Gloucestershire urged to reject incineration

Trusted article source icon
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Profile image for This is Gloucestershire

This is Gloucestershire

​“Incineration is stupid, totally unsustainable and will wreck your budget for years to come.”

Those were the words of international waste expert Dr Paul Connett as he urged a hall packed with dozens of Gloucestershire residents to fight any plans for a giant waste incinerator in Gloucestershire.

The lecturer from St Lawrence University in New York addressed residents, politicians and activists at a meeting in King’s Stanley Village Hall.

Using examples of successful recycling schemes from across the world, he said technology was not the answer to Gloucestershire’s mounting waste problem.

Dr Connett, who recently returned from speaking at the United Nations, said: “In the 21st century, the issue is about resource management.

“We would need four planets if everyone consumed what the average American consumes, and we would need two planets if everyone consumed what the average European consumes.

“George Bush thought there was another planet, and I hope he’s there now.”

He spoke about recycling schemes in San Francisco and in areas of Italy, which were diverting similar amounts of waste from landfill, at a fraction of the cost of incineration and without the by-product of toxic ash.

He said: “Incineration produces a hazardous toxic ash, which you need to find landfill space for anyway.

“The thing is, we won this whole argument 20 years ago. Don’t politicians ever read anything?

“In Denmark, they send all their ash to Norway, and when I was down in Plymouth, where they’re trying to built an incinerator, I asked where they’re going to send their ash, and they said Gloucestershire at Wingmoor Farm (near Bishop’s Cleeve).

“The difference is, where an incinerator diverts 75 per cent from landfill, you’ve got this toxic ash left over, but when you recycle 72 per cent, you’ve still got the other 28 per cent to work with.” He said recycling and composting were two of the most important ways to cut down waste.

He said: “In some places in America, you have these coupons, which cost $1.50, and you have to put those on your rubbish bags. Then, the people who want to save money become more clever about what they recycle and really save up their waste until they really need to put it out.”

He added that the problem needed to be addressed with a change of lifestyle, a post-consumerism, which would see industry change its ways based on a more conscientious outlook from consumers.

He said: “We need to stop companies using excessive packaging, by banning it, taxing it or avoiding it.”

He said activists in Gloucestershire should pull out all the stops to campaign against any proposal which could see an incinerator built in the county.

Four companies have been shortlisted to run a new waste disposal facility in Gloucestershire.

They have been asked by Gloucestershire County Council to submit more detailed proposals by late spring.

Council chiefs have not ruled out the possibility of an incinerator to deal with the county’s waste, despite protests from campaigners.

All four companies have said they could use Javelin Park, near Haresfield, as part of their proposals.

Politicians at the meeting included MP David Drew, parliamentary candidates Dennis Andrewartha (Lib Dem) and Neil Carmichael (Con), Stroud Green Party councillors John Marjoram and Phillip Booth, and Gloucester city councillors Kate Haigh and Nick Durrant (Lab).

125
Tweet this article
Report

125 Comments

  • Profile image for This is Gloucestershire

    by Joe K, Barton & Tredworth

    Tuesday, February 16 2010, 8:05PM

    “'The NZ government experts have come to the same conclusions as the UK "non-experts"' -
    Caring about the Future, Glos.

    What are those conclusions, then? 'If you can bury it, you *should* bury it'?

    This conversation has not left opponents of a possible incineration option covered in glory. Even without Shlomo Dowen's patronising little smug-athon, campaigners have given little indication that they understand the issues the county council have to deal with. As for the health concerns that are regularly brought up, it should surely be the government's job to investigate these concerns, and our MP's job to keep abreast of those investigations and tell us if the concerns are warranted or not.”

  • Profile image for This is Gloucestershire

    by Caring about the Future, Glos.

    Tuesday, February 16 2010, 1:46PM

    “Thanks for this Steve, as Joe K says, there is "little, if anything, in that report that hasn't been mentioned already". The NZ government experts have come to the same conclusions as the UK "non-experts". If this knowledge can rule out incineration in NZ and take NZ down the road towards "zero waste", it should be able to do the same in the UK. Some additional info:

    *From GAIA:
    "Chen et al. (2009) compared DNA changes among workers at a MSW fly ash treatment facility and a MSW bottom ash recovery facility. DNA damage was significantly higher among those working with fly ash than bottom ash workers."

    *From UK Health Research:
    "Slough was a relatively healthy location in 1990, the year that Grundon's incinerator at Colnbrook was built. By 2001, the standardised mortality ratio [SMR] for all persons in Slough had soared to SMR=121 from the low figure of SMR=88 in 1990. ...cancers ......stroke......diabetes...... All of the above are included in Dr van Steenis' publised reports among the many illnesses caused by industrial PM2.5 emissions, and yet are ignored by incinerator action groups."

    *From European Union Directive 2006/12 EC:
    "member states shall take the necessary measures to ensure that waste is disposed of without endangering human health" "by means of the most appropriate technologies to ensure a high level of protection¿.for Public health"”

  • Profile image for This is Gloucestershire

    by Joe K, Barton & Tredworth

    Friday, February 12 2010, 6:16PM

    “I think 'redesign' is pretty much the same as 'replace', as in 'replace products that can't be recycled with products that can'.”

  • Profile image for This is Gloucestershire

    by Steve Goodchild, Tewkesbury

    Friday, February 12 2010, 4:51PM

    “JoeK asks 'What do the New Zealanders do with their residual waste, then?'

    That's a question I was hoping someone could answer because the NZ national waste strategy only mentions waste reduction and landfill. They seem to have added an extra 'r' to the alliteration. Redesign. There is a lot about design to allow deconstruction of products. They are also working hard towards establishing local remanufacturing facilities.

    As the most confident contributors to this discussion suggest that this is a ridiculously idealistic approach to waste disposal, I wonder what the catch is? Have I missed something?”

  • Profile image for This is Gloucestershire

    by Joe K, Barton & Tredworth

    Friday, February 12 2010, 4:20PM

    “What do the New Zealanders do with their residual waste, then?”

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters