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.

Welsh Assembly phoney consumer website

Greenwash and spin? In Wales the Welsh Assembly Government have set up at great cost a Phoney 'consumer' web site Waste Awarenss Lies Wales to promote incineration. "Wales says burn don’t bury our rubbish" Why is Jane Davidson pretending to be 'green'?
Burning is not an option. Burning is not a sustainable or environmental friendly option For a  a just, toxic-free world without incineration click here 

WAG offering bribes to councils

Cllr Mrs Anne Blackman "WAG is just offering bribes to councils to do what WAG in its blinkered vision wants them to do, such as in the case of Project Gwyrdd. (project incinerator) Offering the councils in the scheme a hefty £9.25mln each year over the 25 year Contract. Totalling approx £230mln. WAG must think money grows on trees.
I would like to get in touch with more people who think like me, but I regret to say WAG is not allowing such debate and investigation to take place. " anneblackman@caerphilly.gov.uk
Anne Blackman, who represents part of the Nelson ward, recently resigned from the Liberal Democrat Party

Jane Davidson Lies and Greenwash

Wales says burn don’t bury our rubbish - No it MUSTN'T

Bury or burn is a false debate - Real recycling is the only true way forward.
Why do have we a whole organisation with website funded by WAG to promote  misinformation?

Burning/Incineration is not 'sustainable'
 
The European Union has a waste hierarchy which goes like this.
First reduce. Then re-use. Recycle next. And if you absolutely have to, then incinerate or dump. Wales now has one too and it is legally binding not a 'guide' as Waste Awarenss Lies Wales  tells you.
Most countries heed it well - with Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands recycling 60% of their waste. The UK has a plastics recycling rate of only 3%. In Germany the recycling rate for plastic is 70%.

Wales this week agreed a statutory recycling target of 70% by 2024/25 (see letsrecycle.com story) but councils are using phoney figures  to up their recycling rates. Cardiff has a comingled collection for recycling and quotes those  figures claiming that is the amount recycled. However it omits to mention the high volume of the 'recycling' collection that is of poor quality.  Recycling collection must result in materials of sufficiently high quality to be recycled.  And shamefully Cardiff Council collects 'bulk' rubbish  from homes and sends it all to landfill. Jane Davidson lab AM minister for rubbish does not unfortunately 'intend to issue any guidance on the type or methodology of collection in the future' (more here)

More jobs less  waste Number of potential new recycling jobs Wales 2617 says

FOE report on Recycling and Reuse versus Landfill and Incineration Jobs

The economic and employment benefits associated with sorting, reprocessing and recycling, in comparison to incineration or disposal to landfill, have been highlighted by a number of studies from the US (CASCADIA, 2009) and in the UK (Gray,2002; WRAP, 2006; WRAP, 2009).

Although landfilling and incineration still involve larger volumes, recycling now

generates more than twice the revenue of the waste management industry because recycling recovers greater economic value bound up in discarded products and equipment.

Per tonne of material processed, recycling provides approximately ten times more jobs than landfilling and incineration.

Incinerators only actually burn about 70% of what is put in.

The remaining 30% - some of which is highly toxic ash - has to be, you guessed it... buried

Up in smoke: why Friends of the Earth opposes incineration,

more info here in Friends of the Earth 2007,

None of this information is on the phoney 'consumer' web site  Waste Awarenss Lies Wales 

funded by WAG. Partners are Environment Agency Wales..

Questions to WAG over INCINERATOR funding

Dear Mr Roberts,
Under the Capital Access Fund, you awarded Prosiect Gwyrdd Incinerator 70% of costs up to £200k for each of 2007 and 2008 (there was presumably slippage to 2008-09). In the Accounts it says
“2.3 In addition, it should be noted that the expenditure incurred during the initial accounting period (prior to the Joint Committee being established) was funded fully from WAG Grant. "
Could you therefore explain whether the 70% fraction was waived at any stage?
Secondly, the accounts show a big jump in WAG grant in 2009, with £482 772 attributed to the year, which contributed to a big surplus. Would you please disclose an audit trail relating to the awarding of this new or additional grant, including documents on the terms/application for it plus papers in the approval process?
Note
Bid info from bid-information when they first announced Regional Capital Access Funding for waste projects, which required Councils join the consortia and couldn't cover MBT that was deemed to be a part
solution. As they pretended incinerators don't produce toxic ash needing landfill, they were defined
as acceptable for RCAF.
UKWIN on Wales Waste Strategy 2009-2050.