Executive Overview
1. Introduction
2. Incineration and Air Pollution
3. The Effects of Toxic Ash
4. Sustainable Waste Management Options Undermined
5. Uneconomic and Energy Inefficient
6. The Sustainable Alternative
7. Conclusions
"Incineration is inconsistent with reduction, re-use and
recycling because it relies on a steady, large quantity of mixed
waste. It is a superficial solution which does not attack the
root of the problem - we must waste less"
|
|---|
1.01 The existing domestic refuse incinerator in Marsh Barton, Exeter was closed on the 1st December 1996 because it exceeded EC pollution standards. Devon County Council is now proposing to replace it with a new "Waste to Energy" facility which is two and a half times larger. Friends of the Earth opposes such developments as a wasteful and potentially dangerous technology. The following report outlines the key issues and the alternatives to incineration.
2.01 The Precautionary Principle
This century has seen regular scares about health risks from
various sources, e.g., lead, tobacco, pesticides, asbestos, radioactivity,
CFC's, etc. The common factor is that action is taken after a
problem has occurred, and the damage is done. Common sense suggests
that we should not be adding chemicals to the environment about
which we have only limited knowledge, especially when these chemicals
are known not to break down and can accumulate in peoples' bodies.
In other words, follow the "precautionary principle".
i.e. don't carry out processes or activities which many be damaging
until it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are safe.
2.02 Bioconcentration; the accumulation of pollutants in the body
The key question that must be answered regarding the incinerator
proposal is this;
"What is the long term effect on the human body of very small amounts of pollutants?"The proposed incinerator may well meet standards on pollutants, but that is not a guarantee that the pollutants will not cause harm. Incineration emission standards have been continuously tightened as more evidence on the health and environmental effects has come to light. Pollutants emanating from the incinerator chimney will add substantially to existing pollution, exacerbated by the fact that Exeter lies in a valley subject to temperature inversion which tends to prevent dispersal of pollutants. The dispersal pattern would cover the majority of Exeter. The significant effect on our bodies is that pollutants will accumulate over long periods of time in the body's fatty tissue. This process is known as "bioconcentration". If pollutants were to pass naturally through bodies, bioconcentration would not exist. But bone and fat are able to absorb and retain some of the most deadly pollutants emitted from incinerators. The consequence is that the levels of pollutants in bodies are far higher than background levels in the environment. (1)
2.03 Pollution from Incinerators
Incineration does not make waste disappear. On the contrary,
incinerators create waste that is poisonous, and poses significant
threats to public health and the environment through emissions
to the air, and through the waste ash posing pollution threats
in landfill sites. No methods have been developed for continuous
identification of all the potentially dangerous gases and particulates
in incinerator stacks. Furthermore, current indicators of incinerator
performance have not been shown to be reliable. Even under the
strictest of standards "state of the art"
incinerators emit chemicals that have escaped combustion as well
as newly formed products of incomplete combustion - thousands
of different chemicals of which only a small fraction have been
identified. (2)
2.04 Dioxins and Furans
Emission standards for incinerators are set by the Environment
Agency and are therefore largely out of local control. Whilst
the proposed incinerator may be within limits for the two particularly
poisonous and persistent groups of chemicals emitted - dioxins
and furans, they will still be emitted and will
end up in peoples bodies. The limits on dioxins in the
UK allow for dioxin levels ten times higher than in the USA, Germany,
the Netherlands and Japan. The EU limit was chosen, not on the
basis that it was scientifically demonstrated to be safe, but
because this limit was the smallest amount that could be accurately
measured.
2.05 Recent research on Dioxins
The most intensive study on the effects of dioxins was published
in 1993. (3) This was based on the experiences of those exposed
to dioxins in the notorious Seveso accident in 1976. The conclusion
was that those living in the contaminated area "were
nearly three times more likely to acquire liver cancer than was
the general population - a form of myeloma occurred 5.3 times
more often among women; among men, some cancers of the blood were
5.7 times more likely". Another recent study in Taiwan
found that boys who were exposed to a dioxin analogue in Taiwan
in utero have smaller penises than do unexposed boys. The Environmental
Protection Agency in the USA is evaluating this new data and is
expected to issue updated guidelines shortly.
2.06 The Long Term Effects of Dioxins and Furans
The build up of toxins associated with incinerators could take
place not just in individuals lifetimes, but across generations.
In 1990 the Munich Region of the German Medical Association stated
that: "According to the German Health Agency, milk from
nursing women is twenty times more contaminated with dioxin than
cow's milk. The multitude of contaminants a woman has accumulated
in her body over a time span of two to three decades reappears
during nursing and is transferred to the baby". (4) In
Germany, some paediatricians are already telling young women to
limit their breast-feeding to three or four months. (5) While not
all these dioxins come from incinerators, a Dutch Government report
stated in 1989 that: "The contribution of waste incineration
to PDCC (dioxin) and PCDF (furan) contamination of the general
population amounts to approximately 30 per cent.... Locally in
the vicinity of facilities, this may be considerably higher.
Waste incineration constitutes the greatest point source of emission
of these substances". (6)
2.07 Oestrogenic Chemicals and Cancer
One of the most disturbing aspects of the links between these
chemicals and cancer is that we may not be dealing with a tiny
statistical increase. The most recent statistical information
on cancer is that despite the vast sums of money spent on research
($2 billion a year in the US alone), both the cancer rate and
the mortality rate from cancer is still increasing world-wide. (7)
Likewise, scientists have recently discovered that male fertility
levels have dropped by as much as 50% in the last 30 years. The
blame for these facts is being increasingly put on the numerous
chemicals we emit into the atmosphere and our water supplies.
In particular, those chemicals which are oestrogenic (i.e. they
mimic the effects of the female hormone oestrogen in our bodies)
may be the prime culprits. Dioxins and furans are known to
be powerful oestrogenics. Last year, 73 scientists signed
a letter to the US anti-cancer agency, the National Cancer Institute
(NCI), accusing it of over-emphasising diet and lifestyle as a
cause of cancer, while ignoring the role of chemicals in the environment.
The NCI itself believes that 8% of cancers are chemically related.
The dissenting scientists believe it could be twice that figure.
Several senior US scientists now believe that oestrogenics are
the primary suspect. (8)
2.08 Chemical Effects on the Endocrinal System
The link between oestrogenic substances and cancer is cause enough
for concern. However, the possible health effects of chemicals
known to disrupt the endocrinal (i.e.hormonal) system are much
broader. The following is a quote from a multidisciplinary group
of experts looking at this problem:
"We are certain of the following: A large number of man-made chemicals that have been released into the environment ... have the potential to disrupt the endocrine systems of animals, including humans ... The impacts include thyroid dysfunction in birds and fish; decreased fertility in birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; .... metabolic abnormalities in birds, fish and mammals; demasculinization and feminization of male fish, birds and mammals; .... It is urgent to move reproductive effects and functional teratogenicity to the forefront when evaluating health risks. The cancer paradigm is insufficient because chemicals can cause severe health effects other than cancer .... Impacts on wildlife and laboratory animals as a result of exposure to these contaminants are of such a profound and insidious nature that a major research initiative on humans must be undertaken". (9)
2.09 Incinerators and PM10 pollution
Incinerators are known to produce particularly fine particulates
(known as PM10s because the particles are less than 10 microns
diameter). A major recent study (10) found that there is a much stronger
statistical link between fine particulates and mortality rates
from lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases than with any of
the other major forms of pollution measured (e.g., Carbon Monoxide,
Sulphur Dioxide). In fact, the finer the particulates measured,
the closer the correlation appeared. A recent report in "New
Scientist" magazine (11) estimated that approximately 10,000
cases of excess mortality every year can be attributed to sub
10 micron particulates.
2.10 The need to Apply the "Precautionary Principle"
The studies mentioned above are very recent and their implications
are not clearly understood. No one knows the long term effect
of low amounts of poisonous, persistent chemicals in the air.
But it is known that they enter the human body and stay there.
Surely, therefore, given the growth in cancer and so many discoveries
after the event about the effects of poisonous chemicals, common
sense dictates extreme caution. As with so many other areas of
human activity the future is likely to bring unwelcome revelations
about the environmental effects of practices which were said to
be safe at the time. Perhaps the best summary of these results
was provided by Dr. Paul Connett, Associate Professor of Chemistry
at St. Lawrence University:
"The knowledge that high-temperature incineration is capable of producing such contaminants should make any prudent person pause before sanctioning more of these plants, until we fully understand the fate, effects and amounts currently being emitted". (12)
2.11 The Techniques of Emission Control produce Limited Success
The proposed incinerator is likely to scrub emissions clean using
a lime scrubber, activated carbon, and bag filters. The lime
scrubber is designed to provide a fine dust which traps toxins,
which are then captured by the bag filters. The activated carbon
is the result of recent tests which show that modern incinerators
produce unacceptably high quantities of mercury into the atmosphere.
The use of a bag filter is theoretically better than the alternatives
(such as electrostatic precipitators) at removing fine particulates.
However, they suffer from a particular problem - they are especially
difficult to operate.
2.12 The Vulnerability of Bag Filters
The bag filters will work in a particularly hostile environment.
They will be subjected to a constant blast of very hot gases,
containing highly corrosive compounds such as sulphur dioxide.
In this situation, they are constantly prone to breaking, burn
out, or clog up. In order to work correctly, they have to be
constantly monitored, and the plant must be shut down in the event
of a failure, or else there will be considerable emissions. Experience
of incinerators all over the world, shows that this degree of
monitoring and care rarely occurs.
2.13 The Ineffectiveness of Bag Filters
It is also uncertain as to whether the proposed system will trap
all of the dioxins and furans because many of them are not formed
in the furnace as was previously thought, but are created in the
flow of hot gases between the furnace and the stack. (13) Therefore,
they may be formed after the gases leave the filter.
2.14 Limitations of the Environment Agency
Devon County Council will be heavily dependent upon the Environment
Agency (formerly Her Majesties Inspectorate of Pollution - HMIP)
to ensure that the incinerator operates properly. This agency,
whilst dedicated to its job, is severely underfunded, handicapped
by insufficient legal powers, and the technical difficulties involved
in constantly monitoring incinerators. There have been numerous
cases in the US, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark where the
regulatory authorities have grossly underestimated the pollution
caused by incinerators. For example, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the USA discovered in 1993 that one incinerator,
in Columbus, Ohio, emitted more dioxin than EPA officials had
estimated for all the 140 USA rubbish incinerators combined. (14)
2.15 The New Generation of Incinerators Still Cause Problems
It has been claimed that the new generation incinerators are
much "cleaner" than existing plants. In terms of daily
or annual emission rates this is true, but in the long term it
is not. The present incinerator closed in December 1996 and so
ceased emitting dioxins and other toxins. If the new incinerator
is approved, an incinerator will be on this site, constantly producing
dioxins etc. for at least a quarter of a century. Because many
of the key toxins involved, such as lead, mercury, dioxin, etc.
do not break down in the environment, and they accumulate in body
tissues, there will be a constant build up in people's bodies
for decades to come.
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
3.01 The Dangers of Ash Production
Incineration still produces ash. It can comprise about 25% by
weight and must be landfilled. Thus incineration means incineration
plus landfill. The ash is far more toxic than ordinary domestic
refuse, and is particularly expensive to dispose of. It contains
considerable quantities of heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium,
and mercury, and may contain even more toxic elements such as
organohalogens, which are produced in the combustion process.
It provides a particular threat to groundwater. Contained, monofill
landfill sites must be found, and very carefully maintained.
It is now accepted that even the most modern landfill sites leak,
so toxic incinerator ash will pollute land, ground and surface
water for many years. Devon County Council must satisfy itself
that the operators of the incinerators are certain that the toxins
in the ash will not leach out. We do not believe that such a
guarantee of certainty can be made.
3.02 The Unknown Health Effects of Ash Waste
These ash wastes are particularly poisonous. Many heavy metals
react to form highly volatile organic compounds by burning. An
incinerator could typically emit 27 different heavy metals to
air, all 210 known types of dioxins and furans, as well as up
to 400 other organic compounds, only a fraction of which have
been subject to rigorous study as to their health effects. The
poisonous materials in the fly ash which goes to landfill are
rendered more leachable by incineration, thus increasing their
pollution potential.
3.03 More Dangerous than Ash from Older Generation Incinerators
One very important issue which is often completely ignored in
assessments of the new wave of incinerators is that the ash produced
will be considerably more toxic than the ash from older generation
"dirty" incinerators. This is, ironically, because
of the clean air standards it attempts to meet. Most of the toxins
occur in the fly ash (about 10% of the total ash). The filtrate
from the cleansing system will be added to this, massively increasing
the quantity of lead, cadmium, mercury, dioxins, and furans in
this material. In other words, scrubbing systems don't "clean"
incinerators, they simply give you a choice of what you want to
pollute; the air, or the soil/groundwater. Sometimes it's both !
3.04 The Effect on Incinerator Workers
It is not just groundwater which will be threatened by this ash.
Workers at a "modern" incinerator in Detroit walked
off the job in 1988 complaining of nosebleeds, nausea and rashes
which they put down to exposure to the ash. When dust from the
plant was tested, it was found to contain very high levels of
lead. (15) Other studies have found high dioxin levels in the blood
of incineration workers. (16)
3.05 The hidden cost increases due to ash disposal difficulties
There will be considerable problems involved in disposing of
this ash. Because of its toxicity, and the likely shortage of
"ordinary" waste in which it can be co-disposed, it
will require very expensive monofill landfill sites. These may
well cost far more than current landfills. The incineration industry
often claims that incineration will result in a 90% reduction
in volume of waste to be landfilled. These claims are exaggerated
and ignore some very basic facts. Firstly, a large proportion
of the waste material will not reduce through burning. Secondly,
ash will not compact in tips to the same extent as domestic waste.
Hence the true reduction in volume is perhaps just 60-70%. When
one realises that hazardous waste costs up to 10 times as much
to landfill as domestic refuse, (17) it is clear just what an expensive
option incineration is.
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
4.01 The Discouragement of Waste Minimisation
Incinerators are a very capital intensive investment which demand
a steady stream of waste to burn. To be assured of their viability
companies need long term contracts, in most cases 25 years, with
local authorities who supply the waste. This locks authorities
into providing high levels of waste for decades and thus discourages
waste minimisation. It also assumes that in the next 25 years
there will be no change in the legal obligations on local authorities
or waste producers to recycle and minimise waste. For example,
if the 25% target was increased by the Government or the EC, or
if there is stronger action taken by the government against wasteful
packaging, this could have a major impact on the waste stream.
4.02 Incineration Avoids the Real Issue; Reducing Waste
Incineration does not promote waste reduction and recycling;
it merely postpones the day when waste minimisation is addressed
properly. The real issue is whether we should be designing products
at all that end up with waste that requires incineration. Ruth
Grier, Minister for the Environment for the government of Ontario,
Canada, has said:
"Incineration is inconsistent with reduction, re-use and recycling because it relies on a steady, large quantity of mixed waste. It is a superficial solution which does not attack the root of the problem - we must waste less". (18)Ontario is one of an increasing number of authorities around the world which has banned all future municipal solid waste incinerators. Until the UK has a national strategy for waste, any new incineration capacity is likely to damage efforts on recycling and waste minimisation. In fact, UK incinerator operators are planning to import German waste; they need more waste to burn to make their plants run economically - where is the incentive for waste minimisation here? (19)
4.03 Undermining of Re-Use and Recycling
As well as encouraging continuing high waste levels, incineration
of municipal waste undermines recycling and re-use. Incinerators,
in order to operate efficiently, typically require a high content
of plastics, paper, and organic matter to keep up their heat so
they compete for the same resources as recycling schemes. In
other words, by competing for waste, they push the price up, frequently
making commercial recycling schemes uneconomic. Conversely, if
recycling and/or waste minimisation schemes are successfully pursued
by local authorities, this leaves incinerators with a waste shortage
and attendant operational and financial problems. In the USA
this very problem has led several authorities and the private
operators into financial and political difficulties. (20) Some private
sector incinerator operators are in considerable difficulties
because of unforeseen changes in waste production and policy.
One local authority has declared itself bankrupt because of the
ruinous cost of its incinerator contract -
"Falling disposal prices at dumps and incinerators, and lower than expected trash volumes as a result of recycling and the sluggish economy gave in recent months hit trash companies and some communities that entered into long term contracts with them". (21)
4.04 The Damage to Major Recycling Initiatives
The presence of an incinerator, as well as undermining existing
recycling and composting schemes, could stop attempts to bring
to Devon major commercial recycling operations. For example,
just recently, it was announced that a 250 million newsprint mill
is to be built in Aylesford in Kent, with a 20 million grant from
the DTI. This plant will take in about 460,000 tonnes of waste
newspaper and magazines a year, 80% of it derived from household
and other consumer sources, to produce 390,000 tonnes of newsprint. (22)
This sort of development could promote far more jobs and wealth
than the proposed incinerator, and be totally compatible with
Devon County Council's environmental and waste policies. Likewise,
BP has announced the construction in Grangemouth, Firth of Forth
of a pilot plant which would allow for the commercial recycling
of all plastics, in one plant. In the proposed design, plastics
would be broken down into hydrocarbons, suitable for re-use in
plastics manufacture. BP hopes to have the first commercial units
working by 1997. The company intends to forge agreements with
local waste collection agencies to sort and collect plastics. (23)
These types of systems are a vast improvement on existing plastics
recycling techniques, but its economics could well be undermined
by large scale incineration. It would be far better for Devon
County Council and Exeter City Council to seek to attract this
sort of investment rather than the proposed incinerator.
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
5.01 "Energy Recycling" is Not What it Seems
Operators of incinerators base claims of environmental friendliness
on energy recovery. The idea of "energy recycling" has
been peddled vigorously by the packaging industry as justification
both for the next generation of incinerators and to ease current
pressure on the packaging industry to reduce its output. (24) The
government, through the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), is
offering considerable subsidies for these new incinerator schemes.
While FoE wants to see an expanded subsidy for truly renewable
energy sources via the NFFO, it does not support subsidies for
incinerators under the guise of alternative energy generation.
Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly a beguiling argument - burning
unwanted rubbish to provide energy. So what is wrong with these
new "energy recycling" incinerators ?
5.02 Inefficient Energy Production from Incinerators
The figures for energy production from incinerators may seem
impressive, but given the volume of waste consumed, the loss of
energy from the inefficient exchange in the incinerator (about
25% efficiency), and most importantly the loss of resources and
the energy already used to produce what is being burnt, the argument
that incineration can be justified by energy "reclamation"
collapses.
5.03 Burning Plastic is Not Renewable Energy
It has been claimed that generating power from waste is somehow
a "renewable" form of energy. This idea has been particularly
strongly pushed by the plastics industry which is actively fighting
attempts to reduce the amount of wasteful packaging. They know
that the best alternative to landfill or incineration of non recyclable
waste is composting, which is not an option for plastics. Hence,
future UK or EU waste disposal strategies are likely to emphasise
the reduction in the use of plastics. However, since all plastics
are produced by the use of fossil fuels, burning them can never
be regarded as a sustainable or renewable use of resources.
5.04 Recycling Saves more Energy than Incineration Can Create
It is often claimed by the "Energy-from-Waste" lobby
that burning waste will provide power for local communities.
In fact, all power, apart from hot water used in CHP, which is
not likely to be proposed for Exeter, goes straight into the National
Grid. Hence, there is no local net power gain. Even the claim
that any power is been "created" does not stand up to
analysis. It has been estimated that three to five times as much
energy can be saved by recycling materials than by burning them. (25)
Hence a proper programme of recycling in Exeter rather than
incineration would result in a net energy gain nationally and
globally. Devon County Council should carry out a full cost:benefit
analysis to establish the energy advantages of investing the £40
million in recycling instead of incineration.
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
6.01 The Need for a National Waste Strategy
There is no national waste strategy in the UK. Yet the
total amount of waste continues to grow and landfill is now recognised
as a serious problem. This is focusing attention on incineration.
However, there are some encouraging signs that the government
is beginning to recognise waste problems. The Environmental Protection
Act 1990 set local authorities a voluntary target for recycling
25% of household waste by the year 2000. Furthermore, the government's
White Paper "This Common Inheritance" in 1990 noted
the moral duty to look after the planet and to hand it on in good
order to future generations. This concept of sustainability is
now embedded in Department of the Environment (DoE) planning guidance
to local authorities. (26) (27)
6.02 The Waste Management Hierarchy
A Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report in 1993
concluded that there was an urgent need for a national waste management
strategy, based on a four-stage decision procedure:
"1st - Wherever possible, avoid creating wastes.2nd - Where wastes are unavoidable, recycle them if possible.
3rd - Where wastes cannot be recycled in the form of materials, recover energy from them.
4th - When the foregoing options have been exhausted, utilise the best practicable environmental option to dispose of waste.
We recommend that the Department of the Environment should give high priority to completing a national strategy for waste management based on the four stage decision procedure." (28)
6.03 Misuse of the Third Stage Option in this Hierarchy
This hierarchy is widely accepted, e.g. by the London and South
East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) in its Regional Waste
Planning Guidelines. (29) This hierarchy clearly gives the most important
options as waste minimisation and recycling. The incineration
industry, when publicising its case for new, larger facilities,
frequently quotes stage 3 out of context.
6.04 The UK's Dismal Recycling Record
The level of recycling in the UK is very low compared with continental
Europe. (30) In fact for household waste the UK is bottom of the
European league table with only 1 million tonnes per year - 5%,
from 20 million tonnes of household waste. Germany recycles 10%
and Finland 20%. (31) Recycling in Devon has reached 13% (Oct 96),
but the potential is very much greater. In Sweden, of an estimated
28,000 tonnes of paper in the waste stream, some 19,450 tonnes
were recycled in 1992. (32) Canada has very high participation rates
in kerbside collection schemes - Edmonton 92%, Vancouver 85%,
Toronto 80%. (33)
6.05 Recycling has Enormous Potential
Recycling has its problems. Some are temporary and linked to
the poor economic framework in which it operates. No one claims
that 100% recycling is possible but great strides are being made.
A study in East Hampton, Long Island, New York, found householders
could recycle 84% of their rubbish. (34) Seattle recycles 60% and
that excludes food waste. In the UK, Adur District Council, West
Sussex, has already met the government's target of 25% of household
waste to be recycled by the year 2000. (35) In Adur, with some 15%
of household waste recycled and with home composting removing
over 15% from the waste stream, there has been a 50% reduction
in Adur's refuse destined for landfill. (36)
6.06 A Waste Management Strategy for Devon
Devon County Council must adopt a challenging and visionary
Waste Management Strategy which should include the following priorities:
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
7.01 Incineration - the Beguiling but Dangerous Option
It is not difficult to see why incineration seems to provide
an easy and quick solution to the problems involved in waste disposal,
especially when the existing incinerator has been forced to shut
down because of new European clean air regulations. But in FoE
we believe that the sudden rush to build incinerators which we
have seen over the past three or four years is the result of a
short term economic calculation which could have disastrous long
term results. In particular, the decision by the Government to
include this sort of development under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation
(NFFO), as well as the uncertainty over the scale of the landfill
tax, and the lack of a coherent national strategy for waste disposal
has created a situation similar to the "Dash-for Gas"
in electricity generation, with its disastrous effects on future
gas supplies. Within two to three years, it seems likely that
these distortions and uncertainties will be removed, allowing
for a more considered approach to the problem. We believe that
when this happens, energy from waste will be exposed for what
it is, an uneconomic, potentially dangerous technology. Those
Local Authorities which have opted for it will find themselves,
like many in the USA with gigantic white elephants on their hands
which they will be unable to remove for decades.
7.02 Incineration is on the Retreat Throughout the World
If Devon County Council rejects the incineration option it will
not be alone. The movement to build incinerators in the USA peaked
in 1988 and is now in retreat. Since 1985, 137 projects have
been cancelled or put on hold. A host of USA cities, including
Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Diego and Boston
have cancelled proposed municipal waste incinerators. Many others
have dramatically downgraded proposals. In Europe, the decline
has been even more dramatic. Flanders, the Hague, and Amsterdam
have recently cancelled incinerators. In 1991, one million Bavarians
put their name to a petition to ban incineration. Only in France,
which has a chronic shortage of landfill space, and in the UK,
where the NFFO has created short-term distortions in the market,
has incineration continued to grow as an option.
7.03 Sustainable Waste Management Delivers More than Incineration
But, you may ask, how can we afford the alternatives? The simple
answer is that the most recent studies show that a sustainable
combination of reduction, reuse, recycling and composting not
alone diverts more material from landfill than incineration ever
can, but actually costs less. (37) The problem is that the incineration
programme is been aggressively marketed by a small but very rich,
powerful and highly focused pressure group financed by the plastics,
packaging and waste disposal industries fighting to protect their
own interests. It is interesting to note that as far as FoE is
aware, none of the Local Authorities in the UK which have opted
for "Waste to Energy" schemes have used any form of
objective long term analysis (for example, cost-benefit analysis)
of the alternatives. We are certain that if this was done, it
would show up incineration as the least economic option.
7.04 Incineration is a Non Reversible Option
We recognise that in the short-term, not building the incinerator
will result in waste still going to landfill. This is not something
which is desirable, but at least this is an option which can be
reversed at any time in the future by intensive work aimed at
minimising and recycling waste. If Devon County Council opts
for incineration it will be trapped for a quarter of a century
with a contract which will doom all attempts to get to grips with
the waste problem.
In the meantime, we must concentrate on the basics: reduce waste, encourage recycling, lobby the DoE to produce a proper national waste strategy, lobby the packaging industry to produce less waste. Finally we must attract those companies working on practical recycling schemes (such as those mentioned in section 4.04) to come to Devon, and so produce more jobs and prosperity without damaging the health and quality of life of its people.
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
Return to Table of Contents at top of page
Return to the Exeter Friends of the Earth Home Page