The truth about soft plastic recycling points at supermarkets

What counts as “recycling” soft plastics?

• Debate over whether turning soft plastics into fuel pellets or burning them in power plants is “recycling” or just incineration with PR.
• Some argue it’s a useful second life that displaces coal/lignite; others say it’s functionally the same as burning trash and misleading to market as recycling.
• Several distinguish between true recycling (similar-value material) and downcycling (e.g., fence posts, decking, fabrics).

Burning vs landfill: climate and pollution trade-offs

• One camp: burning plastics for energy is acceptable or even preferable, especially if it replaces fossil fuels and is done in modern plants with good combustion and exhaust treatment.
• Counterpoint: CO₂ from burning is irreversible, whereas landfilled plastic keeps carbon out of the atmosphere; from a climate lens, landfill may be “best.”
• Concerns raised about incomplete combustion, toxic byproducts, weak regulation, and profit incentives that stop short of best practice.
• Others respond that large-scale plants can control combustion and filter many hazardous components, though not CO₂.

Landfill vs leakage and microplastics

• Some insist “the safest place for plastic is a landfill,” criticizing road-building, decking, and fence posts as microplastic factories over decades.
• Others counter that landfills themselves have environmental burdens (leachate, land use, local impacts).

Effectiveness and honesty of supermarket schemes

• Thread notes figures like 70% of collected soft plastic being burnt and 30% downcycled, with skepticism about how much of total waste is even captured.
• Examples (e.g., NZ, Australia’s REDcycle) show tiny fractions actually recycled, stockpiles in warehouses, and even regulatory charges.
• Several call this greenwashing: “recycling points” soothe consumer guilt and help industry maintain high plastic throughput.
• Disagreement over whether partial downcycling (fence posts, composite decking, building materials) is still a meaningful win or just a drop in the ocean.

Systemic change vs individual behavior

• Many argue the core problem is overproduction of single-use plastic; recycling is a distraction.
• Suggested levers: bans on plastic exports, mandates for recycled/renewable feedstock, deposit–return systems, reusable packaging, and bag bans.
• Noted political resistance even to small measures (bags, straws), yet some see consumer habits shifting (more tap water, reusable bags).

Health and material concerns

• Worry about microplastics, plastic linings in cans and cardboard, PFAS coatings, and flame retardants in recycled plastics, especially near food.
• This drives some to favor burial over reuse when chemical composition is uncertain.