overseas during manufacture

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 1

of goods for the UK import market. The estimated 335 million tonnes of
waste arisings in the UK equates to 5.5 tonnes disposed of by each citizen
annually (or 15kg daily); included within this is 500kg of household waste
each, with this sector growing at 1.5-2% each year.

It has proven difficult to obtain directly comparable figures for previous

years, owing changes in legislation, definitions, methodologies, and
realignment of responsibilities within government departments. However,
the diagram below (DEFRA, 2006b) indicates a steady growth in total
arisings overall between 1998/9 and 2002/3, despite a decline in that from
industry and commerce (possibly as a result of exported manufacturing
processes mentioned earlier?). The increasing percentage of waste being
disposed of by recycling is also evident from this diagram.

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 2

Recently, EU parliamentarians have challenged the Commission’s market-
based approach to waste management: voting at February’s plenary session
to adopt the contents of a report (Jackson, 2007) which called for waste
production to stabilise by 2012 (on 2008 levels) and decline from 2020. At
the same time, a 5-step waste hierarchy is envisaged: viz. prevention,
reuse, recycling, energy recovery and landfill. Although subject to further
debate, and approval by the Commission and national parliaments, it seems
likely that EU-driven legislation and targets will extend into other waste-
generating activities: so this begs the question, ‘How can we be more
intelligent in our use of resources?’

DESIGN AND PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

It seems perverse from a business viewpoint that a decision is made,

consciously or not, to discard or intend to discard materials that have cost
money. The prime motivation, and a legal requirement, for a company, is to
make a profit for its shareholders: waste, as defined in the Kaizen
approach, therefore flies in the face of this requirement.

The first stage in the EU’s proposed 5-stage waste hierarchy is prevention.
One of the tools that can be used to support this is Life Cycle Assessment
(or LCA) methodology (IEMA, 2004). In use for a number of years, and
recognised as part of ISO14000 series of standards, LCA is unknown in many
organisations. It is used to explore environmental aspects and impacts of
manufacturing processes and products, allowing designers to modify
specifications and inputs to achieve the least-bad outcome on the natural
environment. On the other hand, focused as LCA is on the environment, it
has been criticised for not considering monetary values although some users
do factor this into their calculations. However, with the likelihood of
increased costs for fossil fuels in future, and the certainty of higher waste
disposal costs, then minimising the environmental impact of a product or
service must also make commercial sense.

Some better-known expressions of LCA are those of Cradle-to-Cradle, and

Well-to-Wheel. For example, McDonough and Braungart, in their publication
Cradle-to-Cradle, have reinvented the concept of book production to create
a waterproof incarnation, the Durabook, which does not use trees in its
manufacture. They describe how nothing less than completely rethinking
our use of materials is required. Their concept seeks to persuade us to
abandon the idea of Cradle-to-Grave, which the authors posit lies at the
root of much waste: and of which more will be written later.

Well-to-Wheel comparisons, using LCA methodology, such as that shown

overleaf from work done in 2004 by Toyota Motor Corporation and Mizuho
Information and Research Institute, clearly demonstrate the relative, less
damaging environmental impacts of biofuels being used in internal
combustion engines, despite concerns as to the sustainability of growing
such crops.

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 3

Key to acronyms
ICE: Internal Combustion Engine
LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas
FTD: Fisher-Tropsch Diesel oil
FAME: Fatty Acid Methyl Ester
CGH2: Off-site Compressed Hydrogen (Off)
MeOH: Methanol
GHG: Greenhouse Gas
LPG: Liquefied Petroleum Gas
CNG: Compressed Natural Gas
DME: Dimethyl Ether
CGH2: On-site Compressed Hydrogen (On)
LH2: Off-site Liquefied Hydrogen
COG: Coke-Oven Gas

In addition to Life Cycle Assessment methodologies, new manufacturing and

management techniques have improved efficiency and reduced waste.
Undoubtedly the most famous of these is the Toyota Production System,
modelled on the US Department of War’s Training Within Industry, and
known as Kaizen – or the process of continuous improvement. (Liker, 2004).

In Kaizen, wasteful practices are described by the 3Ms: Muda - activity that
uses resources without adding value; Mura – unevenness of operation such as
irregular work pace; and Muri - overburdening of equipment or operators.
From an environmental perspective, Muda and its Seven Wastes are most
relevant and are defined as: defects; overproduction; transportation;
waiting; inventory; motion; overprocessing. Each imply a waste of materials
(be it fuel used in unnecessary transport, or metal in a defective part) or
human effort – all of which require energy to be expended without return.

However, it remains to be shown whether this philosophical approach of

continuous improvement functions well in workplaces that are small-scale,
not technologically advanced, and unsuited to production line
manufacturing techniques. On the other hand, the construction sector,
Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 4
sometimes perceived as a craft industry, has moved to mechanise and
streamline its design and production performance: embracing OSM (Off-Site
Manufacture) and Lean Construction techniques.

Life Cycle Assessments are recognised by the European Commission’s

Integrated Product Policy (2007) as the best method for assessing potential
environmental impacts. The Commission is supporting an initiative in this
respect, with a series of studies and workshops being held to provide
businesses with best practice guides on how to implement LCA. The project,
running till 2008, seeks to establish consensus on methods of calculation,
benchmarks, datasets, and effective boundaries.

Linked to this policy is eco-design legislation such as the 2005 Energy-using

Products Directive, which is directed at improving the energy efficiency of
manufactured products. Is more of this type of legislation likely? It would
appear so: as the next set of categories under consideration for inclusion
under this Directive include tumble driers, vacuum cleaners, set top boxes
and domestic lighting.

The pace of change is slow – and one questions whether and why
organisations only take action in response to legislation. The reaction to
legislation can result in production being moved outside the EU, transferring
impacts and despoiling the natural environment elsewhere. Never the aim
of the legislators, but sometimes the outcome.

CRADLE-TO-GRAVE AND REBORN RESOURCES

Business Link (2007) advises there are two rates of tax on waste being sent
to landfill: £2 per tonne for waste such as rocks and soil; and a standard
rate of £24 per tonne in the 2007/08 tax year for all other controlled
wastes. The standard rate will increase by not less than £3 per tonne in
subsequent years, ultimately reaching a rate of £35 per tonne.

These rising costs to business, partly driven by environmental legislation

and partly by a lack of suitable sites for further landfill operations have,
when taken with the penalties imposed by the Waste and Landfill
Directives, been significant in changing behaviours. The carrot to this stick
approach is that a number of government-sponsored bodies are actively
supporting businesses in re-engineering their manufacturing processes and
waste streams.

Envirowise, WRAP – Waste & Resources Action Programme, and NISP –

National Industrial Symbiosis Programme, operate under the umbrella of
DEFRA’s Business Resource and Efficiency & Waste Programme (BREW), and
offer a wide range of auditing and advice to companies of all sizes.

Under this regime, waste is now perceived as a valuable resource, and as

such, can be re-used a number of times, either as a feedstock for a new
product, or as an energy source either by incineration or as methane gas
from the landfill site. An obvious example would be the recycling of paper
to produce new papers and cardboard: with waste sludge from the process
being used as a fuel for powering the CHP plant within the paper mill. Paper

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 5

fibres can be recycled up to seven times before requiring the addition of
virgin pulp to strengthen the mix. Another might be the repurposing of
damaged pallets into pellets for wood-burning stoves.

Innovative recycling of feedstocks include the operations at Bioganix and

Greenfinch along the Welsh borders. In the first case, three feedstocks are
combined to produce fertiliser at £7.80 per tonne, as opposed to £160 per
tonne for a fossil fuel equivalent: and it’s made locally from, mostly, local
waste streams.

Bioganix takes green (garden) waste (which is required to be diverted from

landfill), gypsum (by-product from de-sulphuring in cooling towers), and
feathers (from poultry processing plants) and uses aerobic in-vessel
composting techniques, being treated to comply with the EU Directive on
Animal By-Products. It is, however, a far from benign process, being
malodorous with effluent requiring treatment with chemicals such as
sulphuric acid. Greenfinch’s approach is different again – this time using
anaerobic digestion to handle green and kitchen waste to produce biogas.

However, the waste from Greenfinch’s process is itself subject to the Waste
Directive owing its food waste content – meaning it cannot be used as a
fertiliser but must be either landfilled or incinerated. Uncertainty around
the definition of compost and its place in the waste hierarchy is addressed
in a Quality Protocol issued by the Environment Agency (2007) and a number
of other bodies recently. This is timely: as composting of waste will
continue to grow as biodegradable materials are diverted from landfill to
comply with the national Waste Strategy targets.

With construction and demolition waste comprising nearly a third of all

arisings in the UK this needs tackling as a matter of urgency. The Aggregate
Tax is a fiscal instrument designed to encourage construction firms to re-use
waste whenever possible – and to deter unnecessary quarrying with its
inherent impacts on the environment.

Owing the weight of this waste, transportation over long distances would be
an inappropriate use of resources, so local solutions are best. A recent
example, quoted by Gornitzki (2007), is 800,000 tonnes of waste generated
by the local china clay industry being used to create a new dual carriageway
on the A30 Bodmin to Indian Queens. This comprises 90% of the construction
material used for the new road and asphalt layer.

The introduction, later this year, of mandatory Site Waste Management

Plans for projects valued at £200,000 and over in the construction industry
is another step in the direction of legislating to change behaviour. Will
separation of waste streams at source enable higher levels of recycling? A
side benefit may be identification of over-procurement, thus improving
initial purchasing decisions and reducing the need for 13 million tonnes of
unused materials, according to Envirowise (2007), to be disposed of as
waste by the industry annually.

As in other industries, new ideas and technologies are being brought into
play. Examples include Bitublocks – which encapsulate waste materials

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 6

within bitumen – and were developed by University of Leeds (Forth and Van
Dao, 2007) recently. Waste wood is being recycled into Glulam beams, tyres
into surface flooring, soil from beet crops into garden topsoil – the list goes
on, and is constrained only by imagination.

THE FINAL SOLUTION?

Until products are designed to maximise recycling, the disposal of mixed

wastes will continue to challenge society. Incineration, or as it is sometimes
more euphemistically called, Energy-from-Waste, provokes a strong,
negative response from the public. However, with the limits on landfill
space being reached, alternative solutions are limited at present.

New methods include pyrolysis and gasification, with modular plants that
are less visually intrusive than the traditional incinerator complex. The
funding of these, though, is through Private Finance Initiatives – which may
require local authorities to commit to providing a minimum quantity of
waste as feedstock during its 24/7 operation, reducing their ability to
improve recycling rates above a certain percentage.

On the other hand, Friends of the Earth briefing (2002) notes emissions from
these are lower than those from incinerators and landfill sites, but issues
remain with operational effectiveness, disposal of waste fly ash, and loss of
natural resources which might otherwise be recycled.

CONCLUSION

Society is challenged to respond to its own wasteful ways: but with the
growth of large industrial complexes and centralised distribution networks
the individual’s ability to influence waste-generating behaviour has been
diminished. Clearly, minimising obsolescence while ensuring
repairability/recyclability must be the solution to reducing waste.

This is a huge challenge to the Business-As-Usual model and holds significant

economic terrors for the political class who rely on growth to satisfy the
aspirations of voters. Businesses, driven by profit, need to compete for
customers, and are mostly unwilling to risk expenditure on cleaner
manufacturing practices not undertaken by their competitors.

However, the use of legislation, particularly through the EU, can admit of a
level playing field, allowing national elected representatives to ‘blame’
Brussels for any financial consequences and reaping electoral rewards of
positive environmental outcomes. In the author’s view, it is unlikely that a
voluntary approach to significant waste reduction can succeed, and that
further legislation and targets will be necessary to maintain momentum.

LIMITATIONS

The research has focused solely on UK implementation of EU Directives and

has not considered alternative approaches in other member states, although
this will be difficult as not all states declare waste measurements in the
same way. More specifically, given the large body of UK legislation deriving

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 7

from the Directives and various government reports and studies into this
subject, further reading time might provide more examples of innovative
practice in product design.

FURTHER WORK

It is impossible to know what the annual waste arisings would have been
without EU Directives – this essay assumes legislation has had a positive
effect on behaviour, which may be incorrect.

Investigating why some companies have chosen to change their behaviour in

advance of environmental legislation compelling them to do so would
provide further insights to improve this essay.

Further research into products with eco-friendly design credentials, possibly

utilising life cycle assessments is needed to confirm whether their claims
stand up to scrutiny.

WIDER CONTEXT

Recycling of environmentally damaging compounds into new products may

be storing up problems for the future. For example, what might happen
when buildings using Flash Bricks and Flashag (aggregate), manufactured
from 100% fly ash from power stations, are demolished? Will there be a
health risk from the release of sequestered heavy metals?

Kenneth Boulding, a US economist, said, “Anyone who believes exponential

growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an
economist.” But perhaps effective recycling can guarantee this exponential
growth differently. However, the development of increasingly ‘intelligent’
waste separation systems will be required to support the low-skilled
employees who currently hand-separate many materials.

(2746 words)

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 8

FOOTNOTES, REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES

REFERENCES
Business Link. (2007). ‘Environmental tax obligations and breaks’. Available at:
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1074404201
Accessed 15th April 2007

Envirowise. (2007). ‘Site Waste Management Plans’. Available at:

http://www.envirowise.gov.uk/page.aspx?o=185234 Accessed 15th April 2007

EU Directive 1999/13/EC (Landfill of waste) Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-

lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1999/l_182/l_18219990716en00010019.pdf Accessed 15th April 2007

EU Directive 2000/53/EC (End-of-Life Vehicles) Available at: http://europa.eu.int/eur-

lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_269/l_26920001021en00340042.pdf Accessed 15th April 2007

EU Directive 2002/96/EC (Waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)) Available at:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_037/l_03720030213en00240038.pdf
Accessed 15th April 2007

EU Directive 2005/32/EC (Eco-design requirements for energy-using products) Available at:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/ l_191/l_19120050722
en00290058.pdf Accessed 15th April 2007

EU Directive 2006/12/EC (Waste) (supersedes 75/442/EEC) Available at: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0012:EN:HTML Accessed 15th
April 2007

EU Directive 75/442/EEC (Waste) (repealed by 2006/12/EC) Available at:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1975/en_1975L0442_do_001.pdf Accessed
15th April 2007 Accessed 15th April 2007

European Commission. (2007). ‘Integrated Product Policy’. Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu /environment/ipp/ Accessed 15th April 2007

European Parliament. (2007). ‘Recycling Europe's waste policy’. Available at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/2591-043-02-07-
20070130BRI02590-12-02-2007-2007/default_p001c007_en.htm Accessed 15th April 2007

Forth, Dr. J. and Van Dao, Dr. D. (2007). ‘Bitublock - Novel construction units composed of
recycled waste materials and bituminous binders’. Available at:
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~cenepe/casestudies_Bitublock.html Accessed 15th April
2007

Friends of the Earth. (2002). ‘Briefing. Pyrolysis and gasification’. Available at:
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/gasification_pyrolysis.pdf Accessed 15th April
2007

Gornitzki, D. (2007). ‘Waste used to build biggest green road’.Edie News Centre. Available
at: http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=12856&channel=0 Accessed 15th April
2007

Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006a).
‘Key Facts about: Waste and Recycling - Estimated total annual waste arisings, by sector
2004’. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/ environment
/statistics/waste/kf/wrkf02.htm Accessed 15th April 2007

Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2006b).
‘Key Facts about: Waste and Recycling - Waste arisings and management: 1998/9 and
2002/3’. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/kf/
wrkf14.htm Accessed 15th April 2007

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 9

Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2007a). ‘UK
Government Sustainable Procurement Action Plan incorporating the Government response
to the report of the Sustainable Procurement Task Force’. Available at:
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/SustainableProcurement
ActionPlan.pdf Accessed 15th April 2007

Great Britain. Environment Agency. (2007). ‘Quality Protocol. Compost.’. Available at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondata/acrobat/compostqp_1721787.pdf
Accessed 15th April 2007

IEMA - Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment. (2004). ‘Certificate in

Environmental Management notes’. Leamington Spa: Woodland Grange.

Jackson, C. (2007). ‘European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a

directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste’. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2007-
0029+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN and
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5303132 Accessed 15th April 2007

Liker, J. K. (2004). ‘The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest
Manufacturer’. New York: McGraw-Hill Education

Manson, R. (2007). ‘Waste Policy’. Module B1. Machynlleth: University of East London.

Pooley, A. and Scott, C. (2007). ‘Getting Things Built’. Module B1. Machynlleth: University
of East London.

Toyota Motor Corporation & Mizuho Information & Research Institute Inc. (2004). ‘Well-to-
Wheel Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Automotive Fuels in the Japanese Context -
Well-to-Tank Report’. Japan.

Wikipaedia (2007a). ‘Kaizen’. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen. Accessed

15th April 2007.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Great Britain. Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2007).
‘Business Resource Efficiency & Waste Programme (BREW)’. Available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/brew/index.htm Accessed 15th April 2007

McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. (2002). ‘Cradle to Cradle’. New York: North Point Press.

Robinson, G. (2007). ‘A light at the end of the tunnel’. Waste Management World. March-
April 2007. pp72-79.

Walker, P. (2006). ‘Change management for sustainable development – a workbook’.

Lincoln: Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.

Linda Forbes Unit B1 Essay 10