Ideas for a more sustainable future – embracing innovation

The development of plastics and all plastic products is born from innovative thinking and design. Our urgent need to rethink plastics provides an environment for more boundary-pushing ideas. New ideas and innovative thinking are needed across the whole system of how we use and dispose of plastic. Many of these ideas exist already and need to be accepted, scaled to context and location and implemented as part of complex changing social systems.

The challenge to use plastic sustainably is ripe with opportunities for innovation. But the nature of innovation is not linear. Many breakthroughs and game-changing ideas come from left field and arise in response to a new need. To achieve the goals of rethinking plastics, we can construct a system that enables an innovative environment – one that doesn’t prescribe the solutions people come up with, but instead is receptive to new ideas. The research and innovation system can then nurture game-changing ideas and support scale-up of those that are proving to be successful.

Plastics are so ubiquitous in our lives and the issues posed by them are now so large that a single innovation, or even a single type of innovation, will not solve the challenge. There is no silver bullet. New materials and new machines, new recycling techniques, new uses for recycled materials, new business models, and perhaps most importantly, citizens who are ready to form a new relationship with plastics are all needed.

Plastics are so ubiquitous in our lives and the issues posed by them are now so large that a single innovation, or even a single type of innovation, will not solve the challenge

An example of a collection bin for compostable plastics to take them to an industrial compostable facility at Wellington Airport.

Ethique is an Aotearoa New Zealand company that produces concentrated, plastic-free cosmetic products.

Reduce

By 2050, plastics manufacturing and processing may account for as much as 20% of petroleum consumed globally and 15% of the annual carbon emissions budget. However, it is important to remember that while plastic is itself a contributor to carbon emissions, it also helps to reduce emissions by offering a lightweight alternative to materials such as metal and glass. In order to retain the benefits of plastic and balance these against a need to reduce fossil-fuel consumption, innovation is required to reduce the amount of plastic we use and shift to using bio-based and/or recycled plastic where possible. Manufacturers and polymer scientists can work to reduce the amount of plastic used in certain applications. In the table below we highlight ideas that may help to reduce the amount of plastic used.

Reuse

There has been a significant amount of innovation for reuse systems in recent years. We shared some local examples of businesses facilitating reuse or establishing new business models based on reuse systems in the ‘Changing our relationship with plastics’ section. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) published a detailed report on reusable packaging, which includes examples of innovative reuse systems. In the report, EMF describe four reuse system models for business to consumer packaging: the user refills at home, refills on the go, or returns the packaging from home or on the go. Different systems are needed for non-packaging industries and business to business (B2B) packaging or products. In the table below, we highlight ideas to support reuse of plastics.

Recycle

Recycling is not the only solution to our plastic problem, but it does have an important place in rethinking plastics. Without high-quality recycling streams there is no economic viability in recycling plastic due to limited market pull-through. Without a functional recycling market, the current environmental issues we face related to plastic use and waste will be ongoing. Addressing issues related to the quality of plastic that enters and leaves the recycling stream will help to establish a more stable onshore recycling market, which in turn can reduce demand for virgin plastic and reduce plastic waste to landfill.

The type of plastic ultimately dictates which (if any) method of recycling technology can be used to keep the material in circulation. In practice, product design, collection and sorting methods, and individual behaviours also determine whether a product is recycled. Traditionally we have relied on mechanical recycling techniques to keep plastic in circulation. These methods have proven to be ineffective for the majority of plastics, with estimates that globally only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. In addition to innovative products, business models and materials, we can look to ways to improve current recycling practices, so that we can get the most out of the plastic materials used. We can also consider whether there is a place in Aotearoa New Zealand’s new plastics economy for new processes that keep materials in circulation, such as chemical and monomer recycling, and feedstock and energy recovery.

Different recovery techniques available. Adapted from Denmark’s New Plastics Economy, McKinsey and Company.

In their detailed overview of the state of Aotearoa New Zealand’s recycling sector in late 2018, the National Resource Recovery Taskforce (NRRT) highlighted that there are issues across the whole value chain of the current recycling system that need to be addressed in order for recycling to be a feasible solution for those plastic products that cannot be eliminated or reused. As this was in response to China National Sword, the recommendations were mainly focused on packaging applications of plastics.

Taskforce recommendations from the NRRT that were accepted by the Ministry for the Environment include:

• Identifying the gaps in materials recovery and waste infrastructure where investment is needed
• Reviewing kerbside collection and processing systems to identify how to increase the quality of recyclables and to ensure more materials can be recovered and recycled instead of going to landfill
• Undertaking feasibility studies around how to increase Aotearoa New Zealand’s fibre (paper and cardboard) processing and plastic reprocessing capacity
• Examining how product stewardship for packaging can be used to ensure manufacturers consider what happens to packaging once a product is used by the consumer
• Assessing the options for shifting away from low value and difficult-to-recycle plastics, such as single-use plastic bags and other low volume and/or mixed materials. This could include regulations around ensuring plastic packaging is able to be recycled and/or to require a portion of recycled content in packaging
• Running an education campaign to help New Zealanders ‘recycle right’, and reduce the amount of recyclable materials going to landfill because of contamination
• Developing model contracts for the sector to reduce contamination, increase transparency and to better accommodate fluctuations in market prices for recyclable materials
• Developing a sustainable procurement plan and guidelines to encourage purchase of products made of recovered and recycled materials.

Here we build on the NRRT’s recommendations by outlining improvements and innovations that could be implemented across the whole recycling value chain to address current issues and improve rates of recycling.

Areas where new systems and innovations could improve recycling.

Ease and understanding of how to recycle

To maximise opportunities for resource recovery and reuse at end-of-life, we first need to ensure that all types of plastics can be identified at end-of-life and disposed of correctly. If a plastic product can be recycled or composted, it needs to end up in the appropriate recovery system. If a plastic product can only be composted in a commercial composting facility, it must not end up contaminating the recycling stream or a domestic compost heap where it will not decompose. The complexities around how plastics are categorised are covered in the subsection ‘The current state of plastics in Aoteaora‘. This complexity has led to general confusion in the public around the currently relied on resin ID codes and recycling symbols.

WasteMINZ survey responses illustrate high levels of misunderstanding for the existing recycling and resin ID codes that are used on plastic packaging. All respondents (n=1005).

At the time of publication, there were no national standards on how to categorise or label plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand. Current approaches rely on voluntary uptake and are limited in their application and effectiveness (outlined in Appendix 3). We need clearer language and symbols for plastics, including a simple recycling label that tells people whether to recycle or dispose of a product. This will improve the efficacy of recycling streams by reducing contamination of recycling streams with non-recyclable plastics (sometimes due to ‘wish cycling’ – where people place non-recyclable products in the recycling bin in the hope that they will be recycled), and reducing the amount of recyclable plastics ending up in landfill. There is also need for better public understanding about how to recycle correctly and the life cycle impacts of various packaging choices. Using standard nomenclature and having clear labelling that is easy to find and read is key to facilitating best practice, particularly in the household setting for kerbside recycling and refuse. Wide adoption and public understanding is critical for success, and implementation of labelling schemes should be done in conjunction with public education initiatives. In the table below, we highlight ideas and innovations that may be useful to help improve public understanding about plastics and help people dispose of waste correctly.

Collection

How waste is collected impacts the rates of recycling.[4] Currently in Aotearoa New Zealand, plastic is collected for recycling through household kerbside collection, public space bins, drop-off points (common in rural areas) – these are typically rate-payer funded. Other plastic is collected for recycled through commercial collections. For household kerbside recycling, public space bins and drop-off points, plastic is sent to a material recovery facility (MRF) where it is sorted prior to being shipped offshore for recycling or sent to one of Aotearoa New Zealand’s few onshore recycling facilities (read the case study ‘Developing onshore closed-loop mechanical recycling solutions’). Commercial plastic material is sometimes sent directly offshore for recycling, without need for sorting at a MRF, or is reprocessed in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The current process for plastic recycling in Aotearoa New Zealand. Figure adapted from Eunomia Consulting.

The specific types and presentation of plastic that are accepted through kerbside collection differ by council – for example, some councils request bottle lids left on while others want them removed. Improving, standardising and expanding collection systems is necessary to increase rates of recycling. Collection points need to be easily accessible nationwide and facilitate the highest quality recycling streams. Consistency should be balanced against the needs of different regions. In the table below, we highlight ideas and innovations that may be useful to help improve collection systems to improve recycling.

Sorting

Sorting can happen at source and/or at the MRF, where plastic is separated out from other materials that are collected (glass, paper, cardboard) and also separated into different types of plastic. The technology at the MRF determines which types of plastic can be separated out. Some MRFs have manual sorting by pepople and others have fully automated systems. In general, plastics are separated into bales of clear PET (#1), natural HDPE (#2) and mixed bales of plastics #3-7 and coloured PET (#1) and HDPE (#2). Contaminated plastics and plastics that are not accepted at the particular MRF are removed and sent to landfill.

Systems that are more effective at sorting plastics into individual material streams will improve the recycling system by increasing the quality (and therefore the value) of the recycled content. The ultimate goal for a circular economy is that the quality of the recycled plastic means it can be used for the same product to close the materials loop. A study assessing the potential for different recovery systems in Europe to close the materials loops confirmed that higher source‐separation and MRF efficiencies lead to higher recovery.[5] With current technology and raw material demands, less than 42% of the plastic loop can be closed. The potential to recycle materials is high, but factoring in the quality threshold to recover to the same quality of plastic, at best 55% of the generated plastic was suitable for recycling due to contamination. The study concluded that source‐separation, a high number of different materials streams, and efficient MRF recovery were critical to close the materials loop. A study of the Dutch recycling system also identified a clear quantity-quality trade off, with a rise in the amount of plastic packaging collected for recycling leading to a larger amount of waste at sorting facilities.[6] The study highlighted the need to focus on the quality of materials received for recycling, not just increasing volumes, to close the loop on plastics.

The study concluded that source‐separation, a high number of different materials streams, and efficient MRF recovery were critical to close the materials loop

In the table below, we highlight ideas and innovations that may be useful to help improve sorting processes to close the materials loop.

We already have more than enough capacity for closed-loop PET (#1) recycling. The focus should therefore be on investing in infrastructure, including sorting, for closed-loop or durable solutions for HDPE (#2) and PP (#5)

Plastics NZ is working with local recyclers to develop an onshore solution for PP (#5) recycling. There are examples of closed-loop recycling for HDPE (#2), such as WILL&ABLE recycling New Zealand milk bottles into cleaning product packaging, but these require scaling. There are also a number of recyclers who currently recycle HDPE (#2) into durable products, but current infrastructure does not allow for closed-loop recycling for food grade materials or detergent grade materials. HDPE (#2) that is used in packaging for food and drinks has different requirements to HDPE (#2) used in cosmetics and detergents. For example, food-grade recycled content has to meet food-safety standards and the environmental stress crack resistance needed for detergent-grade HDPE (#2) is higher because of the longer use of the packaging. Keeping these streams separate may lead to higher yield closed-loop solutions for respective streams and should be considered when estimating material flows.

At present, there are some mechanical recycling solutions for soft plastics collected in the Soft Plastic Recycling Scheme that mix these materials with HDPE (#2) to form new products, such as fence posts. The soft plastics are the filler for these new materials – it is not a circular solution, but it could be argued this reprocessing gives these materials a longer life than through recycling as they are incorporated into durable products. Soft plastics require further onshore solutions, which may go beyond mechanical recycling. For example, there may be some applications where it is better to use compostable soft plastic packaging rather than relying on packaging being recycled.

Innovative approaches are needed to improve the quality of the materials that are mechanically recycled onshore. In the table below we outline technologies that may be able to improve the efficacy of mechanical reprocessing. Government can work with industry to establish new infrastructure onshore to process plastics, based on a shared action plan. Scion’s New Plastics Economy Roadmap project will develop this further.

Chemical recycling

Several new chemical recycling technologies, some drawing on the principles of green chemistry, are emerging that address limitations in materials composition and mechanical recycling processes. Chemical recycling techniques may be able to keep previously unrecyclable plastics and lower-quality recyclable plastics in circulation. Some techniques can process mixed plastics and others can generate high-value recyclate from a material that would only generate low-value recyclate through mechanical recycling.

Chemical recycling techniques may be able to keep previously unrecyclable plastics and lower-quality recyclable plastics in circulation

Chemical recycling usually uses some combination of high temperatures, pressures, solvents and reagents to transform plastics into simple organic compounds, including the constituent monomers from which the polymers were made, small-chain hydrocarbons, and/or petrochemical feedstocks. Remaking the original polymer from the constituent monomers obtained this way is generally seen as a particularly circular method because it enables the same grade and type of polymer as the original to be formed from the waste plastic material, albeit with less than 100% yield. The new polymers formed this way are usually indistinguishable from the virgin polymers and can be used for food applications, which could help to address some of the food-safety concerns associated with using recycled plastic from mechanical recycling. The related process of conversion converts plastics into fuels or petrochemical feedstock that can be fed into refineries or chemical plants, respectively.

Because chemical recycling can create high-quality recycled plastic and maintain value for the material that may be lost if mechanically recycled, it will be necessary to increase overall rates of recycling and fill the strong demand for recycled resin, which cannot currently be met with existing mechanical infrastructure and technology (read the case study ‘A model to sort a whole country’s plastic waste’). This strong demand is illustrated by Loop, a Canadian PET (#1) chemical recycling start-up, and Indorama, the world’s largest PET (#1) manufacturer, roughly doubling the capacity of their first PET (#1) chemical recycling facility because capacity was fully subscribed by customers, who include Danone, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola.

There are currently no chemical recycling facilities in Aotearoa New Zealand. Oji Fibre Solutions has publicly stated they are working with iQ Renew and Licella to investigate an onshore chemical recycling solution using the Cat-HTR™ technology, which they cite is ready to move from the pilot phase to commercial roll-out. This catalytic hydrothermal reactor technology uses water at near super-critical temperatures to reverse chemical bonds not possible at lower temperatures. Additional investigations into onshore chemical recycling options are underway but not public. In the table below, we highlight the chemical recycling technologies that may be applicable to close the loop on materials.

Zero Waste Europe recently published a report outlining the state-of-play and policy challenges related to chemical recycling. The report describes pilot plants for different techniques and highlights that only limited information about the environmental performance of chemical recycling technologies as a whole is available and further research is required, especially for techniques that use organic solvents. Chemical recycling is an active area of research. For example, the US National Science Foundation has ‘Engineering the Elimination of End-of-Life Plastics’ as a topic for their Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) program for 2020.

The conclusions drawn in the Zero Waste Europe report that are also valid for the Aotearoa New Zealand context are:

• If closing the materials loop is the focus of Aotearoa New Zealand’s future plastic system, regulation will be required to ensure that chemical recycling technologies are used to do this rather than create energy or fuel
• Excessive emphasis on chemical recycling as a solution to the current issues with the plastics economy risks encouraging the status quo with plastic use and could undermine efforts to shift approaches to plastic use up the waste hierarchy
• Chemical recycling is not a ‘now’ solution at an industrial scale. Most plants are only in pilot stage and industrial-scale roll-out is not expected until 2025 or later. Therefore, decisions around which technologies have a place in Aotearoa New Zealand’s future plastics system need to factor in the drive to reduce use of non-recyclable plastics by 2025
• If chemical recycling technologies are landed on as a solution, we need to ensure that these are aligned to the quantities and types of plastic that we expect from 2025 onwards. For example, coloured PET (#1) has low value as recycled plastic because it turns grey when different colours are mixed. Some chemical recycling techniques may be able to address this by removing the colour and creating virgin-quality, clear PET (#1), which has strong demand. But the need for technology to address coloured PET (#1) may be displaced by brands shifting to clear PET (#1), which is more likely to be recycled in the local content, prior to commercial-scale facilities being established
• Chemical recycling should be used to deal with degraded, coloured and contaminated plastics and never with high-quality plastics coming from separate collection.

Chemical recycling is not a ‘now’ solution at an industrial scale. Most plants are only in pilot stage and industrial-scale roll-out is not expected until 2025 or later

Ideas to increase the use of recycled content in new products

Replace

Plastics are so widely used because they are cheap, light, durable and waterproof, and can be impermeable to air. This mixture of properties was not found in the natural materials available before the development of plastic and led to their rapid uptake by manufacturers and consumers. The major drawbacks of plastics are the toxic compounds that are sometimes added during their formulation, their persistence in the environment – an unintended consequence of their durability – and the fact they are sourced from fossil fuels.

While we can return to the use of pre-plastic era materials such as glass, paper, wood and steel, they have disadvantages. For example, glass is durable and air-tight, but heavy and manufacture has a high energy intensity; paper is light and cheap, but mostly not waterproof. Materials science offers the promise of new polymeric materials that can solve these problems, which are also fit for purpose and more sustainable.

The long-term goal is to develop and use a suite of new materials that are bio-based, biodegradable, sustainably produced and able to fulfil a wide range roles including packaging application. In the short-term, there are priority areas for innovation to replace particularly problematic materials. These include:

• Foils/laminates
• Synthetic fabrics that shed microfibres
• Difficult-to-recycle plastics used in packaging (PVC (#3), PS (#6) and various resins that fall into the ‘other’ category).

Any introduction of new plastics or alternative materials needs to be guided from a system perspective.[11] There are several particularly important considerations when introducing new materials to replace the problematic plastics we currently use:

• Is it safe? All new materials or new applications of existing materials need to have their safety profile tested. This is particularly true of new materials made from recycled plastic, as chemical additives may be carried into a new product depending on the quality or method of recycling (e.g. mechanical or chemical).
• Is this a better alternative for the environment? The environmental impacts from the whole life cycle of the product should be considered, including any reductions in preservation of the product, to assess how these differ and whether the new material is better than the plastic being replaced. Environmental impacts may be further reduced if the material can be reused multiple times before being recycled.
• What might the unintended consequences be? Lessons can be learned from the example of bisphenol-A (BPA) – an industrial chemical that is a common component of and additive to plastics and resins. Of roughly 30 chemicals that have been used to replace BPA, almost none are demonstrably safe.
• How does it fit into the current and future system of circular materials? We need to consider compatibilities with the current and future recycling infrastructure and practices to make sure that when new materials are introduced there are systems in place to keep these materials in circulation or recycled multiple times.

The types of new materials (including textiles) we should consider include:

• Bio-based plastics: The source material comes from biomass, decoupling the production of plastics from fossil fuels and supporting the transition to a circular economy. Provided the biomass is produced sustainably and the energy input (i.e. fossil-fuel input) involved in growing, fertilising, harvesting and processing the biomass is not greater than simply making plastic from crude oil, these may have reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Use of bio-based plastics is predicted to increase from around 4 million tonnes produced in 2016 to 6 million tonnes in 2021. Bioplastics currently comprise only 1% of total plastics production, so there is plenty of scope to increase the use of these plastics. As discussed in Section 1.2.4, ‘bio-based plastics’ and ‘biodegradable plastics’ mean different things and plastics can be either or both – the first relates to what it is made from and the other to how it breaks down.
• Biodegradable and compostable plastics: These allow for simple disposal of plastic items at their end-of-life with the resulting materials being put to use as compost or degrading in the environment. Compostable plastics require new processing methods to fully meet market needs and are typically more expensive than fossil fuel- based plastics. More companies have been using compostable plastics in recent years, but studies in Aotearoa New Zealand have highlighted a lack of infrastructure to manage compostable plastic waste. Considerable research is being undertaken internationally and in Aotearoa New Zealand to solve current issues with compostable plastics. The disposal of compostable plastics is complicated by the fact that some materials, notably most forms of PLA, need industrial high temperature composting facilities to fully degrade.
• Next-generation plastics: Less research is being done on wholly new materials to make plastics because of the challenges of manufacturing at sufficient scale and low enough price to replace existing plastics.
• Non-plastic alternatives: A whole range of new materials is being developed from a wide variety of sources to replace plastics. Many of these are developed from renewable sources.

As well as new materials, new manufacturing processes designed to complement their properties are being designed. For example, new innovations include additive manufacturing (e.g. 3D and 4D printing). Materials innovations are occurring worldwide in industry and academia, and through collaborations between the two, but uptake at larger scale is limited, particularly locally (read the case study ‘What’s stopping the uptake of new materials?’). In Aotearoa New Zealand, there are several research institutes that are able to collaborate with businesses to develop customisable solutions and progress our transition to a more bio-based circular economy for plastic use. For example, Scion has collaborated with Zespri to develop the Biospife (read the case study ‘Staying at the leading edge of global sustainability trends’), with EPL to develop a biodegradable wine net clip, and with Imagin Plastics to develop a 3D printer filament.

There is great potential for Aotearoa New Zealand’s research institutes and universities to carve out a niche for our plastics manufacturing industry in the bio-based and biodegradable plastics markets and to connect with international research efforts for new materials (e.g. the NSF Centre for Sustainable Polymers). Ensuring we keep up with international best practice is a particularly important consideration for our export industry. As a country that relies heavily on our export industry, it is imperative that Aotearoa New Zealand factors in the potential implications of international regulations relating to circular economy and sustainable packaging initiatives. An example of where innovation allowed a large exporter to meet the sustainability demands of the countries they export to is the biospife developed by Zespri (read the case study ‘Staying at the leading edge of global sustainability trends’).

In the table below we present opportunities and limitations of new alternatives to replace traditional plastics. We discuss how these may or may not play a role in Aotearoa New Zealand’s transition to a circular economy.

Material innovations and their potential application in Aotearoa New Zealand

Example of waste headed for disposal.

• Transporting waste throughout the country to one plant would have a high emissions footprint. Using a rail network to achieve this is unlikely to be feasible given the logistics of getting waste to the part of the network where it could be onboarded (e.g. all Auckland waste would need to be loaded at Penrose in the current scenario)
• Technology and infrastructure for smaller plants, which may be better suited to our local context, are not available at scale
• Landfill would still be required for residual waste that remains after controlled incineration
• Depending on application, may be prohibited under the National Environmental Standard for Air Quality.

Instead, it may be more appropriate for Aotearoa New Zealand to continue to rely on modern landfill facilities that can only be developed and operated in accordance with strict consent conditions and quality assurance measures (further details in Appendix 4).

An incineration plant would require a certain amount of waste to be economic – this could have the perverse outcome of incentivising waste production

Summary and recommendations

There are multiple different new ideas and innovations that will all play an important role in rethinking plastics in Aotearoa New Zealand. There is no single solution, and creating a more sustainable future will require an environment that supports ongoing innovation and scaling up of good ideas. It is important that we don’t rush into implementing solutions without first testing their safety and effectiveness. New ideas or systems can be first implemented in communities or regions, assessed, tweaked, and scaled-up if successful. The safety of new materials or products made from recycled content also need to be stringently tested before being implemented to ensure that we are not creating further environmental risks with new products. It is important to be wary of unintended consequences. Actions that are necessary to support new ideas and innovations are addressed within recommendations 2, 4 and 5.

Key considerations for implementing these recommendations:

Labelling

• Material identification should be consistent with international standards and universally understood. This could be achieved by adopting or aligning to international standards:
  • For resin identification (e.g. ASTM D7611/ D7611M; China GB/T 16288-2008; EU 97/129/EC) and compostable packaging (e.g. home: AS 5810; AS 5810/ NF T 51-800; commercial: AS 4726; EN 13432; ASTM D 6400 or 6868).
  • For composting (drawing on WasteMINZ guide to compostable packaging).
• The label’s material and how it is affixed may impact on the recyclability of a product – recyclers could help inform material choice for a new labelling system or this could follow best-practice demonstrated by Norway’s regulation around labelling materials (read the case study ‘A 97% recycling rate through a container deposit scheme’).

Infrastructure

• Waste incineration could lead to over-capitalisation and perverse incentives to increase waste.
• As there is enough onshore capacity for PET (#1) recycling, the focus should shift to HDPE (#2) and PP (#5).
• Material flow analyses to determine infrastructure requirements for onshore reprocessing should consider the different applications needed for recycled content (e.g. food grade vs detergent grade for HDPE (#2)) and the processes that may help maximise use for these applications (e.g. source separation through CDS or PSS, or chemical recycling to decontaminate).
• If brands continue to use compostable plastics, commercial composting infrastructure and systems to support collection would be needed.

Innovation

• Callaghan Innovation could help facilitate connections between business and researchers to develop innovative solutions.
• The UK plastics research and innovation fund to increase reuse and recycling could be modelled from.
• Local innovators could be encouraged to enter international competitions such as the New Plastics Economy Innovation Prize and the National Geographic Innovation Challenge: Ocean Plastic.