Against incineration
Why waste incineration is wrong
Waste incineration is like controlling the population through euthanasia before birth control. It’s wrong because it’s trying to control the problem, before preventing the cause. Most wise people recognise that prevention is better than cure, so how can waste incineration be a viable option?
If we look deeper into the problem of production and consumer waste, we see that its a monster that has got out of control. We are producing so much and so fast, that slowing it down and reducing waste is not enough. We also need to get rid of it more efficiently and stop contaminating the environment by burying rubbish in the ground. Incineration answers the problem of reducing the bulk of waste by 95-96 %, depending upon composition and degree of recovery of materials. Incineration is therefore at a superficial level, a viable solution.
The argument for incineration focusses on providing an immediate solution to reducing landfill waste burial and mitigates the toxic after effect by pointing to possible solutions for unwanted bi-products, such as reprocessing of leachate and gas scrubbing. The cost of post treatment like this is high and its effectiveness is uncertain for technical reasons. Some medical waste is in fact very suitable for incineration as the high temperatures reached are sufficient to sterilise the waste and remove the biological hazard. In addition, some incineration processes may be linked to power production by utilising the heat generated. Overall, there is undoubtedly a niche market for incineration, but not as a panacea to mass waste reduction.
Unfortunately, waste incineration comes with its own environmental problems, as well as technical issues and dubious cost effectiveness. Incinerators produce greenhouse gases like CO2, and also heavy metals, particulates, sulphur dioxide, acids, furan and dioxins. Although incineration may reduce the bulk of waste, by burning it away, the toxic by-products produced are no longer bound to stable materials and maybe freely released into the environment as gasses and leachate. Waste mass is reduced, but at a high cost of greater environmental pollution. The wider goal of reducing toxic contamination and sustaining environmental systems is ultimately defeated through incineration.
Taking a wider view of post consumer and post industrial waste reveals that the real root of the problem lies much further back and begins with the production of waste, as opposed to its disposal. That may seem obvious, but if so, why are we even contemplating the use of incinerators? Why don’t we grasp the nettle of responsibility and prevent the problem and stop taking reactive measures of dealing with the monster after it has escaped? If we project the waste problem into future generations, it’s clear that incineration can only be a temporary measure, or reserved for specialist waste disposal needs.
If the real issue is rooted in waste production, then the most effective prevention is to centre our resources on providing creative and legislative methods to reduce waste in the first place. This is the only route that will achieve sustainable waste reduction without incurring too many tricky caveats at the end of use. The counter argument against this approach suggests that while this maybe an ideal solution, it will take too much time to implement and we need an immediate relief to landfill waste. Many UK regions calculate that we have only a few years left of available landfill space and that we are already at a critical stage in dealing with waste disposal. This observation makes incineration attractive as a necessary evil that maybe inevitable, at least as a short term option.
It is true that it takes a long time to stop a moving freight train and that in order to avoid disaster it is tempting to divert it’s route rather than apply the brakes. The easy option is not always the best one and usually only offers short term solutions. We do have to take immediate action, but incineration is an easy diversion that leads later us up a siding with nowhere to go. The answer is to make large and immediate investment into prevention and not cure. This way ahead is not unusual and has already been adopted by other countries like New Zealand and parts of Canada. They have turned the prevention of waste and residual recycling into a business opportunity, seeing waste that can’t be factored out of manufacturing as resource material for new production. Not only good for the environment, but also good for industry. This ‘closed loop’ approach regards waste as the result of a failure to realise a reuse possibility for any materials. If something can not be reused, it becomes more costly because it has no residual post production or post consumer recycling value.
No producer wants to raise costs and if they can recover materials for reuse this is an incentive for cleaner greener production methods. To make such systems work there needs to be organised and effective recovery systems, both in manufacturing and also post consumer recycling. These are the areas that we must focus on here in the United Kingdom to initiate a sea-change of attitudes both in industry, marketing and consumer habits.
Where do we go with this? The goal of MyZeroWaste.com is to demonstrate that with a change in attitude and a small amount of commitment, an ordinary family can achieve a huge reduction in landfill waste in excess of 80% without much effort. This can be done with virtually no cost or outlay and relies solely on a ‘will’ to shop carefully, recycle responsibly and see waste as a resource. Our small model demonstrates a paradigm for change that is both easy to realise and accessible by ordinary people. If this model was proliferated across our region and country, we would see a reduction in landfill waste that would leave every other method almost redundant. We have gone from about 100 ltrs of weekly waste to an average of 150grams of waste, that is only due to lack of mixed plastics recycling facilities in our area. We joke that if everyone else produced as little waste as us, our village would only need a small transit van for landfill kerbside collection. Our waste bin has 6 weeks of unrecycleble plastic in it and it’s only half full. The main changes for us have been in an attitude of mindfulness and very little has changed to threaten our consumer enjoyment or lifestyle.
It can be argued that what we have demonstrated is a new skill, a new cultural shift that is required for a new generation facing new environmental problems. We still eat well, enjoy a little moderate spending and note only a small ‘down-shifting’ as a result of our recycling habits. The fact is that a small effort to prevent waste by an individual or family unit multiplied across a large area has a much greater effect than the reactive efforts to deal with waste once it’s produced. Surely that is a valuable key to revealing the way forward.
We advocate a ‘Greater awareness campaign’ as the primary thrust for waste reduction. The individual holds the key, whether that is a head of industry, politician, ordinary individual, or family household. Reach the individual on a mass scale and a vast change can be achieved with a self governing approach that removes the need for legislation or draconian measures. Even with limitations with kerbside collections and problems with mixed plastics recycling we have shown that huge reductions in landfill waste are possible, simply by adopting new habits and utilising the resources available.
Zero landfill waste is a distinct possibility, 75% - 90% reduction is a certainty, given an acceptance and commitment from the individual. Have our decision makers become too detached from the people that they can’t reach them. Or is that that local government is too occupied with popularity and vote securing? Maybe we see that waste freight train thundering along the tracks and think it’s simply too big and too fast to put the brakes on and that the only option left is to limit the damage and incinerate the evidence of our environmental crash.
903 viewsOther pages in this section ...
Comments
Hi Mr Green,
Is Gloucestershire the only council trying to work out an alternative strategy? My council, Renfrewshire, did not even mention recycling/composting in its yearly circular to the public. That is worrying. It could mean a silent acceptance of incineration.
What is your view on local council attitudes?
Thanks MR G - Excellent and interesting article. Waste reduction has to be the way forward. It just make so much sense.
The Bishops Cleeve hazardous landfill site in Gloucestershire takes fly ash from many incinerators and the possibility of an incinerator is within the GCCs outline plan, as seen in the ‘Outline business case for application for private finance initiative credits’ section 4.4.5 (link ) As I said in the article the temptation for utilising incineration is significant alongside the possibility of generating heat and power from the process.
Of course, once you employ a system like this you need to keep it fed with waste to keep it going and justify its exixtence. Not a good incentive to reduce waste, is it. If there was a significant reduction in waste due to other efforts once the incinerator is commissioned, there would be some seriously red faces around.
The political heat from from anti-incineration campaigns can get pretty exhausting and ugly. It is our intention not to engage heavily in what is wrong, but to demonstrate what is the right way to proceed. We want to present a positive alternative and focus our energy showing a way forward to avoid incineration. By solving the problem at source through a significant reduction in waste from households and business, we effectively ’starve’ the fuel required to justify and run these machines.
The challenge with this strategy is reaching a significant population to make a difference in waste reduction. However, We firmly believe that if the £m cost of incineration was diverted to sustainable preventions and not superficial cures, there would be a much greater chance of success.
Everyone says ‘Not in my back yard’ to incineration and somehow we need to get the message across that they are the author of their own fate, unless they do something personally to stop the relentless accumulation of waste that justifies radical methods of disposal.
We need to promote better public awareness of waste reduction. We need to provide a stark picture of the alternatives if we fail to reduce waste. We need better facilities for waste collection, sorting and recycling and we need real legislation from goverments to provide better, greener manufacturing processes in goods packaging.
Hi Mr Green,
You have covered the area well. The point now is how can we all promote better practices? The September pledges topic, though it is probably a local event mainly, could be a way to broaden the numbers involved. Mentioning the pledges on Chris’s blog, alongwith the resulting discussion, could encourage a greater response. I have already commented on waste-free options and this would an expansion of that idea.
What do you think our best course is?
What you say here John is raising the visibility of these issues. Unfortunately there is still tacit response from so many people to waste reduction. Once our waste is ‘outa sight, it’s outa mind’ We have a choice; do we have an soft evolution now or a waste revolution in 10 or 20 years? People respond slowly but react quickly. So often we need a critical event moment to initiate real change. But all this suggests a ’stick’ of fear and not the ‘carrot’ of incentive.
I Think Mrs’ G will mention our competition on Chris’ blog and I hope this my help to raise visibility. Ultimately we need a much greater proliferation of the whole subject. We are working on this …
Hi Mr Green,
On Chris’s blog AdeJones mentions incineration, by another name. I have tried to pin him down with a discussion but so far he has not replied.
John, Annie Leonard’s video, The Story Of Stuff is a wonderful film isn’t it? People rave about it and it’s so well presented.
She is a fabulous woman who is doing so much to bring awareness to this issue. It’s really taken off as I see it mentioned in all sorts of places. She brings so much sense to a nonsensical issue and just puts it right where it’s at.
A woman who gets my vote for all the important work she is going. She’s really helping to change the world with her mission.
Hi Mrs Green,
The incineration issue is broadly discussed on Chris’s blog. The best technology seems to be gasification and pyrolysis. EfW is the “favourite” of many, including councils, plastic packaging industry and waste management industy. The worry must be that the rush to make this the standard practice will bring hazard to the environment. Zero Waste is one way to minimise the amount going to such “burn” technology and is therefore on the side of anti-incineration.
My concern with incineration is that the recycling we do in this country will stop altogether. These beasts need a lot of food to keep them going, and no company is going to invest millions of pounds in an incinerator to see it unused.
Hi Mrs Green,
The 25 year lifecycle allows the chain of waste process to continue unchallenged while providing large amounts of burnable waste. There is therefore a business link with other interested parties giving the nod.
As our trend reduces waste, we are a potential spanner in the works, along with anti-incinerator groups and green groups. Zero Waste really is a blow for sustainability and I am sure people will see our ideas as one way to oppose these 2 undesirable outcomes.
I agree that incinerator isn’t the answer coming from a practical environmentalist position rather than a romantic environmentalist position.
I agree reduce, reuse, recycling should be nationally be pushed from 30% now, through the legal 50% to 70-75%. 50% in the EU WFD is very unambitous. This makes economic sense.
I agree food waste needs to be collected separately and composted by organised local IVC or CHP via Anerobic Digestion technology, back to farmland. Again, this makes economic sense.
I disagree that a non technology solution is realistic for the last 25-30% of mixed or difficult waste. AMBT and resource recovery technology is the friendiest solution.(FoE,Greenpeace)
Small scale local Gasplasma or plasma gasification is the best technology for hospital waste, composite products, historic latent materials, difficult residual, but we are talking about the last 10-15% of material for hydrogen syngas conversion/CHP 2xRoCs, where plasma technology has very good emissions, CO2 footprint (Eunomia), 65% net energy efficiency, safe plasmarok,1% of input to landfill. This should be a goalkeeper solution not a striker or front 10 solution as Defra/AC are pushing incineration guised as EfW/CHP.
Redesign of products or designing out residual waste is a long term transitional project in cconjection with producters and resource handlers. Real initiatives should be pushed with product design, however, it should not be regarded as a serious short-medium term romantic silver bullet or indeed mantra.
Ok Rob, I can safely say you totally lost me with that 5th paragraph of yours LOL!
Perhaps you should write a guest article for us sometime and explain things to us 
Hi Mrs Green
Searching Advanced Plasma Power or
http://www.advancedplasmapower.com/index.php?action=PublicTVFootageDisplay
probably explains the plasma cracking process quite well.
A good discussion point in this section, in a limited difficult waste (listed) role.
THank you for the link, Rob - I’ll take a look at that when my brain is less frazzled 
Leave a comment
To register. Before you submit your commentSimply check this box above to Join Gravatar
You'll get an email to confirm your registration.
MyZeroWaste.com is our family blog about reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill each week. Follow our progress, leave a comment or two, cheer us on and see if we attain our goal of ZERO WASTE! Check out our monthly competitions, special offers and monthly challenge too! Join in the fun, but remember, this is a serious issue that is crucial for the welfare of our planet.
Loading ...
Good reference site against incineration. Information, articles local groups and up to date news. ukwin Including map showing all proposed and existing incinerationsites in the UK