Gloucestershire urged to reject incineration
“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.
-
Dr Paul Connett
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 Comments
View all
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.”
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"”
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'.”
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?”
by Joe K, Barton & Tredworth
Friday, February 12 2010, 4:20PM
“What do the New Zealanders do with their residual waste, then?”
by Steve Goodchild, Tewkesbury
Friday, February 12 2010, 3:57PM
“Only that New Zealand appears to have a policy which promotes the 'zero waste' concept, has no mass incineration, has municipalities which regularly exceed 80% recycling and is actively working on residual waste to design it out.
This is what seems to be the position. I simply wondered if this is greenwash or they really are working towards what contributors here allege is impossible?”
by Joe K, Barton & Tredworth
Friday, February 12 2010, 2:57PM
“'This is from New Zealand. Are they going along a completely misguided route, or is there something to learn from this approach?'
Stever Goodchild, Tewkesbury
Given that there's little, if anything, in that report that hasn't been mentioned already, is there point in answering the question?”
by Steve Goodchild, Tewkesbury
Friday, February 12 2010, 12:31PM
“This is from New Zealand. Are they going along a completely misguided route, or is there something to learn from this approach?
"Incineration refers to the combustion of waste materials, resulting in ash residues and air emissions. New Zealand is currently free of municipal solid waste incineration.
The following information is taken from the Zero Waste Trust's report 'Wasted Opportunities - A Closer Look at Landfilling & Incineration'.
Impacts of incineration include:
Flow control
¿ Incinerators require large capital investment and show little economic return.
¿ To maintain optimal combustion they also need a constant supply of waste materials.
This often results in the creation of long-term contractual agreements with local authorities (guaranteeing certain tonnages of waste per year to the incinerator) and destroys incentives to minimise waste or financially support resource recovery programmes.
¿ They do not complement recycling programmes because they require materials with high calorific value (such as paper, cardboard & plastics).
Ongoing landfill requirement
¿ Landfills are still needed to dispose of the bottom ash and fly ash which are deemed to be highly toxic and therefore must be disposed of in costly hazardous materials landfills.
Employment
¿ Incinerators are operated by a relatively small number of staff and the presence of an incinerator in a region does not attract other industries to the area.
¿ Reuse and recycling initiatives provide more than 10 times as many jobs as incineration for a given quantity of material processed.
Human health
¿ The incineration of mixed solid waste leads to emissions of heavy metals, dioxins and other volatile organic compounds that are released into the atmosphere.
¿ Many studies have shown that some of these compounds have been identified as a cause of cancer.
¿ Dioxins are the most toxic man-made substances known to man. The predominant source is from products such as PVC plastic (containing chlorine). This substance can persist for decades in the environment without breaking down into less harmful compounds and accumulate in soil, water and food sources.
Waste to energy
¿ Mixed waste incinerators are inefficient energy producers, capturing only about 20% of energy generated by the waste. A huge amount of valuable resources and energy already used are lost.
¿ Recycling plastic saves 3.7 to 5.2 times more energy, recycling paper saves 2.7 to 4.3 times more energy and recycling metal saves 30 to 888 times more energy that is gained through incineration.
¿ Waste is not a renewable energy source. Waste is composed of materials produced from unsustainable and non-renewable sources. Incinerating waste destroys resources that could be recovered or minimised."”
by Joe K, Barton & Tredworth
Thursday, February 11 2010, 1:47PM
“Good question. Quedgeley Guy had a similar idea, but it'll be interesting to see what insights Severnsider has on the matter.”
by Caring about the Future, Glos.
Thursday, February 11 2010, 1:10PM
“I note that Severnsider only supports ¿"high-efficiency EfW to recover energy from as small a residual as possible. If we can do this with small local plant serving a plethora of heat customers....." I was wondering whether Severnsider has any examples of any county(s) in the UK that has installed small local high-efficiency EfW plants across their county(s) as their principle residual waste technology solution?”