Sweden plans to impose a tax on plastic bags, so that no more than 40 plastic bags can be used per person per year.

The risk of waste incineration popular science, case sharing, industry news, scientific research.

-.

Perhaps aware of the problems of the current waste management policy, the Swedish government proposed a new waste incineration tax and plastic bag tax in the 2020 Budget submitted to Parliament on September 18 this year.

The waste incineration tax adopts a progressive tax rate and is proposed to be levied from April 1, 2020. The plastic bag tax is planned to be levied from May 1, 2020, with a tax of 3 kroons per standard plastic bag and 30 Orr per thin plastic bag (such as those used for the purchase of vegetables and fruits).

The Swedish government says it hopes the tax will help Sweden meet the EU's annual per capita limit of 40 plastic bags.

If the bill is passed, Sweden may be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change, as its teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg has called for.

Waste incineration in Sweden.

-.

The Swedish government claims that it has recycled 99% of the garbage.

But half of this proportion is water, because incineration should not be counted as recycling.

There are 34 incineration plants in Sweden and one more is planned.

The total incineration capacity of the 34 incinerators is 6.65 million tons per year.

In 2015, 34 incinerators disposed of a total of 5.8 million tons of waste, of which 2.3 million tons were domestic waste in Sweden, about 1.5 million tons were imported waste, and the rest were Swedish industrial waste.

Between 2012 and 2016, about 485.51% of domestic waste in Sweden, or 220,2.3 million tons, was sent to incinerators for incineration.

In Sweden, 86% of plastic waste is sent to incineration plants.

Plastics, incineration and climate change.

-.

As we all know, fossil fuels are responsible for climate change.

But what is less well known is that plastic is also a climate pollutant because it is made from fossil fuels such as crude oil, coal and natural gas.

The International Centre for Environmental Law (CIEL) found that plastics are inextricably linked to climate change by calculating greenhouse gas emissions at all stages of the plastic life cycle, from oil wells to refineries, incinerators and oceans.

CIEL found that incineration has the highest carbon emissions of all plastic waste management methods and is the main source of greenhouse gas emissions during plastic waste disposal.

Through the analysis of the potential greenhouse gas emissions from the incineration of plastics such as plastic bags, it is found that each ton of plastic incineration in the incineration plant produces nearly 1 ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

If the potential for power generation is not taken into account, for each ton of plastic incinerated, the net emission of carbon dioxide will reach 2.9 tons.

Globally, burning plastic packaging emits 16 million tons of greenhouse gases into the air, equivalent to the electricity consumption of more than 2.7 million households for a year.

If the petrochemical industry expands on a large scale by 2050, greenhouse gas emissions from the incineration of plastic packaging waste will increase to 309 million tons.

These estimates include only plastic packaging, which accounts for 40% of the total plastic waste flow and 64% of plastic packaging waste management.

This kind of garbage is only a little more than 1/4 of all plastic rubbish.

Therefore, the greater possibility of climate impact lies in the rest of the rubbish.

So-called "plastic-to-fuel" technologies, such as gasification and pyrolysis, as well as emerging proposals for chemical recycling, are another climate change mitigation strategy proposed by the industry.

However, these technical corrections pose more problems than answers, because few facilities reach commercial scale, and the industry is known for its high-profile failures and useless investments.

Because of such a lack of data on the environmental impact of these technologies, the responsibility to prove that the final product (which will be another form of fossil fuel) is good for the climate still rests with the industry.

At the same time, global incineration giants work closely with major plastic manufacturers to promote gasification and pyrolysis technologies.

Earlier this year.

BASF, Blasco, DSM, ExxonMobil, Henkel, Procter & Gamble, Suez and Veolia formed the "end of plastic waste Alliance (ASPW)" and pledged to invest $1.5 billion in the research and development of plastic waste management technology over the next five years.

Including pyrolysis and chemical recovery, but they were immediately criticized.

Because they have invested more than $180 billion in new plastic manufacturing facilities.

The study also shows the benefits of plastic recycling to the climate.

For every 1 ton of plastic packaging waste recycled, more than 1 ton of carbon dioxide emissions can be avoided because it reduces the production of raw materials and the use of related energy.

The energy efficiency of waste recycling is three times that of raw material extraction, and it is expected that by 2050, with the improvement of recycling capacity, its energy efficiency will increase by 48 times.

However, with the continuous growth of the number of plastics, recycling should not be considered as its main solution.

At present, the recycling capacity of any country is less than the amount of plastic waste that fills our land, rivers and oceans.

There is so much plastic in the world, so far, its growth rate has exceeded that of all existing waste management methods, and it is impossible to catch up with the growth rate of plastic through garbage recycling.

In addition, plastic can only be recycled a certain number of times, and then it will turn into garbage.

Although garbage recycling plays a solid role in the transformation of reducing plastic production and consumption, it will eventually decrease as we phase out unnecessary plastic products and packaging.

Therefore, garbage collection should be done.