Balancing Act: Navigating RDF Exports in the UK ETS

UK ETS Consultation: The recent consultation on incorporating Energy from Waste (EfW) plants into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) has sparked significant debate. A key point of contention is the potential for ‘carbon leakage’, where waste might be diverted from UK EfW plans to either landfills or exported abroad as Refuse-Derived Fuels (RDF) or Solid Recovered Fuels (SRF). Contrary to concerns, RDF exports are not ‘carbon leakage’, they are a sustainable and pragmatic component of responsible management of non-recyclable residual waste. Studies show that transporting RDF for EfW abroad has a lower carbon footprint than landfilling it in the UK, especially when considering efficient shipping practices.

Striking The Balance: While the governing or regulatory authorities recognise the importance of managing domestic waste, they appear to shy away from acknowledging that some exports will always be necessary. The UK ETS consultation actually goes so far as to describe RDF exports as a ‘risk’ (“The UK ETS Authority welcomes views on how this risk (of increased diversion of waste to export abroad, in the form of RDF or SRF) could be managed.”) The key is surely to find the right balance between reducing reliance on exports and ensuring sustainable domestic waste management.

Presenting The Vision: The UK ETS aims to promote innovation in waste treatment. It is, however, a stick rather than a carrot, a penalty rather than an incentive. The ambition of all governments should be to minimise waste generation in the first place while maximising recycling, instead of applying punitive levies on efficient waste management practices, and tutting disapprovingly at the notion of exporting bales of RDF for energy recovery overseas. Unfortunately, the tone of debate and consultation is overwhelmingly negative, as opposed to presenting a bold and engaging vision of a circular economy where resource demand is managed in a sustainable and strategic manner.

ETS Policy Alignment: Imposing additional charges or taxes on RDF exports could burden and hinder an effective commercial operation. It would distort the market and interfere with transfrontier trade that benefits both the UK and our overseas partners. Rather than applying arbitrary taxes of mechanisms, a better approach would be to align the UK ETS with the European ETS, thereby fostering a more integrated and efficient waste management system, encouraging innovation and investment in sustainable waste treatment technologies.

RDF exports remain a valuable took in the UK’s waste management toolbox. By focusing on innovation alongside responsible export practices, the UK can achieve its ambitious environmental goals for a greener, cleaner future.