The Truth About ‘Not Enough Waste to Burn’

by Posted on

Foodthink’s Take

Since early June, a video titled “From a City Besieged by Waste to a Shortage of Trash to Burn: China’s Speed Leaves the West Stunned” has spread rapidly online. The prospect of shovelling unsightly waste into an incinerator to burn it all away, then harnessing the released energy for power generation, has left many cheering over what they see as a “perfect” technological solution. Upon hearing that “incineration plants in Zhejiang and Shanghai are racing to other provinces and municipalities to secure waste to burn,” many began to remark: “This news truly allows me to use over-packaged goods with a clear conscience; previously, it always weighed on my mind.” Some have even gone so far as to suggest “it’s time to encourage everyone to throw away more waste,” or “stop sorting waste altogether and just send it all to the incinerator” – a profound inversion of common sense. Given the breadth and intensity of the misleading impact this video has had, in episode 51 of the Food Talk podcast, we invited two seasoned professionals from the fields of waste management and environmental advocacy to discuss what is really behind the claim of “not enough waste to burn.” How should we properly view waste incineration? What is its relationship with waste sorting and recycling? Can current safety technologies in incineration truly prevent the formation of dioxins, along with other toxic emissions and atmospheric pollutants? What are the health risks posed by plastics in food packaging? And how can each of us forge a healthier relationship with waste, working together to build a “zero-waste planet”?

This article has been adapted from that podcast episode.

Guests on This Episode

Mao Da

PhD in Environmental History, Chairman of the Shenzhen Zero Waste Environmental Public Welfare Development Centre, and initiator of the “Non-toxic Pioneer” campaign. For two decades, he has been involved in solid waste and environmental health projects across multiple environmental organisations. His current work focuses on sound chemical management, greening e-commerce, plastic waste governance, and the practical promotion of zero-waste principles.

 

 

 

Sun Jinghua

Goes by the nature name “Lotus Pod”, Director of the Waste Reduction Project at Friends of Nature, and editor of the popular science book *The Magic Book of Trash*. Over the years, she has carried out in-depth education, advocacy, and public outreach in waste reduction, sorting, and campus zero-waste initiatives.

 

 

 

Yu Yang

Editor at Foodthink, recently examining the toxic relationship between plastics and humanity.

 

 

 

 

Episode Host

Chang Tianle

Founding editor of Foodthink and organiser of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market.

 

 

 

 

 

I. What Is Everyone So Excited About Regarding “Not Enough Waste to Burn”?

天乐:You may have come across a viral video from a while back claiming that China simply doesn’t have enough waste to burn. This naturally led some to suggest that, if we’re short on waste, perhaps churning out more wouldn’t be such a bad thing in the name of keeping these incineration plants running, with some even claiming it was the best news they’d heard all year, as it would finally ease the guilt of producing rubbish. The data shows that by 2023, China had built over a thousand waste-to-energy plants, with annual incineration volumes now far outstripping the combined totals of the US, Japan, and Europe. I’d like to ask all three of you: what are your thoughts on this recent viral topic?毛达:Right off the bat, I found myself strongly disagreeing with the video’s premise. I felt the creator didn’t truly understand incineration, nor the broader landscape of waste management, given that burning waste is merely one technical method among many. But looking at it from another angle, could this creator’s take on waste actually mirror the mindset of the general public? For a long time, many people have been largely indifferent to rubbish. Then suddenly, a counterintuitive narrative emerges: we’re no longer facing the ‘waste siege’ of cities being encircled by landfills, but rather a shortage of waste to burn. That kind of twist naturally grabs attention and spreads quickly. Another factor is that the video deliberately ties its argument to elements that stir up national pride. Plus, the public has long felt that waste sorting is painfully inefficient. By framing things from a perspective of economic return and operational efficiency, the video sent a clear signal: incineration is not only highly efficient, but it also generates profit. Put these points together, and it’s easy to see why the video went so viral.

玉阳:I believe the creator goes by “科技大司马”. I actually clicked into his channel to take a look. He generally approaches technology through the pragmatic, industry-first lens typical of China’s online ‘industrialist’ subculture, but aside from this “not enough waste to burn” video and another on “AI lasers replacing pesticides”, his other content hasn’t gained much traction. The reason this particular video captured so much attention—making a public that’s long been frustrated with waste management suddenly praise incineration—might be that incineration represents a blunt, straightforward solution. It doesn’t matter what the material is; you just toss it all into the furnace and burn it. There’s a distinct sense of visceral satisfaction in that.

◉ Some netizens believe that waste incineration technology is propelling society “towards a clean modernity”. Image source: Screenshot from a WeChat Channels video.
Tianle: Mao Da just mentioned that the public might be fairly indifferent to how waste affects their own lives. In reality, though, there are plenty of everyday people who care deeply about environmental issues and are willing to put sustainable practices into action in their daily routines. I know Friends of Nature has always encouraged public engagement with environmental protection. Lianpeng, could you tell us how this topic has been received within the Friends of Nature community? Lianpeng: I first came across this video on Weibo. What struck me as rather surprising was that those sharing it were all fairly positive content creators across various fields, yet they were uniformly liking it. Within environmental circles, the realities of waste incineration are common knowledge. But for the general public outside these circles, even highly professional bloggers in other fields can easily be swept along by prevailing narratives.

Soon after, I began receiving numerous private messages on WeChat: “Have you seen this video? Is it really true?” Quite a few of the senders had even attended our “Waste and Life” teacher training programme. I told them, “After I spent two or three days teaching you for free, how could you forget the fundamentals? Think back to our waste hierarchy principles: incineration ranks second from the bottom. It’s merely a slightly better option than landfill and littering.”

II. Is There Really Not Enough Waste to Burn?

Mao Da: Is it because there’s not enough waste that incinerators are struggling to keep up? No. At present, the estimated amount of waste requiring incineration per capita in Beijing is over 200 kilograms a year. It’s even higher in Shanghai, at more than 290 kilograms annually. What does that mean? Consider Seoul in South Korea, which has adhered to a zero-waste philosophy for years with considerable success. Today, Seoul’s combined per capita waste sent to incineration and landfill is roughly 100 kilograms a year. We simply generate far too much waste, but we’ve built even more incinerators. Incineration capacity is currently in surplus. While maintaining a certain buffer is sensible, the situation has reached the point where facilities are competing for waste, which is clearly unreasonable.

Tian Le: If you just take a look at your own lifestyle or that of those around you—think of all those single-use bubble tea cups, and the various plastic packaging from food delivery and courier parcels—you can easily sense that the volume of waste we produce keeps climbing. So why has China built so many waste incineration plants?

◉ Waste has become an inescapable challenge that China must confront and manage as it modernises and urbanises. The shock and fear once sparked by the ‘waste siege’ around cities drove the push for a rapid, high-efficiency solution to the waste problem. Image source: Still from *Waste Siege*.
Lian Peng: It really comes down to having nowhere left to landfill waste. Over a decade ago, a famous documentary highlighted Beijing’s ‘waste siege’. With no other option, incineration emerged as a forced solution, framed as a kind of ‘technological advancement’. But consider this: if you build three incineration plants to handle all the city’s waste, and half of that waste is actually food scraps or recyclables, two plants would have been more than sufficient.

3. Can incinerators control dioxin emissions?

Yu Yang: The video mentioned that while waste incineration does produce dioxins, under current technology, this carcinogenic substance is broken down at temperatures around 1,100°C. Is that correct? Mao Da: This is why I said the content creator doesn’t truly understand incineration. Sure, temperatures exceed 1,000°C, and yes, we have real-time monitoring. But dioxin formation depends on numerous conditions, not just temperature. There are many invisible factors at play. For instance, if the bottom ash isn’t cleared out promptly, it can actually facilitate dioxin formation.

Lian Peng: A friend asked whether current incineration methods can now reliably control dioxin emissions. I’ve heard they even maintain real-time monitoring. But if an incineration plant’s dioxin emissions are only tested at least once a year, can that really be called real-time monitoring?

Mao Da: In reality, to get a comprehensive and accurate picture of dioxin emissions from incineration, you need periodic or semi-continuous sampling and monitoring. Yet, statutory emission monitoring is mandated only once a year. Add in voluntary testing, and you might get a maximum of three or four times annually. In many areas, facilities are unwilling to conduct tests due to the costs, or once testing reveals problems, they simply stop doing it. However, scientific literature shows that dioxin accumulation in soil around certain incineration plants is rising compared to control sites, and dioxin concentrations in the air remain elevated in some regions.

Lian Peng: In 2020, Friends of Nature sued an incineration plant in Jiangsu called Daji for failing to meet pollution emission standards, and we won. If every incineration plant that fails to meet emission standards could be addressed through legal channels, the situation might improve. China’s incineration technology has indeed advanced in terms of safety compared to over a decade ago, but the core issue is that there are simply too many incineration plants now.

◉ Distribution of waste-to-energy plants across selected regions of China. Data shows that by the end of 2023, China had commissioned over 1,000 waste-to-energy facilities, housing 2,172 incinerators with a combined daily processing capacity of approximately 1.11 million tonnes. This rapid expansion means China’s waste incineration volume now far outstrips the combined totals of the US, Japan, and Europe.” Image source: Public Automated Monitoring Data Platform for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Plants
Mao Da: In fact, the government has carried out monitoring in full compliance with regulations. However, this does not guarantee that emissions from these incineration plants are safe, as the standards themselves require continuous revision and improvement. When I first looked into incineration emissions, the dioxin limit was 1 nanogram per cubic metre, which could not safeguard public health. Following public calls for change, and with concerted efforts from the industry itself, the standard was tightened to 0.1 nanograms a few years later. It is an ongoing process. We cannot simply claim the current standard is completely safe; it represents a calculated balance.

4. Why Incineration Is Not a Panacea?

Tianle: I’d like to ask Dr Mao Da to explain why incineration is considered the last resort in waste management.Mao Da: Let’s first look at the 3R hierarchy for waste management: reduce (minimisation), reuse (re-use), recycle (recirculation). First is reduce; preventing waste generation in the first place is always the best option. Second is reuse; extending the lifespan of existing items and reducing what gets discarded also cuts down on waste. Third is recycle; ensuring waste loops back into new products whenever possible, such as turning scrap paper and plastics into fresh materials. Only when all else fails does waste go to end-of-life treatments like incineration.

◉ Priority order for waste management methods Source: Mao Da

Tianle: Besides, there are always types of waste that simply aren’t suited for incineration, such as glass or food waste.

Mao Da: Exactly. Incineration directly burns carbon-based materials, releasing them straight into the atmosphere as greenhouse gases. Given how frequently we’re experiencing extreme weather, food waste is arguably the very last thing that should be burned. Since our diet consists largely of carbohydrates, burning it simply converts it into greenhouse gases. Furthermore, plastics and wood are both rich in carbon, so burning them also emits greenhouse gases. If we were to skip all those sorting and recycling measures we just discussed, just buy carelessly, use heedlessly, and discard everything recklessly, sending it all to incineration plants or landfills, the consequences would be simply too severe for us to bear.

◉ Potential pollutants generated by waste incineration. Image source: Tianxia Wufen
Tianle: From a climate change perspective, waste management is a matter that affects us all. Recent data suggests that those born after 2020 will almost certainly face extreme heatwaves within their lifetimes.Lianpeng: Glass bottles are a particular headache for me. The situation in Beijing is relatively manageable, as bottles for common local brands like Yanjing, Beipinoyang, and Sanyuan milk can be returned. At present, only local brands offer this service. Non-local brands do not. For example, the New Hope milk I spotted in Suzhou was manufactured in Hangzhou and transported over. Because the glass bottles cannot be collected, they become single-use items, which represents a staggering waste of resources.

Tianle: That’s right. I’ve noticed that even the waste collectors in residential compounds won’t take glass bottles.

Maoda: Yet incineration plants cannot burn glass bottles either. Incineration is not a panacea; we must always assess whether a given material is actually suitable for burning. With something like glass, we need to consider how to enhance its reuse and extend its lifespan—namely, by returning it to the manufacturer for refilling. If you look at the exterior of a glass bottle for signs of wear, you can be certain it has been reused.

Tianle: Glass is widely regarded as a far superior food packaging material to plastic in terms of food safety, so it is a real pity that it suffers from such a major drawback.

Lianpeng: The truth is that because raw glass is so inexpensive, manufacturers would rather produce new bottles than recycle them, largely because the processing costs for recycling can be exceedingly high.

5. Health Risks of Plastic Food Packaging

Tianle: If we assume that waste incineration allows us to produce rubbish without a guilty conscience, we inadvertently overlook the fact that a substantial portion of this waste originates from plastic food packaging, which also poses health risks to us. Pre-packaged foods aside, even fresh vegetables and fruit bought at markets and supermarkets arrive in multiple layers of wrapping. With plastic so ubiquitous in our food supply, just how safe is it really?

◉ Various fruit and vegetables commonly seen in fresh food supermarkets, excessively wrapped in plastic. Source: Foodthink
Mao Da: When it comes to food packaging, most people are now fairly familiar with microplastics. A fresh study seems to surface every few days, sparking waves of alarm. Yet, even if microplastics truly are a problem, the entire world simply cannot abandon plastic packaging, and the public will inevitably grow desensitised to the issue. Once these particles have infiltrated numerous organs within our bodies, penetrating even to the cellular level, they can trigger unpredictable consequences. If we wait until then to stop ingesting them, it will be far too late.Tian Le: I’m in the same boat. I enjoy a cup of Earl Grey in the morning, but finding loose-leaf tea here in China is rather difficult. Ever since learning about the hazards of microplastics, I’ve started opening my tea bags before brewing them.Much of the so-called biopackaging marketed as cornstarch-based, along with the biodegradable PLA straws commonly found in bubble tea shops, actually contain a host of chemical additives used to bind the material or modify its physical properties.

Mao Da: PLA is a relatively biodegradable material, yet manufacturers still need to introduce additives to impart specific properties. These can include substances that resist degradation or carry risks of endocrine disruption and carcinogenicity.Additives leaching from food packaging can easily contaminate our meals. Researchers in North America have conducted studies along these lines: participants who ate takeaway from international fast-food chains packaged in single-use plastics for several consecutive weeks found their intake of plastic-derived additives significantly higher than on a standard diet.

Compared with microplastics, the scientific evidence regarding the health risks of chemical additives is far more concrete, as certain hazardous substances are deliberately introduced. Take phthalate plasticisers, for instance. Their most prominent effect is endocrine disruption, functioning similarly to synthetic oestrogens.When children are exposed to these plastic additives, it can trigger precocious puberty in girls and cause abnormal development of the reproductive organs in boys. A colleague of ours, a paediatrician at a maternal and infant hospital in Hangzhou, has noted that the rising incidence of hypospadias in young boys over recent years may well be linked to this. Then there is bisphenol A (BPA), widely recognised today as another endocrine disruptor that can impair female reproductive health.

Tian Le: I’d say breaking our reliance on plastic packaging is much like trying to quit smoking or drinking. We all understand the rationale, but bridging the gap between awareness and actual behavioural change is an enormously long haul. All the more so when the health impacts of these plastics are so insidious and gradual.

Mao Da: Precisely. Most parents today know to look for baby bottles that are BPA-free, yet there are other hazards we remain largely unaware of. Consider Type 3 PVC, frequently used for mooncake trays and egg cartons; it relies more heavily on chemical additives than almost any other plastic. Few realise that during the industrial production of pre-prepared meals, the plastic piping used in processing can also leach harmful substances.

For those keen on baking, a quick word of caution: inexpensive mooncake trays purchased online may very well be made from PVC. Similarly, household cling film is now a mix of PVC and non-PVC variants.Although national regulations prohibit the use of PVC in plastic packaging that comes into direct contact with meat, oil, or fats, how exactly is the average consumer expected to distinguish between them in everyday shopping? It is virtually impossible.

VI.The emerging plastic pollution from takeaway packaging

Tianle: You spent a few months doing food delivery, Yuyang. Did you ever see the plastic packaging waste from orders as a problem back then? Yuyang: To be honest, while I was delivering, my main concern was whether the packaging was securely sealed. For riders or restaurants alike, the priority is getting the food to customers safely and without spillage. And that’s precisely the dilemma with ordering in: you simply have to contend with the sheer volume of plastic packaging, from the containers themselves to the cling film wrapped around the lids.

Then there’s the issue with disposable cutlery. Even when I explicitly request no cutlery on my orders, the restaurants still send them out anyway. It’s likely that during the lunch rush, restaurants are simply too swamped to check special instructions. Glancing at a note could cost precious seconds during packing, or they might fear a negative review for withholding cutlery, so they just standardise the process and include them as a matter of course.

◉ Food delivery waste is a common sight in everyday life. Image source: Foodthink

Lianpeng: These days, food delivery typically uses composite bags. National regulations restrict businesses from providing non-degradable plastic bags, meaning the old-style carrier bags with handles are effectively banned; providing them now incurs fines. So what have businesses switched to? Non-woven fabric, or degradable alternatives. However, degradable bags tend to be soft and flimsy. They tear or sag easily, causing the food to spill.That is precisely where composite bags came onto the scene. They offer structure and look presentable, but from a waste management perspective, they fall far short of standard plastic bags. Waste collectors won’t even take them. Because composites combine plastic, non-woven fabric, and sometimes aluminium foil, it is extremely difficult to separate and repurpose the layers.By contrast, non-woven bags are made from a single, uniform material, which is relatively easier to process.

Tianle: So now, food delivery not only fuels an overflow of conventional plastics, but also generates a host of new, hard-to-manage packaging waste.

Maoda: Exactly. A “new pollutant” in another sense. Since they are so difficult to recycle, they can only be sent to incineration.

Lianpeng: I am part of the generation born in the 1970s and grew up in Beijing’s hutongs. Back then, taking out the rubbish was colloquially called “dumping soil,” which tells you what household waste was mostly made of: ash, dust, and furnace slag. When I was a child, things like glass bottles and toothpaste tubes were fully recyclable.Today, the types of waste have only grown more “diverse.” There is a proliferation of non-recyclable packaging, and even low-value recyclables are no longer collected by anyone.

◉ Non-recyclable plastic packaging waste ultimately disperses into mountains and rivers. It may also work its way up the food chain, returning to the human dinner table and eventually entering our bodies. Image credit: Maoda
Lianpeng:Currently, Xiamen sets the benchmark for low-value recyclables. Plastic packaging is collected daily by municipal services, with downstream processing guaranteed by companies. Xiamen also runs separate collections for glass and ceramics. Across the rest of the country, ceramics are disposed of as general waste, but in Xiamen they are binned with glass and recycled into construction materials or used for road surfacing. In local residential areas, I found that blue recycling bins outnumber grey general waste bins by roughly three to one. What’s more, the dedicated glass and ceramic bins actually contain only those materials. I truly admire this system and would gladly give the Xiamen municipal government a well-earned thumbs-up.

VII. Moving Beyond Crude and Heavy-Handed Waste Incineration

Mao Da: Driven by cutthroat competition, China’s incineration plants have been pushed to a point where the processing fee for a single tonne of waste can drop to just 10 or 20 yuan. I believe the government needs to tackle this race to the bottom, as it drives down overall waste disposal charges and falls well short of covering the true cost of waste generated by businesses or individuals. Currently, the taxes and fees levied for processing a tonne of waste in China are remarkably low—around 100 yuan, or perhaps 200 to 300 at most. Given comparable levels of consumption, Taiwan charges at least 400 to 500 yuan per tonne, Japan charges 800, and Europe charges 1,000. That represents a normal pricing level. Professor Song Guojun of Renmin University once estimated the total social cost of waste management, factoring in health-related costs—such as the economic loss modelled from increased cancer risks due to incineration emissions—which comes to roughly 2,000 yuan per tonne. Only by incorporating these social costs into the equation would stakeholders have the proper incentive to drive waste reduction and reuse.

Tianle: On that note, I find it profoundly unfair. Even a small-scale, non-profit operation like the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market is willing to invest time and labour in plastic reduction and reuse, yet large corporations refuse to do the same.

◉To encourage a reduction in single-use plastic packaging, the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market has set up a ‘bulk goods section’ where customers are required to bring their own containers. Image credit: Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market

Tianle: We never hand out new bags. Instead, we encourage customers to bring their own, which we collect and then make available to other shoppers free of charge. Additionally, some egg farmers at Beijing Organic use paper trays and rice husks for packaging, which are very easy to recycle. That said, a few farmers still use plastic foam liners for their eggs, packed inside cardboard boxes. Even so, as long as customers return the packaging to the stall, we collect it and send it back for the farmers to reuse. It really comes down to whether vendors are genuinely committed and willing to absorb the costs. Packing takes labour, and returning the materials incurs courier charges.

◉Reusable bag collection point. Image credit: Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market

Tianle: By contrast, major chain supermarkets such as Hema and JD could easily designate a collection area to gather the surplus boxes generated during shopping. If kept clean, the supermarkets could return them to manufacturers for reuse, and processing them in bulk would yield economies of scale. Fresh produce e-grocers like Hema and Xiaoxiang largely operate their own delivery fleets. They could simply collect the bags at the same time they hand over the groceries. I recall SF Express operates a cold-chain service where couriers retrieve the insulated crates upon delivery; that is a sensible model.

Lianpeng: Indeed. One could even consider levying a one-yuan deposit per box. Customers could flatten them on the spot after purchasing, bring them back a few days later, or simply leave them with the delivery driver, with the deposit refunded in every scenario. Friends of Nature published an article on 30 March outlining several ‘innovative ideas’ to reduce packaging waste from fresh food platforms. For example, shoppers could book precise delivery windows to guarantee someone is home, enabling the driver to hand over the items directly without a bag.

Some counterintuitive practices at Hema also require rethinking: their rules state that for online purchases, even those collected in-store, items must be placed in bags, attracting a one-yuan packaging charge. While refunds can be applied for, many customers are unaware of the policy. Certain voucher schemes are also poorly designed; some are restricted to online use, effectively pushing consumers to place digital orders. Moreover, Hema relies heavily on containers. The brand name is only too fitting—it’s an overwhelming abundance of ‘boxes’. Shoppers cannot opt out of buying them, nor can they return them afterwards. Even if flattened and handed back on the spot, they end up in the bin.

◉ The ‘Postman Slow Delivery’ campaign launched by Free U Nature circulates second-hand bags via cycling, making them available to businesses in need and thereby cutting plastic packaging consumption. Image credit: Free U Nature
Mao Da: From a public administration standpoint, much of our current focus is on managing the ‘process’—for instance, mandating household waste sorting and dictating how businesses must operate. The issue is that this approach often ends up placing a disproportionate burden on small businesses and producers, while large corporations—the true source of the vast majority of waste—find it remarkably easy to tick the ‘compliance’ boxes. In reality, most waste originates from them, yet the system simply hasn’t held them to account. What we really need is outcome-based management: those who generate more waste, whether individuals or enterprises, should bear a higher cost. The government has already pointed in this direction, but implementation remains half-hearted, likely due to concerns about alienating the public.

8. Establishing a Personal Connection with Waste

Tian Le: To wrap up, I’d like to ask everyone this: what steps do you think each of us can take to reduce waste and improve our quality of life, while also benefiting our own health, the wellbeing of others, and the environment?Lian Peng: Reduction at source is paramount. In truth, any bag becomes an eco-friendly one the moment you reuse it. It’s also worth cutting back on ordering takeaway and online shopping. If you simply lack the time to cook, opt to dine in instead. Then there’s milk tea, which comes laden with unnecessary packaging—it’s better to drink less of it or order into your own reusable cup.

Mao Da: Our zero-waste advocacy boils down to a nine-character mantra: buy better, buy less, use things longer. Of course, waste will always be generated, and much can be addressed through recycling. Leaders within organisations or companies can take the lead by piloting initiatives, creating small-scale systems that inspire others to follow. I know a waste management firm, for instance, that set up a small garden on their office rooftop to manage a closed-loop composting system. Groups like Friends of Nature and many peers in the field can offer technical support, so you don’t have to figure it out from scratch. We also warmly encourage you to support environmental NGOs—specifically Foodthink, Friends of Nature, and Shenzhen Zero Waste—by becoming monthly donors. Together, we can turn these ideas into reality.

Ultimately, we must forge a personal connection with waste. The most fundamental human instinct is simply not wanting rubbish piling up outside our own doors. Yet because waste is now swiftly cleared away, we tend to overlook the value of sanitation workers. We need to recognise that waste is not someone else’s problem—it is intimately tied to our own lives.

Yu Yang: I agree with Mao Da that we need to reconnect waste with daily life, though building that link is undeniably challenging. Take ordering takeaway, for example. We’ve spoken to people who don’t order in on a whim; it’s deeply woven into their work and lifestyle rhythms. Many work long hours past the official finish time, leave exhausted with no time to cook, and simply tap their phones to order while riding the metro. Unless that underlying pace of life shifts, meaningful behavioural change will remain elusive.

Another concept that comes to mind is reuse. Nowadays, it’s often viewed as a somewhat avant-garde lifestyle choice—think of turning old scraps of fabric into schoolbags, or the collage art popular in certain creative circles. Yet when I was a child, my grandmother patched my clothes in exactly that way. Within a traditional lifestyle, this kind of reuse isn’t a trend; it’s simply how life is lived. I believe that if we can genuinely integrate this ethos of circularity into everyday routines until it becomes second nature, meaningful behavioural shifts will follow much more naturally.

◉ Pictured: a backpack crafted from discarded bicycle inner tubes. While environmental concepts are expressed through such artistic products, they are drifting further from the everyday lives of the general public. Photograph: Yu Yang

Prepared by: Li Ye

Edited by: Yu Yang

Published by Foodthink