GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]


[GreenYes] Re: Zero Waste Declaration July 2006 Zero Waste Alliance (UK) review and comment


The reference to the Zero Waste Alliance at the
end will be corrected to state "Zero Waste
International Alliance (see www.zwia.org).

ZWIA request that others agree to SIGN-ON and
send their names and affiliations to Mal Williams
at <mal.williams@no.address> to add on ASAP.

Thanks!

Gary Liss

At 05:18 PM 8/1/2006, RicAnthony@no.address wrote:

>Zero Waste Declaration July 2006
>
>In July 2002 the Zero Waste Charter was launched
>at the House of Commons, and has since received
>wide national and international backing. It
>argued that there was a growing environmental
>imperative for the reduction, recycling and composting of waste to reduce:
>
>
> * the dangers to human health of incinerators and landfills,
>
>
> * CO2 emissions,
>
>
> * the pressure on virgin forests, on
> minerals and on rapidly degrading soils.
>
>
>
>The 10 point charter set out a strategy for
>moving to Zero Waste in the UK, notably by:
>
>
> * maximising the recycling of dustbin and of bulky waste,
>
>
> * introducing the doorstep collection of
> organic waste and a composting infrastructure
>
>
> * banning the thermal treatment of mixed
> waste and the landfilling of untreated biological waste
>
>
> * limiting waste disposal authorities to 10
> year contracts to ensure flexible facilities to
> complement the growth of recycling and composting
>
>
> * introducing a disposal tax and earmarking
> its proceeds to promote Zero Waste.
>
>
> * accelerating and extending producer responsibility legislation
>
>
>
>After the launch of the Charter, the
>Governmentâ??s Strategy Unit supported many of
>the principles of the Charter. It led to a
>radical increase in the landfill tax. It
>supported recycling and composting, secured
>funding for WRAP, and for the first time
>recommended Mechanical and Biological Treatment
>as an alternative to incineration and landfill
>as a means of handling residual waste.
>
>
>
>But it left a bridge half built. And policy has
>in the meantime slipped back to its previous
>groove: timid on targets, and a promoter of incineration.
>
>
>
>Climate change will not be countered by limited
>ambition. Leading countries in Europe are now
>recycling and composting 65% of their municipal
>waste. The UK remains a straggler. Recycling has
>doubled in four years, but still stands at no
>more than 23% in 2005. DEFRAâ??s current review
>proposes a maximum target of 50% by 2020, a
>level that the UKâ??s best authorities are
>already meeting. This sets the bar too low. It offers too little, too late.
>
>
>
>Nor will the radical reduction of CO2 emissions
>be achieved by measures which hold back
>recycling and composting and promote
>incineration. Yet this has been the consistent
>thread of Government policy since the Strategy Unit Review:
>
>
> * The UK government has become notorious in
> Europe for their opposition to the Bio Waste
> directive within the EU, and has succeeded in having it shelved
>
>
> * The Animal By Products Order has set
> levels of treatment way beyond those operating
> in the rest of the EU, raising the cost and
> discouraging the composting of domestic and commercial food waste
>
>
> * The Government has been active in pressing
> the EU Commission to redefine incineration as a
> form of recovery rather than disposal
>
>
> * Funds for PFI waste disposal contracts
> have been increased, thus encouraging large
> scale, capital intensive disposal technologies and 20-25 year contracts.
>
>
> * The Government has proposed long term
> national targets for incineration, but only
> modest short term recycling and composting
> targets for individual local authorities (a
> maximum of 30% for 2007/8). It has thereby
> removed a constraint on disposal authorities
> from crowding out recycling and composting by
> the construction of large scale incinerators.
>
>
> * The escalating landfill tax coupled with
> LATS, without graduated taxes on other forms of
> disposal, encourages a switch from landfill to
> other disposal options rather than the
> maximisation of recycling and composting.
>
>
> * DEFRA has substituted a tick box
> sustainability appraisal for the Best Practical
> Environmental Option, which has facilitated
> proposals for incineration at public enquiries
>
>
> * The DTI has approved the proposal for a
> giant incinerator at Belvedere in East London
> (upto 800,000 tonnes, making it the largest
> incinerator in Europe), in spite of massive
> local opposition. It has thereby created a long
> term appetite for recyclable paper and plastic
> from Greater London, and at the same time
> provided a stimulus to proposals for similar
> giant schemes throughout the country, in the
> context of Government policy to more than treble incinerator capacity.
>
>
>
>DEFRAâ??s current Review is strong on the
>rhetoric of recycling, but it fails to will the
>means. It remains a charter for incineration not
>for Zero Waste. It argues for incineration as a
>means of countering climate change on two
>grounds: that it replaces methane producing
>landfill, and that it substitutes carbon neutral
>electricity production for fossil fuel power stations. [1]
>
>
>
>But it under-estimates:
>
>
> * The loss of stored up energy embodied in
> recyclable materials prematurely incinerated
> (notably paper, stabilised organic waste and plastic).
>
>
>
>And it takes no account of:
>
>
> * the capture of methane from landfill,
> which at the high rates assumed elsewhere by
> DEFRA makes landfill broadly comparable in
> terms of net CO2 emissions to electricity-only incineration.[2]
>
>
> * the fact that electricity-only
> incinerators generate 33% more fossil CO2 than
> the gas fired power stations that they would replace. [3]
>
>
> * the sequestration of carbon in depleting
> soils through the application of compost, or
> stabilised residues from MBT plants.
>
>
> * the lifecycle energy costs involved (and
> the waste generated) in the production of the incinerators themselves
>
>
>
>Incinerators are producers of brown energy not
>green. They do not reduce green house gas
>emissions but increase them, both because of the
>overall CO2 emissions at their strikingly low
>current levels of efficiency of 25% or less, and
>because their destruction of the â??grey
>energyâ?? embodied in the materials they burn
>increases the need for new energy intensive virgin materials.
>
>
>
>The playing field of waste management policy ?
>both in terms of the structure of incentives and
>the process of ddecisions on disposal ? is
>tilted towards incineration. Whereas stabilised
>residdues from MBT that are landfilled are
>subject to the full landfill tax, bottom ash
>from incinerators is classed as inert, and charged only £2 a ton.
>
>
>
>Far from facing a graduated tax as a means of
>disposal, incinerators receive more Government
>funding, and have greater access to private
>finance, than recycling or
>composting. Accordingly they remain the
>technologies of choice for disposal authorities
>which the Government have left with the decisive
>institutional power in municipal waste management.[4]
>
>
>
>Even where, because of public opposition,
>disposal authorities have fought shy of
>incineration or its modern variants pyrolysis
>and gasification, they have continued to
>negotiate 20-25 year inflexible contracts,
>incorporating Mechanical and Biological
>Treatment (MBT) plants, that produce
>â??refuse-derived fuelâ?? as a feedstock. They
>have made MBT, a potentially more flexible means
>of stabilising residual organic waste and
>suitable for the transition to Zero Waste, into
>a processing arm for incineration, and a barrier
>rather than a support to Zero Waste strategies.
>
>
>
>Zero Waste policies have had to swim against the
>institutional and policy tide, rather than being
>carried along by it. The Zero Waste Alliance
>therefore urges the Government and local
>authorities, to re-orient their policies in the
>direction of Zero Waste, in line with leading
>regional and national governments overseas, and
>further to the 10 points of the original
>charter, adopt the following specific measures:
>
>
> * Set long terms recycling and composting
> targets of 60% for all local authorities by
> 2015, along with waste minimisation targets, to
> prevent their crowding out by local and
> regional long term disposal contracts
>
>
> * Press the EU to introduce the Bio Waste
> Directive, and its requirement for kerbside
> kitchen waste collections in all cities, towns
> and villages with over 1,500 population
>
>
> * Switch the government subsidy of PFI
> schemes to the start up costs of food waste
> collection, as part of the Treasuryâ??s
> forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review
>
>
> * Extend the grant of carbon credits to
> recycling and composting to reflect their
> impact on the reduction of CO2 emissions from
> the production of virgin materials
>
>
> * Recognise incineration as a form of
> disposal rather than recovery, in line with the
> EU Waste Framework Directive and rulings of the European Court of Justice
>
>
> * Fund a major research programme to
> identify the hazards of nano particles and
> particulate aerosols that arise from the burning of mixed waste
>
>
> * Introduce an incineration tax of at least
> £12 per tonne, and £6 for incinerators
> incorporating CHP (in line with the findings of
> the Customs and Excise Review Study)[5]
>
>
> * Charge incinerator bottom ash at the full
> level of landfill tax, rather than the £2 a
> tonne which it currently enjoys by virtue of
> its unwarranted classification as inert waste,
> while reducing the landfill tax to £6 a tonne
> for bio-degradable waste stabilised to EU recognised levels.
>
>
> * Require compulsory insurance against
> future pollution and health claims for all disposal and recovery facilities
>
>
> * Re-introduce BPEO as a planning criteria for waste applications
>
>
>
>The past four years have not been wasted. The
>ground for a radical increase in recycling and
>composting is now prepared. St Edmundsbury has
>become the first council to pass the 50%
>recycling and composting target. The leading
>continental and North American authorities are
>now reaching 75%. They mark the path to Zero Waste.
>
>
>
>The imperative of climate change has, too, at
>last been unequivocally recognised by
>scientists, by the media and now by all major
>political parties. But it has yet to be
>reflected in waste policy. In spite of the
>evidence that recycling and composting lead to
>major CO2 savings relative to incineration and
>landfill - WRAP estimates the savings of current
>levels of recycling and composting at 10-15
>million tonnes of carbon equivalent per year[6]
>? and in spite of its higher CO2 emissions
>relative to gas fired electricity generation,
>the Government is still promoting
>electricity-only incineration as a source of green energy.
>
>
>
>What is required is return to the boldness of
>the Strategy Unitâ??s policy, and a shift of
>finance and incentives towards composting and
>recycling. Climate Change policy calls for it.
>The Government should respect the evidence, free
>itself from the disposal centred traditional
>waste industry, and complete the work that was
>left half finished after the Strategy Unitâ??s Review.
>
>
>
>
>
>Zero Waste Alliance
>
>11th July 2006
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[1] Defra (2006) Review of Englandâ??s Waste
>Strategy: A Consultation Document, February
>2006. Its wording is: ·â??EfW reduces emissions
>of greenhouse gases in two ways: because the
>wastes could otherwise go to landfill and
>generate methane; and because emissions from the
>biomass fraction of the waste, which are
>carbon-neutral, are likely to replace those from fossil generation.â?? p.60
>
>
>
>[2] Eunomia, A Changing Climate for Energy from
>Waste, Friends of the Earth, May 2006.
>
>[3] Eunomia, op.cit. By 2020 forecast advances
>in power station technology and the growing
>proportion of plastic in residual waste means
>that energy only incinerators will be 78% worse
>than gas power stations, and broadly comparable
>even to new or refitted coal power stations. The
>Eunomia report contains a valuable critique of
>the ERM Report for DEFRA which has been used to
>justify the Governmentâ??s incinerator policy,
>see pp.74 sq. and ERM (2006) Impact of Energy
>from Waste and Recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse
>Gas Emissions, Final Report for Defra, January 2006.
>
>[4] DEFRAâ??s lack of clarity on MBT residues
>and composting requirements is a further
>discouragement to disposal authorities seeking an alternative to incineration.
>
>[5] HM Customs & Excise (2004) Combining the
>Governmentâ??s Two Health and Environment
>Studies to Calculate Estimates for the External
>Costs of Landfill and Incineration, December 2004
>
>[6] WRAP, Environmental Benefits of Recycling.
>An international review of life cycle
>comparisons for key materials in the UK
>recycling sector, May 2006. The study was based
>on a comparative review of 55 international life
>cycle studies, assessing 200 scenarios.
>
>
Gary Liss & Associates
916-652-7850
Fax: 916-652-0485
www.garyliss.com

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/GreenYes
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]