Where does your recycling actually go in the UK?
As more households see their refuse collection slashed in order to promote food and plastic recycling, consumers are asking how much of what they put in their green bins is actually recycled.
The government is hoping that its new Simpler Recycling scheme, which will apply to consumers from next year, will drive understanding of what can (and cannot) be recycled in the UK
But there is still some way to go, says Rachel Watkyn, CEO of recycling experts Tiny Box.
Watkyn says that a large amount of recycling still ends up abroad. She told Yahoo News: 'The rate of consumption in the UK far outstrips the technology and recycling facilities available, leaving councils and organisations with no choice but to find other solutions.'
Around half the paper recycled in Britain is "reprocessed" abroad, according to the Confederation of Paper Industries.
Different councils ship paper to different places, with destinations including France, Germany, Malaysia, India and Thailand. This is due to the falling number of UK paper mills, the CPI said, although Britain's existing mills make good use of recycled paper.
Around 80% of paper made in the UK now utilises "recovered paper". The industry has also improved which materials can be recycled, with greasy or stained pizza boxes previously being rejected, but now being reused.
Just 12% of plastic in the UK is actually recycled, according to the Big Plastic Count, with Britons throwing away 100 billion items of plastic waste each year.
Even plastic that goes into 'green bins' in Britain is relatively likely to travel abroad to be recycled.
Turkey remained the top destination for UK exports of plastic last year, according to Basel Action Network, a European NGO that records plastic waste exports.
British exports of plastic waste increased to 598 million kilos a year in 2024, with exports to Turkey increasing to 151 million kg/yr from 141 million last year.
The next most popular destinations for UK plastic waste were the Netherlands, Poland (where exports doubled in 2024) and Vietnam.
Britain's aluminium recycling rate hit 68% in 2023, with more than four in five aluminium drinks cans being recycled.
Most of this is recycled in the UK, with just 13% travelling outside the UK and EU to be recycled, according to the National Packaging Waste Database.
Some councils offer large bins where clothes and shoes can be recycled, but a relatively small amount are recycled or sold within the UK.
The materials in the bins is hand-sorted into Grade A (wearable, no marks), which is often sent to charity shops, or Grade B (wearable, marks).
Clothes with marks are often sent abroad, Rachel Watkyn, said CEO of recycling experts Tiny Box. Key destinations include Ghana, Pakistan and the UAE.
But the rise of 'fast fashion' poses another problem, with cheaper clothing often unable to be reused after it has been discarded, Watkyn explained.
Watkyn said: "The clothing sector is the second most polluting in the world and due to an ever increasing need for faster, cheaper fashion, less and less clothing can actually be recycled and the quality of the fabric makes it worthless."
Some councils and recycling locations accept electrical goods, including items such as PCs and phones.
These goods are typically broken down into small pieces, some of which are recycled.
However, globally, e-waste recycling is in a very poor position, according to the UN.
A record 62 million tonnes of e-waste was produced in 2022, up 82% from 2010, and this is projected to rise another 32% by 2030.
Used electrical and white goods are often shipped to countries including the US, Ukraine and China, Watkyn explained, although not all of the material can be recycled.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
US-China trade talks to open in London as new disputes emerge
US-China trade talks in London this week are expected to take up a series of fresh disputes that have buffeted relations, threatening a fragile truce over tariffs. Both sides agreed in Geneva last month to a 90-day suspension of most of the 100%-plus tariffs they had imposed on each other in an escalating trade war that had sparked fears of recession. Since then, the US and China have exchanged angry words over advanced semiconductors that power artificial intelligence, 'rare earths' that are vital to carmakers and other industries, and visas for Chinese students at American universities. Advertisement 3 President Trump spoke at length with Chinese leader Xi Jinping by phone last Thursday in an attempt to put relations back on track. REUTERS President Trump spoke at length with Chinese leader Xi Jinping by phone last Thursday in an attempt to put relations back on track. Trump announced on social media the next day that trade talks would be held on Monday in London. The latest frictions began just a day after the May 12 announcement of the Geneva agreement to 'pause' tariffs for 90 days. Advertisement The US Commerce Department issued guidance saying the use of Ascend AI chips from Huawei, a leading Chinese tech company, could violate US export controls. That's because the chips were likely developed with American technology despite restrictions on its export to China, the guidance said. The Chinese government wasn't pleased. One of its biggest beefs in recent years has been over US moves to limit the access of Chinese companies to technology, and in particular to equipment and processes needed to produce the most advanced semiconductors. 'The Chinese side urges the US side to immediately correct its erroneous practices,' a Commerce Ministry spokesperson said. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wasn't in Geneva but will join the talks in London. Analysts say that suggests at least a willingness on the US side to hear out China's concerns on export controls. Advertisement 3 US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will take part in the talks in London. One area where China holds the upper hand is in the mining and processing of rare earths. They are crucial for not only autos but also a range of other products from robots to military equipment. The Chinese government started requiring producers to obtain a license to export seven rare earth elements in April. Resulting shortages sent automakers worldwide into a tizzy. As stockpiles ran down, some worried they would have to halt production. Trump, without mentioning rare earths specifically, took to social media to attack China. Advertisement 'The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,' Trump posted on May 30. 3 China dominates the mining and processing of rare earth minerals. REUTERS The Chinese government indicated Saturday that it is addressing the concerns, which have come from European companies as well. A Commerce Ministry statement said it had granted some approvals and 'will continue to strengthen the approval of applications that comply with regulations.' The scramble to resolve the rare earth issue shows that China has a strong card to play if it wants to strike back against tariffs or other measures. Student visas don't normally figure in trade talks, but a US announcement that it would begin revoking the visas of some Chinese students has emerged as another thorn in the relationship. China's Commerce Ministry raised the issue when asked last week about the accusation that it had violated the consensus reached in Geneva. It replied that the US had undermined the agreement by issuing export control guidelines for AI chips, stopping the sale of chip design software to China and saying it would revoke Chinese student visas.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gerry Adams's lawyer to pursue chatbots for libel
The high-profile media lawyer who represented Gerry Adams in his libel trial against the BBC is now preparing to sue the world's most powerful AI chatbots for defamation. As one of the most prominent libel lawyers in the UK, Paul Tweed said that artificial intelligence was the 'new battleground' in trying to prevent misinformation about his clients from being spread online. Mr Tweed is turning his attention to tech after he recently helped the former Sinn Fein leader secure a €100,000 (£84,000) payout over a BBC documentary that falsely claimed he sanctioned the murder of a British spy. The Belfast-based solicitor said he was already building a test case against Meta that could trigger a flurry of similar lawsuits, as he claims to have exposed falsehoods shared by chatbots on Facebook and Instagram. It is not the first time tech giants have been sued for defamation over questionable responses spewed out by their chatbots. Robby Starbuck, the US activist known for targeting diversity schemes at major companies, has sued Meta for defamation alleging that its AI chatbot spread a number of false claims about him, including that he took part in the Capitol riots. A Norwegian man also filed a complaint against OpenAI after its ChatGPT software incorrectly stated that he had killed two of his sons and been jailed for 21 years. Mr Tweed, who has represented celebrities such as Johnny Depp, Harrison Ford and Jennifer Lopez, said: 'My pet subject is generative AI and the consequences of them repeating or regurgitating disinformation and misinformation.' He believes statements put out by AI chatbots fall outside the protections afforded to social media companies, which have traditionally seen them avoid liability for libel. If successful, Mr Tweed will expose social media companies that have previously argued they should not be responsible for claims made on their platforms because they are technology companies rather than traditional publishers. Mr Tweed said: 'I've been liaising with a number of well-known legal professors on both sides of the Atlantic and they agree that there's a very strong argument that generative AI will fall outside the legislative protections.' The lawyer said that chatbots are actually creating new content, meaning they should be considered publishers. He said that the decision by many tech giants to move their headquarters to Ireland for lower tax rates had also opened them up to being sued in Dublin's high courts, where libel cases are typically decided by a jury. This setup is often seen as more favourable to claimants, which Mr Tweed himself says has fuelled a wave of 'libel tourism' in Ireland. He also said Dublin's high courts are attractive as a lower price option compared to London, where he said the costs of filing libel claims are 'eye-watering'. He said: 'I think it's absurd now, the level of costs that are being claimed. The libel courts in London are becoming very, very expensive and highly risky now. The moment you issue your claim form, the costs go into the stratosphere. 'It's not in anyone's interest for people to be deprived of access to justice. It will get to the point where nobody sues for libel unless you're a billionaire.' Meta was contacted for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why do concert tickets cost so much these days? And is it all Ticketmaster's fault?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Concert ticket prices have risen sharply in recent years. Arena gig tickets have more than doubled, in real terms, since the turn of the century. For the biggest artists, increases have been bigger still. A basic standing ticket to see Oasis at Wembley Stadium on their last tour, in 2009, cost £44 (around £70 adjusted for inflation). The official price, when tickets for the Wembley gig in July went on sale, was £151. The average ticket for Taylor Swift's Eras tour in the UK was £206. This has become a political issue, and at the centre of the debate is the role of the world's largest ticket sales company, Ticketmaster, responsible for both these tours. The UK competition regulator launched an investigation into its sale of Oasis tickets, in particular into the use of "dynamic pricing". In March, President Trump signed an executive order promising "to bring common-sense reforms" to ticket sellers in America's live entertainment industry. If not a monopoly player, it's a near-monopoly, controlling more than 75% of concert ticket sales at major venues in the US, and about 60% in the UK. In 2010 it merged with the world's largest live events company, Live Nation, which controls more than 265 concert venues in the US; and owns or part-owns the Academy Music Group chain of venues, and festivals from Reading to Latitude, in the UK. Live Nation, now Ticketmaster's parent company, is also a major promoter (organising, funding and publicising music events), which promoted 54,000 events last year. It manages artists, too; and it's a big player in advertising and sponsorship, event parking, food and drink sales, merchandise and security. The US Department of Justice describes it as a "live entertainment ecosystem"; Liam Byrne MP, chair of the Commons Business Committee, says it has "more arms than an octopus". Live Nation "has faced allegations of predatory pricing, misleading fees, restrictive contracts, technical blunders, suppressing or colluding with competitors and generally abusing its monopolistic power", said Dorian Lynskey in The Guardian. Fans struggle to get tickets for big events, often facing technical problems, and long online queues; its app is notoriously awful and glitchy. Pricing is opaque. Which? has complained about the "drip pricing" of extra fees – on a £45 ticket, you might get a £6.10 service charge, a £1.75 facility charge, and a £2.75 order processing fee – making it hard to estimate the final price. As a result, Ticketmaster is very unpopular among fans. The country musician Zach Bryan released a live album called "All My Homies Hate Ticketmaster". A poll for More in Common found that 58% of Britons would like to see it nationalised. Michael Rapino, chief executive of Live Nation, claims that big concerts are still "massively underpriced". He may have a point. Demand is often high, and supply is limited. An estimated ten million fans wanted tickets for Oasis, so they could have been priced much higher, and still sold out. A live concert is a special experience; people, even on modest incomes, will pay large sums to see acts they love. And many forces have contributed to price rises. The internet has reduced music sales, so artists now depend on concert fees for nearly all of their income; big artists insist on a high proportion of the revenue from ticket sales. Shows have become more spectacular and expensive to stage. Inflation has been high, and VAT is 20%. The ticket price is shared between, in rough order: artist (including crew, transport etc.), venue, VAT, promoter and ticket seller. Ticketmaster – or a rival such as AEG – might pick up 10% of the total price. Live Nation says its ticket profit margins are less than 2%. Finally, "scalping" can also drive up prices. In the early 2000s, sites such as StubHub launched as legitimate platforms for fans to resell unwanted tickets. But many have been exploited by touts, who buy large numbers of tickets to resell at inflated prices. The problem has been made worse by scalper "bots", which bombard ticketing sites with purchases destined for resale. Such bots are illegal in the UK, but are hard to police. No. Last May, the US Justice Department filed an anti-monopoly suit against Live Nation; the then assistant attorney general, Doha Mekki, claimed that Ticketmaster is rife with "abuse, exploitation and self-dealing". The case is ongoing; it has been reported that it may try to break up the company. The UK Competition and Markets Authority found that Ticketmaster and Live Nation may have breached consumer laws by selling Oasis tickets at almost 2.5 times the standard price, without explaining that they came with no additional benefits, and by demanding a higher price than initially quoted after a lengthy queuing process. Many artists – Bruce Springsteen, Taylor Swift, Neil Young – have complained publicly about Ticketmaster. As far back as the 1990s, the US rock band Pearl Jam tried to organise a tour without using the company, but concluded that it was nearly impossible. There are, though, things that artists with substantial followings can do. They can reject dynamic pricing, as Coldplay and Neil Young have done. Or they can go further, like The Cure's Robert Smith. On The Cure's last tour, not only was dynamic pricing rejected, but tickets were priced at as little as £16, and resale was prohibited. Arguably, says Dorian Lynksey, Smith "made things awkward for artists by proving that they set the prices and dictate the conditions" – though they are happy for Ticketmaster to take the blame.