Singapore’s overall recycling rate remains above 50%, but this figure is stabilised by industrial waste streams that are almost fully recycled. Beyond that headline, the picture weakens quickly. Plastics are now the largest waste stream by volume, yet our plastic recycling rate has fallen significantly from 11% in 2013 to a mere 4.6% in 2024.
It is estimated that the manufacturing of plastics consumes the same amount of fossil fuel as the entire aviation industry, and at the same time, used plastics can hold a high economic value if recycled. Why manufacture new plastics and increase our carbon footprint when we can re-use recycled ones? With the climate warming and Semakau expected to be full by 2035, our margin for error is narrow.
This gap between headline performance and material outcomes points to a deeper structural issue. A study by Singapore Environmental Council found that waste managers see it as economically challenging to recycle plastics because there is no local demand for it. They concluded that plastic recycling rates will not change unless the demand for recycled plastic increases.
At the same time, Singapore’s recycling system is highly exposed to global market conditions. When demand for recycled materials weakens, when freight costs rise, or when importing countries tighten contamination rules, exporting recyclables becomes expensive or unavailable. This was most evident following China’s National Sword policy and similar measures elsewhere. In such conditions, market actors respond rationally by choosing the cheapest available option, which is often incineration.
Incineration reduces landfill volume, but plastics are fossil fuel based, and their combustion releases fossil carbon into the atmosphere. Because these emissions are accounted for as waste disposal rather than climate impact, poor plastics recovery can be offset rhetorically by energy recovery. The material outcome, however, is the destruction of recyclable plastics, and a continued reliance on new manufactured plastics. This creates a risk that incineration is presented as environmental performance when the outcome is that more fossil fuel may be consumed, while sustaining a reality where incentives to improve recycling remain weak.
If we truly want to transit to a circular economy as laid out by the Singapore Green Plan, it is imperative that we build an ecosystem that sustains recycling even when external market conditions deteriorate. We must continue to find ways to reduce our reliance on incineration when plastic recycling ceases to be commercially viable.
We can consider expanding Extended Producer Responsibility beyond beverage containers to cover all packaging, including e- commerce mailers and food delivery containers. Building on Mandatory Packaging Reporting, this would shift costs upstream, improve packaging design, and fund the collection and sorting capacity needed for meaningful recycling.
To create demand for recycled plastics, the government can also mandate that plastic bottles, packaging, and goods must contain a minimum percentage of recycled plastics. Such a practice has been mandated by the European Union as well as the state of California. The government can also use public procurement as a market anchor. Schools, hospitals and agencies can build demand by only purchasing plastic bins, road barriers, pipes, and park furniture made from recycled plastic. For example, Switzerland’s Swiss Plastic Pipe Recycling (SPPR) initiative is working to establish a take-back and recycling system for plastic pipes used in civil engineering and building construction.
With Singapore using close to 1 million tonnes of plastics each year, there is strong potential for recycled plastics to become a strategic material in our economy.
