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

[RicAnthony@no.address]

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 Governmentâs  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. DEFRAâs current review proposes a maximum 
target of 50% by 2020, a  level that the UKâs 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.    
DEFRAâs 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]_ 
(aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftn1)  
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]_ 
(aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftn2) 
    *   the fact that electricity-only  incinerators generate 33% more fossil 
CO2 than the gas fired power stations  that they would replace. _[3]_ 
(aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftn3)     
    *   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 âgrey energyâ  embodied in the materials 
they burn increases the need for new energy intensive  virgin materials.  
The playing field of waste management policy  â both in terms of the 
structure of incentives and the process of decisions on  disposal â is tilted towards 
incineration. Whereas stabilised residues from MBT  that are landfilled are 
subject to the full landfill tax, bottom ash from  incinerators is classed as 
inert, and charged only Â2 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]_ 
(aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftn4)   
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  ârefuse-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  Treasuryâs 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 Â12 per tonne, and Â6 for 
incinerators incorporating CHP (in line  with the findings of the Customs and 
Excise Review Study)_[5]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftn5) 
    *   Charge incinerator bottom ash  at the full level of landfill tax, 
rather than the Â2 a tonne which it  currently enjoys by virtue of its 
unwarranted classification as inert waste,  while reducing the landfill tax to Â6 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]_ 
(aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftn6)  â 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 Unitâs 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 Unitâs  Review. 
Zero Waste Alliance 
11th July 2006 

 
____________________________________

_[1]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftnref1)   Defra (2006) Review of 
Englandâs Waste  Strategy: A Consultation Document, February 2006. Its wording 
is: ÂâEfW  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]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftnref2)  Eunomia, A  Changing 
Climate for Energy from Waste, Friends of the Earth, May  2006.
 
_[3]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftnref3)  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 Governmentâs 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]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftnref4)  DEFRAâs lack of clarity on 
MBT residues and composting  requirements is a further discouragement to 
disposal authorities seeking an  alternative to incineration.
 
_[5]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftnref5)  HM  Customs & Excise (2004) 
Combining the Governmentâs Two Health and  Environment Studies to Calculate 
Estimates for the External Costs of Landfill  and Incineration, December 2004
 
_[6]_ (aoldb://mail/write/template.htm#_ftnref6)  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. 




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