<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>GARWER WasteXchange News</title>
      <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/RSS/news.phpsc</link>
      <description>GARWER WasteXchange: News about waste management and recycling</description>
      <language>EN-en</language>
      <copyright>GARWER s.r.l. 2008</copyright>
	  <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:30:05 +0100</lastBuildDate>
      <managingEditor>GARWER s.r.l. &lt;info@garwer.com&gt;</managingEditor>
      <webMaster>GARWER s.r.l. &lt;info@garwer.com&gt;</webMaster>
      	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Councils warned not to break WEEE code of practice]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/C6F-9F6-08E</link>
         <description><![CDATA[Moves by councils to seek extra payments for waste electrical and electronic equipment from their civic amenity sites have alarmed producer compliance schemes and prompted the Department for Business (BIS) to send a warning letter to local authorities.
Councils have been warned by BIS not to breach the designated collection facility code of practice
    Councils have been warned by BIS not to breach the designated collection facility code of practice
Complaints about councils  demanding extra payment were taken last month to BIS by Nigel Harvey, chair of the WEEE Schemes Forum who is also chief executive of lamp compliance scheme Recolight.
The complaints centre on material from civic amenity sites which are generally registered as designated collection facilities (DCFs) for WEEE. The Forum believes some local authorities are in breach of the DCF code of practice, which sets out the obligations of local authorities and producer compliance schemes (PCSs) with regard to arrangements for the collection of WEEE.
In particular, compliance schemes are concerned that some councils are requesting payments from compliance schemes for access to WEEE when tendering for WEEE collection contracts. And, councils also stand accused of diverting some WEEE that might have a scrap value away from PCS’s.
Diversion
According to the Forum, this diversion of WEEE might be into other local authority facilities or into “light iron” scrap where revenue is retained by the local authority. Mr Harvey, on behalf of the Forum sent comments regarding the DCF code of practice to BIS, stating: “Frequently Large Domestic Appliances (and even Small Domestic Appliances) is added to the ‘light iron’ skip instead of the relevant WEEE collection container in breach of paragraph 16 (4th bullet). Lack of available space is often given as the reason. This practice means the revenue is retained by the local authority or possibly site operator.”
Under the code of practice, local authorities as DCF operators must ensure that all separately collected household WEEE deposited at a collection site is made available to the PCS with which it has an agreed contract, without charge. The code of practice states: “There must be no diversion of WEEE from the site to channels outside of those agreed by the PCS.”
The code does allow for payment to pass from the compliance scheme to the council. This is as a  rebate to the council linked to the scrap value of WEEE arising from the DCF as well as providing financial support for promotional campaigns with the aim of increasing WEEE recycling and other ‘added value’ incentives.
And, the Forum also accuses some local authorities of “coercion” with regard to the way tenders are prepared and what councils say about the destination of particular WEEE streams. It told BIS: “If a PCS is to be successful, they therefore have no choice but to agree to the proposed arrangement. This is not an agreement but coercion, which is in breach of paragraph 15 (bullet 5).”
Cable
In the submission the Forum has also told BIS of instances where PCSs had become aware that valuable components such as cables had been removed from waste at DCFs, which has raised concerns that a significant amount of WEEE evidence treated in this way could no longer be obligated.
The submission said: “It might also be appropriate to point out to local authorities that decabled or partially disassembled products have already by definition been treated, and might not be regarded as obligated WEEE.  Arguably, if approved authorised treatment facilities (AATFs) took this (possibly correct) approach, then WEEE collection in the UK could fall significantly.”
However, in correspondence to the Forum seen by letsrecycle.com, BIS states that it does not consider that WEEE collected in breach of the code would become ‘unobligated’.
BIS letter
In response to the issues raised by the Forum, a letter from BIS was sent to local authorities on Monday (February 13) reminding them of their obligations under the DCF code of practice, and warning them against any future breaches of the code.
In its letter, BIS tells local authorities that: “Arrangements must be in place with a PCS in advance of sending WEEE for treatment and raising “evidence”. Local authorities or site contractors, including those who also operate treatment facilities, are not permitted to transport and treat WEEE independently with the aim of selling evidence.”
The letter continues: “You and your onsite contractors must make all separately collected WEEE deposited at DCFs available to a PCS without charge. This includes, for example, any charges to gain access to the site or asking PCS to quote a price per tonne for collection of WEEE as part of your tendering process.”
Related Links
BIS also reveals in its letter that it will be launching a project with the Environment Agency directed at compliance with the code of practice and other environmental permitting regulations at local authority DCFs to address incidents of leakage from the WEEE system.
Code of Practice
It is understood that the penalty for local authorities failing to comply with the code of practice is the removal of DCF approval, which would require the authority to pick up the cost of WEEE recycling itself.]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:30:05 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[European Commission urged to ban landfilling of recyclables]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/B4B-220-38F</link>
         <description><![CDATA[The European Commission is being urged to ban the landfilling of recyclable waste under proposals published by European plastics, paper and metal recyclers.
In a joint position paper, recyclers - including the Confederation of European Paper Industries, European Man-made Fibres Association, Eurometaux, Eropean Plastics Recyclers, Eurofer and European Plastics Converters Association - have put forth a number of policy proposals which they say are needed to ‘optimise’ recycling industries’ contribution to a resource efficient Europe.
Recyclers say that the landfilling of recyclable material is a barrier to recycling.
These include: better enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation with a view to curbing illegal exports of waste; a call for separate collection at source of paper, metal, plastics and glass by 2015 and a call for the European Commission to propose a ban on landfilling of recyclable waste.
Improved
According to the group, Europe has come a long way to improve recycling rates and reduce landfilling of waste. But, they say that more can be achieved.
The group says that recycling industries currently face a number of challenges including:
    Insufficient and contradictory policy support for closing the loops
    Subsidies for the use of recyclable and renewable material for energy recovery
    Insufficient recyclability requirements for converted products
    Suboptimal end-of-life collection schemes
    Shortage of secondary raw material due to exports to non-European countries partly due to illegal shipments of waste
    Lack of level playing field worldwide
    Technological hurdles to recycle increasingly complex products
    Landfilling of recyclable waste
    Inconsistencies in legislation in the field of waste, products and materials
Exports
It adds that the challenges for different recycling sectors are multiple, but says that the ‘massive exports of secondary raw materials outside the EU is a threat to everyone.
The paper notes: “Secondary raw materials exported outside the EU represent not only a loss of the material (often poor efficiency of the recovery process with regard to the intended raw material) but also a loss of the embedded energy: producing new products based on virgin/primary materials only is, in general, more energy consuming hence impacting negatively on the EU’s climate and energy goals.”
The recyclers claim that exports are facilitated by strong demand for resources from emerging markets; relatively cheap east bound shipping costs; substandard environmental management of recycling processes outside of Europe; insufficient control of borders and lack of quality of the collected materials.
Policy
To increase recycling rates in Europe, the group recommends the following full list of policy changes:
&quot;To optimise recycling in Europe from our current levels, targeted policies are needed&quot;
    Call for a sound implementation and enforcement of existing legislation.
    Call for better enforcement of the Waste Shipment Regulation with a view to curbing illegal shipments of waste. The work of Impel and customs authorities should be supported, e.g. through a distinction of second-hand goods and new goods.
    Call for separate collection at source of paper, metal, plastics and glass by 2015 for all Applications.
    Call on the European Commission to propose a ban on landfilling of recyclable waste.
    Call on the European Commission to include recyclability criteria for the product groups covered by the eco-design directive today and product groups that might be covered in the future.
    Call for actions to ensure that pre-processing and recycling takes place in efficient facilities rather than in sub-standard facilities to achieve material quality.
    Call on the European Commission to stimulate producer responsibility and explore new concepts or tools in full cooperation with the stakeholders concerned so as to avoid a shift in impact and ensure that the instrument delivers.
    Call on the European Commission to investigate the substantial subsidies given by some third countries, such as China, to secondary raw materials using companies with respect to their compatibility with WTO rules and take appropriate measures.
    Remind that requirements such as recycled content should be considered cautiously as a general tool, as they may lead to inefficiencies in the supply chains. However, they can be an effective tool in specific sectors.
    Call for a recycling strategy aiming at recycling secondary raw materials with the highest material quality and efficiency and close to the source when appropriate.
    Call for effective recognition of the benefits of recycling in other policies than waste policy, such as the energy policy.
    Call for adjustment of policies and legislation to avoid inconsistencies hindering recycling.
The paper concludes: “Recycling is a key driver for resource efficiency. To optimise recycling in Europe from our current levels, targeted policies are needed. The proposals listed above would enable the European industries using secondary raw materials to recycle even more, thereby supporting the full value chains, closing the recycling loops and contributing to the EU 2020 targets and the objective of a resource efficient Europe.”]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:22:33 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Commission to add pharma pollutants to water law]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/613-756-CFC</link>
         <description><![CDATA[The European Commission is proposing for the first time to regulate pharmaceutical pollutants in surface water, citing their potential health hazards to humans and aquatic life.
Three pharmaceutical substances – including those found in oral contraceptives and hormone medications - are among the 15 chemicals the Commission is proposing to add to those regulated in EU countries. There are currently 33 aquatic pollutants covered under the EU’s Directive on Priority Substances.
“These 15 additional chemicals need to be monitored and controlled to ensure they don&#039;t pose a risk to the environment or human health&quot;, Environment Commissioner Janez Poto&amp;#269;nik said in a statement after the release of the proposal on Tuesday (31 January).
The decision followed review of some 2,000 insecticides, herbicides, drug products and industrial chemicals considered potentially harmful to humans or water life.
The products used in drug manufacturing are 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) and 17 beta-estradiol (E2), which the Commission says can disrupt the endocrine system in humans and harm fish reproduction; and Diclofenac, which has been shown to kill fish.
The pharmaceuticals industry condemned the proposals that still face scrutiny by national representatives and the European Parliament.
Philomène Bouchon, spokesperson for the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, called the action “premature and inappropriate”.
Bouchon noted that a Commission report on the environmental impact of pharmaceutics is not due before the start of 2012, while the Commission’s Joint Research Centre is also developing a watch list that includes chemicals and drug products.
But the European Environmental Bureau, a pressure group, welcomed the addition of pharmaceutical substances in the Commission’s proposals, but said the EU executive did not go far enough.
“From a list of 2,000 substances initially considered as potentially dangerous, it is worrying to see that the Commission has decided to target only 15 of these for pollution reduction,” Sarolta Tripolszky, the conservation group’s water policy officer, said in a statement.
“Considering they are supposed to take a precautionary approach to these matters, this seems reckless.”
Pressure on Commission
The Commission is under mounting pressure to expand regulations of chemicals and substances that are deemed toxic – substances contained not just in manufacturing but in home products and cleaning supplies. Commissioners are also considering changes to the 2007 law on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances, or REACH Directive.
The Standing Committee for European Doctors has urged the EU to require the substitution of hazardous chemicals whenever safer alternatives are available. And the Göteborg, Sweden-based International Chemical Secretariat has identified 378 chemicals used in consumer product it says are “substances of very high concern” that should be replaced with safer alternatives under European chemicals regulations.
One widely used chemical that advocacy groups want put under greater scrutiny is formaldehyde – a compound widely used in disinfectants, cosmetics, textiles, wood products and paint. It is also released into the air from burning organic matter and wood stoves that are growing in popularity in Central and Northern Europe.]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:57:35 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[EU climate chief calls for ‘much care’ on biofuels]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/9E4-626-6C6</link>
         <description><![CDATA[The European Union&#039;s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, has warned about expanding the use of biofuels as the EU executive finalises an assessment of the potentially damaging effects they may have over the earth&#039;s climate. She spoke to EurActiv as part of a wide-ranging exclusive interview on sustainability issues.
A draft Commission impact assessment, obtained by EurActiv last week, indicates that the greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels such as palm oil, soybean and rapeseed may exceed those of fossil fuels when wider factors are considered.
This is because tropical forests and wetlands are often cleared to compensate for lands taken to grow biofuels elsewhere, a process known as indirect land use change, or ILUC.
“Personally, I’ve always been very cautious on biofuels,” Hedegaard told EurActiv in an interview. “It’s great to see the potential in new technologies, but we should take very much care in Europe that we are now not establishing a new big industry that we then - after some time - say, wow, that was not so good.”
She said the Commission was not backtracking on its commitment in the Renewable Energy Directive to provide 10% of transport fuels from biofuels and other green alternatives by 2020 but urged caution as the science was still evolving.
UN sustainability report
&quot;Climate is a threat multiplier in many developing countries,&quot; Hedegaard said, making crises &quot;even worse&quot; like for example in the Horn of Africa.
&quot;In Thailand, the world’s largest rice producer, one-fifth of the harvest rotted due to flooding. That’s the kind of interlinkage there is,&quot; she said.
&quot;When you have still more people, wanting still more commodities, demanding still more food, still more energy, still more water, and on top of that as an overarching challenge, you also have climate change, then you really have the recipe for a lot more problems if you just continue business as usual instead of rethinking your growth model.&quot;
The UN panel&#039;s final report, &#039;Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing&#039;, included 56 recommendations to put sustainable development into economic policy.
Hedegaard welcomed progress made at the UN climate summit in Durban over a green fund to assist poorer regions of the world deal with the effects of climate change. But she also said public money could only play a limited part.
&quot;There is no way that you can allocate or re-direct the money that you need and the kinds of investments that you need – for instance in access to sustainable energy – only through public money. You really have to make this a good business case, for institutional investors, for pension funds, for lots of private capital.&quot;
Science on biofuels &#039;not that well developed&#039;
Asked about Europe&#039;s energy diversification policies and the effects that biofuel cultivation may have in the developing world, Hedegaard called for caution.
In its directives on biofuels in 2003 and renewable energy in 2009, the Commission backed plant-based alternatives for transport and energy as part of Europe’s push to cut carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants by 2020 and beyond.
Yet the policies have faced mounting criticism amid evidence that biofuels are not as effective at reducing greenhouse gases as long claimed, and concern that cultivation harms the ecology and food supplies of developing countries eager to supply the European market.
Hedegaard, who became commissioner two years ago, said “the knowledge and the science were not that well developed at that time, so now we have been struggling to try to get a defined indirect land use factor in.”
The Commission is expected to presents its ILUC findings within a few weeks.
Hedegaard said the Commission “has no problems with sustainable biofuels – and there are sustainable biofuels – but there are also biofuels where you could say what it takes away from CO2 is not less than fossil fuels, in some instances it’s even more.&quot;
“And that’s of course not a clever strategy if we ask member states to replace fossils fuels with something that is not better than fossil fuels.&quot;
Paying the price for biofuels
Meanwhile, two reports released today (2 February) by the Friends of the Earth and ActionAid campaign groups contend that biofuels do little to combat climate change, while pushing up prices for European motorists, who stand to pay an additional €18 billion a year for petrol and diesel as a result. 
The research predicts that by 2020, bioethanol would be €0.19-€0.41 more expensive than petrol per litre, and biodiesel €0.35-€0.50 dearer. The study was carried out by the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s Global Subsidies Initiative and the Fifo Institute for Public Economics at the University of Cologne.
Assuming that these costs are passed on to the consumer, by 2020, extra annual costs for UK motorists are predicted at between €1.25 billion and €2.28 billion, and for German drivers at between €1.37 billion and €2.15 billion.
Yet the authors identify government agricultural subsidies for biofuels production in Germany alone amounting to some €370 million. 
“Europe’s squeezed consumers and taxpayers are paying the price for a flawed green policy that delivers no environmental benefits,” said Robbie Blake, biofuels campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe.
“Motorists and the environment will bear the brunt of these ill-conceived biofuel targets – with higher prices at the pump and higher CO2 emissions.”
Across the EU’s 27 countries, the hidden costs of biofuels measured over the 2010-2020 period could be as high as €126 billion, the reports say. 
After criticism that biofuels imported from developing countries were taxing land and water, and diverting attention from food to fuel crops, the EU began implementing policies that encouraged more sustainable fuel sources, such as vegetable oil waste from restaurant and industrial use.]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:55:30 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[New indicators show latest data on air pollution, ozone depletion and acid rain]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/8D3-121-A27</link>
         <description><![CDATA[Updated air pollution indicators have been published by the European Environment Agency (EEA). They include indicators presenting past emission trends, contributions of different sectors and analysis of reasons for past changes. The indicators cover a range of substances affecting the ozone layer, acid rain and air quality. Four are from the EEA&#039;s Core Set of Indicators (CSI):
    CSI001 assessment: Emissions of acidifying substances
    CSI002 assessment: Emissions of ozone precursors
    CSI003 assessment: Emissions of primary particulate matter and secondary particulate matter precursors
    CSI006 assessment: Production and consumption of ozone depleting substances
Six supporting indicators on air pollution have also been updated:
    APE001 assessment: Sulphur dioxide emissions
    APE002 assessment: Nitrogen oxides emissions
    APE003 assessment: Ammonia emissions
    APE004 assessment: NMVOC emissions
    APE005 assessment: Heavy metal emissions
    APE006 assessment: POPs emissions]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:25:40 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Air pollutant emission limits exceeded in twelve EU Member States]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/1E8-80C-992</link>
         <description><![CDATA[Twelve Member States exceeded one or more of the emission limits set by the EU National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive, according to recent official data for 2010 reported to the European Environment Agency (EEA). In some instances the limits were exceeded by significant amounts.
For the first time, preliminary data recently reported to the EEA by Member States allow a comparison with the legally binding emission limits for 2010 set in the EU NEC Directive. The directive covers four main air pollutants: sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and ammonia (NH3). These pollutants can cause respiratory problems, contribute to the acidification of soil and surface water, and damage vegetation. The ceilings set in the NEC directive were designed to reduce such adverse impacts by an agreed amount.
&quot;These pollutants contribute to health problems and can also lead to economic losses and environmental damage,&quot; EEA Executive Director Prof. Jacqueline McGlade said. &quot;The EEA data shows that many EU Member States missed the 2010 limits, so these countries will need to make further efforts to help reduce air pollution in Europe.&quot;
The pollutant for which most exceedances were registered was NOx. Preliminary analysis shows eleven Member States exceeding their respective NOx ceilings (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden) (see Table 1).
The road transport sector is one of the main contributory factors behind the large number of NOx exceedances, contributing approximately 40 % of total EU-27 NOx emissions. Reductions of NOx from this sector over the last 2 decades have not been as large as originally anticipated. This is partly because the sector has grown more than expected and partly because vehicle emission standards have not always delivered the anticipated level of NOx reductions.
Spain was the only Member State to have exceeded three of its four emission ceilings under the NECD; followed by Germany with two exceedances. Finland exceeded its ammonia ceiling.]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:24:26 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Dutch arrests over &quot;illegal&quot; UK waste exports]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/FDF-BE3-B4C</link>
         <description><![CDATA[A major investigation is underway in Holland into alleged illegal shipments of &#039;waste&#039; material from the UK and Ireland to Asia.
The Dutch authorities have confirmed to letsrecycle.com that two managers of a Dutch company were arrested earlier this month for interrogation. They were released after two days but remain as suspects.
As a consequence of the publicity surrounding the case, the recovered paper industry federation for Holland, the FNOI, has spoken of its preference for the separate collection of recyclables in the UK.
The Dutch case is of potential significance to the UK because of the large volumes of recyclable materials that are sent to export markets via ports in Holland such as Rotterdam. Legal actions in the UK in the past over exports of materials, usually recovered paper, and whether they are contaminated have on occasions involved Dutch connections.
The National Prosecutors Office for the Netherlands said today: “The National Prosecutors Office presumes that the company violated environmental rules for the export of waste. Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the EP and the Council of June 14 2006 on shipments of waste, to be exact.”
And it confirmed that the investigation concerns “household waste from the UK as well as Ireland”.
The Dutch authorities have not said which part of the UK the “waste” has come from. The regulatory authority in Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency said it had “no knowledge” of the case at present. A spokeswoman for the Environment Agency, which covers England and Wales, said: “We are aware of the case and we will be cooperating with Dutch authorities as the investigation develops.&quot;
The arrests in Breda have caused controversy in Holland. The Dutch media have identified the company at which the arrests were made. And while the Dutch authorities have not officially named the group as being involved, the company itself has issued a strongly worded statement denying any wrongdoing.
The Dutch recovered paper trade association, FNOI, issued a statement in the wake of the arrests. A spokesman for the FNOI told letsrecycle.com that it did not support commingled collection of materials as happens in the UK.
For UK authorities and protagonists in the debate over whether materials should be collected commingled or separately, the Dutch case is likely to add to the debate. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is to start work in January on clarifying its interpretation of revised Waste Framework Directive requirements for the separate collection of materials.]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:30:20 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Rare Earths to be Recycled from Magnets in France]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/C8C-332-516</link>
         <description><![CDATA[French chemicals group Rhodia has launched a project to recycle the Rare Earths Elements contained in high performance magnets largely used in windmills, electric vehicles and hard disks.
Rhodia says that it develops a large number of innovations used in everyday applications such as flat screens, low-energy light bulbs, exhaust emissions control, high precision optics and other uses.
According to the company, the project follows earlier initiatives to recycle REEs from low-energy light bulbs and nickel metal hydride (NiMH) rechargeable batteries, and is a further step in the Group&#039;s strategy to secure and diversify its rare earth sourcing.
Rhodia says that it will recover the rare earth concentrate from its partners specialising in recycling magnets.
This high-grade concentrate will be refined and formulated into rare earth materials at the company&#039;s plant in La Rochelle, France. The four REEs contained in magnets, neodymium, the praseodymium, the dysprosium and the terbium, will be reformulated.
Early this year the company announced its scheme to recycle REEs from used low-energy light bulbs. The two dedicated facilities in La Rochelle and Saint-Fons, France are currently under construction and will be operational in the first quarter of 2012.
Furthermore, the company says that it has also partnered with Umicore to recycle REEs from NiMH rechargeable batteries found in portable applications, hybrid electric vehicles, and other applications. This project is expected to be operational by the end of this year.
&quot;Recycling opens up new perspectives for access to rare earths while preserving the natural resource&quot;, explains Frédéric Carencotte, industrial director of Rhodia Rare Earth Systems and responsible for the recycling projects.
rare earth recycling china europe strategyStrategic materials
The European Union is currently considering whether to stockpile raw materials that are deemed to be strategic, such as rare earths.
The debate follows the decision by China - which controls up to 97% of the global REE market - to slash export quotas, which has sent prices soaring and turned rare earths, vital to many renewable energy and hi-tech industries, into a political issue.
According to a recent report by Reuters, Rhodia does not see stockpiling of rare earths by Europe as a pertinent response to Chinese export curbs, and favours efforts to diversify supply through mining and recycling projects.
&quot;Creating strategic stocks of rare earths seems a little strange to me,&quot; explains Jean-Pierre Clamadieu, previously chief executive of Rhodia and now deputy CEO of Solvay following the Belgian group&#039;s takeover of the French company.
&quot;The West overreacted in making the question of rare earths a cause for a standoff between China and Europe,&quot; he adds.
Rhodia says it is also stepping up plans to recycle rare earths, with Clamadieu saying this could accounts for &quot;several tens of percent&quot; of the group&#039;s rare earth supply in the future.]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:03:07 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Waste Gases to be Recycled into Aviation Fuel]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/5D0-9C5-298</link>
         <description><![CDATA[According to Virgin, the low carbon aviation fuel has just half the carbon footprint of the standard fossil fuel alternative.
The partnership will see waste gases from industrial steel production being captured, fermented and chemically converted using Stockholm based Swedish Biofuels&#039; technology for use as a jet fuel.
The production process recycles waste gases that would otherwise be burnt into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
According to LanzaTech, Swedish Biofuels has developed technology for the production of alternative aviation fuels and has demonstrated this technology under a project funded by the U.S. Government Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
During this project Swedish Biofuels has used its technology in the production of fully synthetic 100% biological aviation fuel from a wide variety of non-food biological feedstocks including lignocellulosic biomass.
Virgin Atlantic says that it plans to schedule flights using the new fuel within three years on its routes from Shanghai and Delhi to London Heathrow, as LanzaTech and partners develop facilities in China and India.
The technology is currently being piloted in New Zealand, a larger demonstration facility will be commissioned in Shanghai this year, and the first commercial operation will be in place in China by 2014.
Following successful implementation, Virgin says that a wider roll-out could include operations in the UK and the rest of the world.
LanzaTech estimates that its process could be applied to 65% of the world&#039;s steel mills, allowing the fuel to be rolled out for worldwide commercial use. The energy company also claims that this process can apply to metals processing and chemical industries, growing its potential considerably further.
Virgin Atlantic says that it will be the first airline to use this fuel and will work with LanzaTech, Boeing and Swedish Biofuels towards achieving the technical approval required for using new fuel types in commercial aircraft. A demonstration flight with the new fuel is planned in 12-18 months.
Jennifer Holmgren, Chief Executive of LanzaTech, comments: &quot;This technology will enable airlines to dramatically reduce their carbon footprint by reusing gases that would otherwise have been emitted directly into the atmosphere.
LanzaTech says that this technology overcomes the complex land use issues associated with some earlier generation biofuels - and detailed analysis suggests the fuel will produce around a 50% saving in lifecycle carbon emissions.
The Roundtable for Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) - the international body to ensure the sustainability of biofuels production - will advise the team to ensure the fuel produced meets key environmental, social and economic criteria.
Virgin Atlantic says that this development should take it well beyond its pledge of a 30% carbon reduction per passenger km by 2020.
&quot;Sustainable aviation biofuel based upon conversion of alcohol to jet fuel is the next type of biofuel which will be under consideration for approval for use in commercial aviation,&quot; says Bill Glover, Boeing vice president of environmental strategy and aviation policy.
Dr Ausilio Bauen, Head of Bioenergy at Imperial College London, adds: &quot;The recycling of waste gases that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere to produce transport fuels, in a process such as the Lanzatech one, provides an excellent opportunity to reduce emissions associated with the use of petroleum fuels in transport.&quot;]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:00:43 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	  	  <item>
		 <title><![CDATA[Commitment to 70% Recycling Rate by EU Paper Industry]]></title>
         <link>http://www.wastexchange.co.uk/detailNews.phpsc?doc=/GARWER/DOCS/news/7F6-070-166</link>
         <description><![CDATA[The European Declaration on Paper Recycling 2011-2015 has been launched by launched by Ulrich Höke, European Recovered Paper Council (ERPC) chairman, and Soledad Blanco, Director at the European Commission, DG Environment.
Unveiled at the recent European Paper Recycling Awards in the European Parliament, the declaration sets out measures to optimise the management of paper throughout the value chain.
The ERPC was set up after the launch of the first &#039;European Declaration on Paper Recovery&#039; as an industry own-initiative in November 2000 to monitor the progress made towards meeting the targets set out in the Declaration.
Industries covered by the Declaration include paper and board manufacturers, converters and printers, as well as those involved in the collection, sorting, transportation and recycling of waste paper and board products back into the paper loop.
All 12 signatories and supporters of this Declaration say that they are willing to ensure that correct systems are in place to encourage paper recycling, and are building on the positive progress made by the first European Declaration on Paper Recovery 2000 to 2005 and previous Declaration 2006 to 2010.
According to the ERPC, these sectors will continue on a sustainable path in paper recycling, making it possible to reach the new target of a 70% recycling rate by 2015.

Signatories and supporters of the Declaration voluntarily accept to undertake a number of actions that will contribute to this target wherever technically possible and economically reasonable.

Priority is to be given to the prevention of waste including its environmental impact during the manufacture of paper and board products, through collection and recycling of paper. Furthermore, the ERPC says that close attention is also being given to improving the recyclability and - where applicable - the deinkability of paper-based products.

Janez Potocnik, European Commissioner for the Environment, explains: &quot;the Declaration is fully in line with the European objective to build a &#039;circular economy&#039; aiming at using waste as resource.&quot;

ERPC chairman, Ulrich Höke adds: &quot;The industry commits to continuously improve. We suggest, instead of simply &#039;Shrinking consumption&#039; making paper consumption more sustainable, preserving the valuable contribution of the value chain to green growth and job creation in Europe.&quot;]]></description>
         		 		 <pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:57:39 +0100</pubDate>      		  </item>
	     </channel>
</rss>

