WAG waste plan = incineration plan

Max writes to the Westyern Mail re 27 July, Friends of Earth rubbishes waste incineration plan...

What cheek of the WAG spokesman to claim “the most ambitious recycling plan of all the UK administrations” ! (W

Their Waste Plan started off aiming for 70% recycling levels which Flanders and parts of Germany are already reaching, but set 2025 as the date, the same as Scotland. But then WAG decided to make Wales unique by declaring use of incinerator ash as aggregate could be called recycling.

So the comparison is – Scotland aims for 70% real cycling, 25% cap on incineration; Wales aims for 63% real recycling, 37% cap on incineration.

Far from being ambitious on recycling, WAG has deferred the target past the lifetime of most politicians and sets out to be most ambitious on incineration. You rightly headline it "waste incineration plan".

Evidently, their promotion of Covanta’s plans for Merthyr, for the biggest incinerator in Europe, was not a flash in the pan. Rather it shows the dominance in WAG of those who want to build a generation of incinerators in Wales.

They need a lot of domestic waste as feedstock. Hence they refused the aim for high levels of recycling, set at 80% or more by their consultants (Eunomia). They put off the target date till 2025, instead of the initial and unambitious 2020. And then downgraded the 70% to an effective 63%.

These figures are not in the main consultation documents, but hidden in the small print of the “Future Directions…” auxiliary paper. None of the Consultation questions ask the public if we want more waste treatment (biostabilisation and sorting) and higher recycling targets.

Assembly politicians should be ashamed of what WAG is foisting on Wales in the guise of ‘ambitious recycling’.

Note Worrying promotion of incineration

WAG Approval of the business case and subsidy for Prosiect Gwyrdd, 27 Jan. 2009:

New funding boost for next generation energy-from-waste plant in south Wales

The Minister depicted Prosiect Gwyrdd as "producing much needed energy" that would "use waste in the best possible way", despite the consortium claiming their Business case for procuring a ‘solution’ for residual waste is technology-neutral (www.prosiectgwyrdd.gov.uk)

Scam green duff recycling targets

Friends of Earth rubbishes waste incineration plan

Jul 27 2009 by David Williamson, Western Mail

WALES is lagging behind the efforts of other countries in the race to embrace recycling and eliminate waste, Friends of the Earth Cymru claimed today.

It criticised the Assembly Government’s waste strategy for not going far enough to meet the challenges of climate change and diminishing resources.

The charity described the draft strategy as a “step in the right direction” but called for more ambitious recycling targets and a far greater emphasis on reducing waste.

A WAG spokesman, however, said they believed theirs is the most ambitious recycling plan of all the UK administrations.

Friends of the Earth Cymru also wants Environment Minister Jane Davidson to abandon incineration as an option for dealing with waste.

The group claimed that keeping incineration on the table “seriously risks undermining targets for recycling and waste reduction”.

Gordon James, director of Friends of the Earth Cymru, said: “While the Assembly Government’s target of achieving 70% recycling by 2025 is a step in the right direction, we have to be more ambitious.

“Parts of Europe, such as Flanders and Germany, are already achieving this rate, so we believe we should be aiming for

70% recycling by 2015 and 80% by 2020.

“We also want to see a much greater emphasis on waste reduction. Wales could become a zero waste nation, in which residual waste has been eliminated by 2030 rather than the proposed target of 2050.

“This is far too long to wait given the current environmental problems we face. Bold and urgent action is necessary now.”

His call was echoed by Jake Griffiths, leader of the Wales Green Party, who urged the Assembly Government to go further and support not just recycling but reusable packaging.

He said a return to the widespread use of bottles would mean more people would drink locally produced milk.

Milk contained in plastic cartons, he argued, was more likely to have been transported over a long distance, and the plastic might be sent as far away as China to be recycled.

He did not believe that more use of incineration would help encourage recycling and called for bolder targets.

“We don’t think they’ve been ambitious enough,” he said. “Other countries are way ahead of us.”

Friends of the Earth’s Mr James also supports greater reuse of packaging.

He said: “The Assembly Government’s own consultants have stated that it is fundamental that recycling becomes an option for waste management only after reduction and reuse. Without significant waste reduction, even 70% recycling by 2025 would fail to meet the Assembly Government’s own target to reduce Wales’ ‘ecological footprint’ to a fair 1.88 global hectares per person.”

Mr James went on to highlight Friends of the Earth Cymru’s concerns about the inclusion of incineration. Proposals to build incinerators in Cardiff, Barry and Merthyr Tydfil have all ignited controversy.

He said: “Incineration should not be part of any waste strategy. It is not a green technology as it produces toxic ash, emits excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, and its use would weaken incentives to reduce waste and boost recycling.

“The case for incineration is based on the unrealistic assumption that all residual waste could be incinerated and that all the ash is reusable.”

“In practice, less than 50% of the ash could be used and a significant amount of this would be hazardous waste.

“There are no suitable landfill sites for these residues in Wales, so they would need to be exported elsewhere.”

Friends of the Earth argues that Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) systems should be used to process residual waste.

Mr James said: “While it is encouraging that the Assembly Government is addressing how we need to deal with our waste, there is still a lot of work to do if we are going to transform Wales into a truly zero waste society.”

A Welsh Assembly Government spokesman said: “We welcome all contributions to our consultation which comes to an end next week. We believe this is the most ambitious recycling plan among all the administrations of the UK.

“We want to see Wales become a zero waste nation by 2050 so that products and services are designed so that they reduce or reuse waste as far as possible.”

Prosiect Gwyrdd 'GREEN'wash is out of date on motivation, waste data and policy,

Project Green should go green asp!! Project Green = Project incinerator

Fib dems /Plaid Prosiect Gwyrdd 'GREEN'wash is out of date on motivation, waste data and policy, it would fail tests for soundness, including (non)consistency with Cardiff's waste policy.

The biggest inconsistency is the claim to meet the residual waste level of 150kg /person/year.

..arguments about uncertainties, figures going up and down each year, are skewered by this number. Current population (830 000) times 150kg gives 125 000 t/yr (perhaps 140 000t/yr with some population growth) far below the 220 000 t/yr of P Gwyrdd.

No big Burner required!!

- the single big facility (incinerator) is likely to be old technology, cutting out the newer methods for extracting materials and value from residual waste.

- their out-of-date projections assumed continual growth in residual waste - it’s now reducing with a WAG target 40% lower (PG needs the high level to make incineration a 'viable proposition')

- they ignore the landfill needed for the ‘reference’ incinerator, for non-combustible materials and for thousands of tonnes of incinerator ash

- they assume all incinerator bottom ash to be re-used in building, yet much of it will be hazardous waste (the EU’s waste incineration regulations are beginning to bite)

- they excluded the cheapest, most flexible and environmentally preferred Mechanical+Biological treatments (MBT) stabilising biowastes for soils (WAG was planning to ban this but have now changed policy, over to using quality protocols as in England)

- they have pushed through the policy without public consultation, afraid of the anti-incineration backlash, so have no public consent to this hugely costly gamble.

It was not just Prosiect Gwyrdd, but also WAG that went off course, chasing incinerators. Now WAG’s defeat over banning MBT-output to soil or landfill and their dismissal of incinerator ash and dioxin issues leaves PG on an unsound basis.

PG really wantes to be technology-neutral and flexible, it should go for

* preference for flexible projects, less than 10 years (as Sterecycle’s autoclave)

* reduce the guideline tonnage from 220 000t to a realistic level (under 140 000t/yr)

* any incinerator bid to meet the efficiency standard and deal with its hazardous ashes

* high importance to carbon footprint, assessed on the international (IPCC) methods

The consultants’ report for Friends of the Earth “A changing climate for Energy from Waste?” 2006 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/changing_climate.pdf was important in showing the way to a non-incinerating strategy.

The study for Ireland (with a similar mix of industrial and rural areas to Wales)

Greenstar 2008,

“Meeting Ireland’s Waste Targets: The Role of MBT”,

shows that MBT is environmentally much preferable in switching from landfill into high recycling and waste treatment. WAG says it wants to do this but has been diverted into incinerators.

Cardiff Planning Committee say NO to Viridor incinerator

The Cardiff Planning Committee rejected the Viridor application for an
incinerator today by seven votes to two with one abstention.

This is great news and is a tribute to all the hard work we have
put in over the past months in leafleting and lobbying.

The Splott Councillors, Gavin Cox and Martin Holland are over
the moon.

However, the reason given for the committee rejecting the application
could have been stronger and Viridor are likely to lodge an appeal to the
Assembly. so we will need to keep working on this to ensure that the appeal
is rejected.