Stop Wales Subsidising Incineration

A group of concerned environmentalists and scientists from FOE Cymru met with Jane Davidsons Phoney consumer group promoting incineration that is Waste Awareness Misinformation Wales yesterday.

• they pointed out in detail that the opinion poll had a strong pro-incineration slant.
• the previous opinion poll found that in one area of Wales, the public favoured MBT(Mech & Biol-Treatments) over incineration, but they excluded MBT from their poll.
• they pointed out the claims that significant energy could ge generated from waste are wrong - even Covanta's huge Merthyr proposal would generate a tiny 60MW compared with Aberthaw's 1450 MW.

The deputation established that WAW is wholly funded and steered by WAG and sees
its role as delivering WAG's plans - which are

 a) to delay the 70% recycling till 2025 even though many countries and regions are already achieving or approaching this level,  

b) to burn waste rather than produce biogas for domestic use, and
c) to subsidise incineration instead of allowing MBT at half the cost, with use of products
in land reclamation and enhancing forestry/coppicing.

The deputation outlined FoE Cymru's critique of WAG's change in waste policy from minimising incineration and landfill to the present one of promoting and subsiding incineration over landfill. This critique and the real 'zero waste' policy were commissioned from PIC consultants. They pointed out that such an alternative that maximises recyclables and  reclaims compostables through MBT (mechanical and bio-techniques) has been
adopted in Ireland, where an international, team showed it to be sound. In comparison, WAG's policy is unsound, using poor computer software to get very questionble pro-incinerator results. WAG's officials (Andy Rees & co) must know that as they have failed to defend their results against FOE's thorough and convincing critique.

Waste Awareness Misinformation Wales said that they are an arm of WAG and that their 'survey' (Wales would like to burn not bury waste) was at the behest of Andy Rees, Jasper Roberts and co of WAG. We told them that not only was the survey loaded but the results falsified since, in fact people in the focus groups they had expressed strong worries about pollution of the air from burning!
Why is the Welsh Assembly Government giving incineration and Prosiect Gwyrdd a subsidy of £9 million/yr which they propose to extend through out Wales.
In the meantime, WAG's waste £1 million/yr on the propaganda outfit Welsh Awareness Wales - WAW
Meanwhile the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA refuse to go for 'high recycling' pre-2020and are trying to lock us into expensive incinerator

project green means incinerator or incinerator or incinerator or incinerator

Dear Prosiect Gwyrdd  Incinerator Management Team. So much for "technology neutral" with your four chosen ones. Incinerator or incinerator or incinerator or incinerator.
As we have said all along Prosiect 'Gwyrdd' = Project Incinerator 1. Covanta, Merthyr - 2.Veolia Newport 3.Viridor Cardiff  4.'Waste Recycling Group Ltd' Newport
Cllr Mark Stephens chair of joint committee "We acknowledge and are grateful for the financial assistance provided by WAG which allows us to develop the infrastructure and capacity to meet these challenging targets.” Jane Daivdson Lab minister for the destruction of the environemtn is supporting this and Funding has been secured from WAG through the Outline Business Case (OBC) and will
contribute 25% of the future gate fee.

Ignore recycling targets says WAG spokesperson

Welsh Assembly misinformation spokesperson is telling Councillors ...increasing recycling would cost more....than incineration??? But Incineration IS the most expensive option. And the 70% target is not ambitious and saying the target is not urgent ...actually implying don't bother. "70% target was only due to come into force by 2025...WLGA members aware... that the implication that 70% is an immediate target is incorrect."

Came across this in the story.below .More incineration lobby news...attacking recycling ...a disgrace that Jane Davidson boasts of better recycling targets yet the WAG spokesperson is saying they don't really matter and giving green light to LAs to ignore them. Recycling is cheaper and creates more badly needed jobs.. ..needs a little more creative thinking... but it seems the Welsh Government Association are too cosy with the lobbyists and incinerator builders..See the buddies here http://www.wasteawareness.org/pm/162

That story.. Recycling ‘too expensive’ for Welsh authorities 8th November 2010

The Welsh Assembly Government has ambitious plans to increase recycling targets to 70 per cent.
However, the Welsh Government Association (WLGA) has voiced concerns that reaching such an ambitious target would cost councils an extra £30m a year. (Wrong see pfi costs) This has led to fears that other public services could suffer.
(Prof Connett A rational policy would give rebates for waste reduction and recycling while surcharging incineration and particularly its ash. Incinerator ash is toxic so the professor criticised the UK for charging only £3 per tonne for landfilling ash, instead of £40 per tonne on normal landfilling of waste.Professor Dr Paul Connett http://cardiffagainsttheincinerator.blogspot.com/ )

A 40 per cent recycling target has already been met, and EU regulations only require 50 per cent.
Aled Roberts, the leader of Wrexham council, said: “Local authorities are committed to increasing the recycling of waste. “On average we are currently recycling around 40 per cent, which is a great improvement on 7 per cent which was achieved in 2000-01.

“As local authorities we recognise our responsibility to the future of the planet and are committed to increasing the rate of recycling as far as possible, in light of all our other responsibilities.” A spokeswoman for the Assembly Government said the 70% target was only due to come into force by 2025. She said: “We worked closely with WLGA members to set this target, so they will be aware that the implication that 70% is an immediate target is incorrect. “There are good reasons behind this figure. Seventy percent recycling is cost-effective, because recycling is cheaper than land-filling and because it means we will avoid landfill taxes.”

Prof Connett sees 'zero-waste' as largely achieved by 2020.

He reported not only Flanders' 75% recycling but also progress in Italy with 2000 communities signed up and 200 of them already reaching 70%. The Welsh Minister's claim to be leading in sustainability is rendered nonsensical by deferring 70% recycling to the long-term – not even by 2015 or 2020, but only by 2025 do they aim to reach 70%.

See also WAG offering bribes to councils

 Nova Scotia (Canada) they diverted 50% of waste from landfill in 5 years (Halifax diverted 60%), created1000 jobs in collection and treatment of recyclables and compostables, and a further 2000 jobs created in the industries handling the recovered materials.