Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The Swedish Extended Producer Responsibility stipulates recycling rates but does not address the quality of the recycling. This gives an incentive for downcycling, which affects what primary material can be substituted by recycled plastics. To shed light on the climate aspects of high-quality plastics recycling, we compare the climate impacts of (1) no recycling, (2) downcycling and (3) advanced sorting that allows for substantial high-quality mechanical recycling.</p> Method <p>We discuss the limitations of common approaches to modelling recycling; we then select a basket-of-functions approach with a broad systems perspective. In our model, each tonne of high-quality recyclate replaces 900&#xa0;kg primary plastics in a closed loop. Downcycled plastics instead compete with wood in railway sleepers that are incinerated with energy recovery at the end of their service life. The model accounts for impacts of recycling and downcycling on both near-term and future Swedish waste incineration, the waste imports, and the waste management and energy systems in the rest of Europe. The basket of functions generated by the system model includes packaging, supply of railway sleepers, treatment of near-term and future European waste, near-term and future European gas supply, and future electricity supply.</p> Results and discussion <p>Our results include no avoided burdens but only the emissions associated with generating the many functions of the system. They indicate that downcycling is better for the climate than no recycling, mainly because the incineration of downcycled material is postponed until after the end of the second use. This allows for a greater near-term import of waste that, in turn, reduces landfill disposal of mixed waste in other countries. The case with advanced sorting has the lowest climate impact because it involves the least primary production of polymers and the least total incineration of waste plastics.</p> Conclusions <p>Common approaches to model recycling fail to account for key aspects in the assessment. The basket-of-functions approach allows for assessing complex impacts of recycling in a broad systems perspective, although it requires multiple assumptions to be made in the model. High-quality recycling increases the chance that the recycled plastics replace primary plastics. This leads to a greater climate benefit.</p> Recommendations <p>The basket-of-functions approach should be considered when a decision on a material flow has complex foreseeable system impacts. A plastics-recycling policy generates greater climate benefits if it gives incentives for high-quality recycling.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The basket-of-functions approach applied to compare the climate aspects of high-quality mechanical recycling and downcycling of plastics

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月7日

查看全文
  • Tomas Ekvall,
  • Linnea Granström,
  • Rickard Jansson,
  • Emma Moberg,
  • Tomas Rydberg

摘要

Purpose

The Swedish Extended Producer Responsibility stipulates recycling rates but does not address the quality of the recycling. This gives an incentive for downcycling, which affects what primary material can be substituted by recycled plastics. To shed light on the climate aspects of high-quality plastics recycling, we compare the climate impacts of (1) no recycling, (2) downcycling and (3) advanced sorting that allows for substantial high-quality mechanical recycling.

Method

We discuss the limitations of common approaches to modelling recycling; we then select a basket-of-functions approach with a broad systems perspective. In our model, each tonne of high-quality recyclate replaces 900 kg primary plastics in a closed loop. Downcycled plastics instead compete with wood in railway sleepers that are incinerated with energy recovery at the end of their service life. The model accounts for impacts of recycling and downcycling on both near-term and future Swedish waste incineration, the waste imports, and the waste management and energy systems in the rest of Europe. The basket of functions generated by the system model includes packaging, supply of railway sleepers, treatment of near-term and future European waste, near-term and future European gas supply, and future electricity supply.

Results and discussion

Our results include no avoided burdens but only the emissions associated with generating the many functions of the system. They indicate that downcycling is better for the climate than no recycling, mainly because the incineration of downcycled material is postponed until after the end of the second use. This allows for a greater near-term import of waste that, in turn, reduces landfill disposal of mixed waste in other countries. The case with advanced sorting has the lowest climate impact because it involves the least primary production of polymers and the least total incineration of waste plastics.

Conclusions

Common approaches to model recycling fail to account for key aspects in the assessment. The basket-of-functions approach allows for assessing complex impacts of recycling in a broad systems perspective, although it requires multiple assumptions to be made in the model. High-quality recycling increases the chance that the recycled plastics replace primary plastics. This leads to a greater climate benefit.

Recommendations

The basket-of-functions approach should be considered when a decision on a material flow has complex foreseeable system impacts. A plastics-recycling policy generates greater climate benefits if it gives incentives for high-quality recycling.