You read about it almost every day in the various media. The Netherlands and Europe are committed to a climate-neutral, circular society by 2050. An important part of this is reusing residual flows from agriculture, industry and consumers as much as possible. Most residual flows can be used in whole or in part as valuable raw materials.
Residual flows are therefore promising, but what do we actually mean by that? The success stories you read in the media often concern the recycling of larger, often more homogeneous residual flows such as mattresses or company clothing, or concepts where consumers no longer buy a product but lease it. After use, the product is returned to the manufacturer for complete recycling. This is possible, for example, with Michelin car tires or Desso carpets.
Collected plastic, grass clippings and sewage
It becomes more complex when it comes to residual flows that can vary in composition or contain contaminants. This includes collected plastic, grass clippings from roadside verges, but also sewage water or industrial residual flows. To realize a circular society, it is necessary to make optimal use of these residual flows. Various research projects and initiatives have proven that this is possible. For example, we can make Christmas baubles containing pine needles, produce bioplastic from sewage water and make insulation mats from grass clippings.
Obstacles or not?
Yet many initiatives fail to progress beyond the concept phase or small-scale production. This has a number of causes. First of all, the price of products or raw materials from more complex residual flows is often higher than that of conventional comparable products or raw materials. This is because the production processes have not yet been optimized, but also because when calculating the cost price of products, not all costs are taken into account, such as the depletion of primary raw materials or negative environmental effects. The so-called externalities.
What also plays a role are the quality requirements imposed by producers and consumers on (raw materials for) products. These are often based on conventional products and raw materials. That may be logical because it offers certainty, but it is not fair because raw materials and products from residual flows have a different origin. The properties are often different, but that certainly does not mean that they are not suitable for use
Legislation
The current legislation is an extension of this. It is still the case that in Dutch and European legislation, residual flows are quickly labeled as waste until proven otherwise. Proving the opposite is complex and often a lengthy process. In addition, for comparable products that only have a different customer or production location, the procedure must be completed again and again. As a result, general criteria for end-of-waste status have only been drawn up for a limited number of (products from) residual flows.
“If we want the Netherlands to be completely circular by 2050, something will have to change, otherwise we will not achieve this objective. I would therefore like to call on governments and companies to show a little more courage in the near future.” says Jappe de Best, author of this piece.
Call on governments
I call on governments to make reuse of residual flows easier. Consider initiatives in this area, make agreements with initiators about procedure times and simplify procedures for comparable products. That this is possible is evident from a recent initiative by the province of South Holland to make the reuse of green waste easier.
In addition, governments can set a good example by prescribing or rewarding the use of raw materials and products from residual flows. In an ideal world, we would of course all like to contribute to realizing a circular society. But unfortunately this does not work that way in practice. To achieve the climate goals, we must all fly less after Corona. But who is really going to do this? Sometimes we need a little help with this.
Call industry
I would like to call on the industry, together with companies that upcycle residual flows, to look at the scope for more flexible standards and requirements for raw materials and products. But also to look at the opportunities to let go of the linear process from raw material (via manufacturing and use) to waste and to look for multiple value creation and circularity. In my opinion, alternative revenue models are also appropriate in which human, social and business well-being are more balanced.
To achieve all this, we must be able to let go of the past, learn to look with fresh new eyes and, above all, grant each other something. If we all show a little courage, I am convinced that with the Netherlands we can inspire other countries in realizing a climate-neutral circular society. Maybe sooner than 2050….
