研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，“化學(xué)回收”只是空談，沒有回收

研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，“化學(xué)回收”只是空談，沒有回收

"Chemical Recycling" is the petrochemical industry's latest response to the recycling crisis. It is a recycling process where plastic waste is processed into fuels or back into the chemical building blocks that plastics are made of. It's key to the circular economy where there is no such thing as waste, just feedstock for new plastics. The House of Representatives' "Congressional Action Plan For a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America" thinks it's a great idea, saying "Federal policies should also promote the transition to a circular economy, which aims to keep resources in a closed cycle and to eliminate waste and pollution."

“化學(xué)回收”是石化行業(yè)應(yīng)對(duì)回收危機(jī)的最新舉措。這是一種回收過程，將塑料廢料加工成燃料或重新加工成制造塑料的化學(xué)材料。這是循環(huán)經(jīng)濟(jì)的關(guān)鍵，在循環(huán)經(jīng)濟(jì)中沒有廢物，只有制造新塑料的原料。國會(huì)眾議院的“清潔能源經(jīng)濟(jì)行動(dòng)計(jì)劃和一個(gè)健康的,有彈性,就美國”認(rèn)為這是一個(gè)好主意,說“聯(lián)邦政策還應(yīng)該促進(jìn)循環(huán)經(jīng)濟(jì)的過渡,旨在保持資源在一個(gè)封閉的循環(huán),消除浪費(fèi)和污染。”

Waste-to-energy plant in Copenhagen (not chemical recycling).Lloyd Alter

Now a new report from the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (with the clever acronym GAIA) looked at what chemical recycling is actually being done, and finds that it's "All talk and no recycling."

現(xiàn)在，一份來自焚化爐替代品全球聯(lián)盟(縮寫為GAIA)的新報(bào)告審視了化學(xué)物質(zhì)的回收實(shí)際上是如何進(jìn)行的，發(fā)現(xiàn)這“全是空談，沒有回收”。

Chemical recycling is just making fuel. GAIA

GAIA looked at the 37 chemical recycling facilities proposed since the 2000s and found that only three were actually operating, and found that none of them were actually recovering plastic in any way that could be considered "circular." Instead, they are pushing "plastic to fuel" (PTF) using pyrolysis or gasification, and just burning the stuff.

GAIA研究了21世紀(jì)以來提出的37個(gè)化學(xué)回收設(shè)施，發(fā)現(xiàn)只有3個(gè)在實(shí)際運(yùn)行，并發(fā)現(xiàn)它們都沒有以任何可被視為“循環(huán)”的方式回收塑料。取而代之的是，他們推行“塑料燃料”(PTF)，使用熱解或氣化，只燃燒材料。

Some might say that PTF is a good thing because that's kind of what plastic is, a solid fossil fuel, so we are getting double use out of it, but that's not the case, primarily because "PTF carries a large carbon footprint that is not compatible with a climate-safe future. It only adds to global carbon emissions created by the fossil fuel industry."

有些人可能會(huì)說PTF是個(gè)好東西，因?yàn)樗退芰喜畈欢?，是一種固體化石燃料，所以我們會(huì)對(duì)它進(jìn)行雙重利用，但事實(shí)并非如此，主要是因?yàn)?ldquo;PTF會(huì)帶來很大的碳足跡，與氣候安全的未來不相容。”它只會(huì)增加全球化石燃料工業(yè)產(chǎn)生的碳排放。”

This makes a lot of sense, considering that one has to use fuel and resources to pick the stuff up, process it, cook it, and then burn it. Making PTF is also toxic.

考慮到人們必須使用燃料和資源來提取、加工、烹飪，然后燃燒，這就很有意義了。制造PTF也是有毒的。

What it is really doing is making waste plastic disappear, which is the entire point of the exercise, so that they can keep making new plastic in all their new petrochemical plants. New plastic is cheaper and easier to use, and the industry has spent 60 years making the old stuff disappear.

它真正做的是讓廢塑料消失，這是整個(gè)行動(dòng)的重點(diǎn)，這樣他們就能在所有新的石化工廠里不斷制造新塑料。新塑料更便宜，更容易使用，行業(yè)用了60年的時(shí)間讓舊塑料消失。

Amager Bakke Waste to Energy. Lloyd Alter

Chemical recycling, at least as is happening now, is just an elaborate and expensive version of waste-to-energy. There is no point, other than it makes waste disappear. Given the amount of CO2 it generates, from a climate point of view, we would be better off just burying it, and we are not going back there. The only real way to deal with this is to stop making so much of the stuff in the first place, to reuse and to refill, and to go truly circular.

化學(xué)品的回收，至少像現(xiàn)在正在發(fā)生的那樣，只是一種復(fù)雜而昂貴的廢物轉(zhuǎn)化為能源的方式。除了讓廢物消失之外，沒有任何意義?？紤]到它產(chǎn)生的二氧化碳量，從氣候的角度來看，我們最好把它埋起來，這樣我們就不會(huì)重蹈覆轍。唯一真正解決這個(gè)問題的方法就是一開始就停止制造那么多的東西，重新利用和填充，真正做到循環(huán)利用。