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

[Gary Liss <gary@no.address>]

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---