Friends of the Earth Birmingham Action Briefing Apr/May 98

Waste Recycling in Birmingham

Birmingham currently only recycles 6% of total waste compared to national Agenda 21 targets of 25% by the year 2000. This compares with EU targets of 50% by the same date and 40% by the year 2005, as recommended by the London Planning Advisory Council.

Why is Birmingham's record so poor? There are no logical reasons other than inertia. It is simply convenient to send all waste to be buried or burned. Birmingham City Council argues it does not have sufficient resource to improve recycling and similarly it can not afford any additional cost. However, other regions/authorities which have good recycling records state that not only is energy saved and pollution reduced but jobs are created and money saved. It is interesting that in arguing that cost and resource are the prohibiting factors Birmingham City Council refuse to substantiate these claims.

As a Certified Accountant I have offered to assist the Council in establishing why increasing recycling and reducing the levels of waste being sent for incineration should lead to increased costs, when more efficient schemes lead to significant savings (see examples below). This offer has been refused. An excuse that can not be justified is simply not good enough when the record is so poor.

FOE say 80% of household waste can be recycled, including 30% which can be composted. The London Borough of Sutton is actively pursuing a policy whereby it will save money, create jobs, save energy and reduce pollution. Sutton's targets are to recycle 50% by 2001 and 80% by 2006. If Sutton can do it why is Birmingham's record so poor?

Interestingly Ontario and California have set recycling targets of 50% by the year 2000. California claim that in achieving this they will create 45,000 jobs and add $2 billion to their economy. Similarly the Province of Ontario, Canada claims it will as part of its 3Rs programme create 2,124 new jobs; add $499m in increased output; generate $104m each year in additional earnings and save $311m each year in avoided environmental impacts.

No doubt you are asking the same questions as me:

• Why does Birmingham continue to burn and bury virtually all its waste ?
• Why does Birmingham not treat waste as a valuable resource?
• Why does Birmingham's waste continue to increase when European guidelines ask for reductions and stabilisation which is being achieved elsewhere?
• Why does Birmingham not recycle any plastics which, when burnt, give off highly toxic gases such as dioxins?
• Why does Birmingham not take a leading role in trying to help generate the recycling markets e.g. by insisting all its major suppliers have comprehensive environmental policies and are EMAS (Eco Management Audit Scheme) registered?
• Why does Birmingham City Council say "can't", "can't", "can't" when Ontario and California can?
• Phone or write to Councillor Margaret Wells, Chair, Environmental Services, Birmingham City Council, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham.
• Phone or write to Ian Coghill, Assistant Director, Environmental Services, Birmingham City Council, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham.
• Write to your MP.
• Write to your local councillors (info. available from FOE).
• Ask Birmingham City Council for a commitment to put a cap on the (maximum) volumes of waste being sent for incineration, while improving the amount of waste being recycled, to better national government targets.
• Request better legislation to put pressure on producers and retailers to reduce levels of waste.
• Ask FOE for further information (fact sheets are available).
• Discuss your concerns with friends, neighbours and relatives

Paul Webb IP & W.Campaigner