Another Veolia 'ethical' practice - supporting illegal occupation

Veolia is currently involved in building a light railway linking Israeli colonies in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Jerusalem; human rights groups have protested about this for some time and some financial institutions have divested/considered divesting from Veolia as a result.

Now it transpires that Veolia is also involved in dumping Israeli waste on Palestinian territory. The writer is an Israeli human rights advocate.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10027.shtml

Veolia involved in Israel's waste dumping in West Bank
Adri Nieuwhof, The Electronic Intifada, 16 December 2008

At the entrance of the Tovlan landfill, located beside the Jordan River in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), three flags fly proudly: those of Israel, France and the European company, Veolia. Through its Onyx subsidiary, Veolia, which is also constructing the Jerusalem light rail project on occupied Palestinian land, is managing the Tovlan landfill. In a 2004 year report on sustainable development, Veolia announced that its subsidiary Onyx brought "the new Tovlan landfill into service in Israel." Prior to that time, Tovlan was an old, unsanitary waste dump.

Veolia has a history of juggling with names. In 2005 Onyx became Veolia Environmental Services, also operating in Israel under the name TMM Onyx. Research by the Coalition of Women for Peace confirms that the Tovlan landfill is owned and operated by TMM, a company that is 100 percent owned by Veolia Environmental Services Israel.

Consistent with its activities in the light rail project, Veolia claims that the Tovlan landfill is located in Israel, rather than in the OPT. According to Israel's Ministry of Environment Protection there are 18 authorized landfills, including the Tovlan and Abu Dis landfills located in the occupied West Bank. The Tovlan site is managed by the Israeli settlement regional council of Biqat Hayarden, which covers 21 settlements. It is mainly used as a dump for solid waste from Israeli municipalities and the illegal settlements of Ariel, Maale Efrayim, the Regional Councils of Megilot, Biqat Hayarden and Shomron as well as the Barkan Industrial Park.

Although located on Palestinian land, Tovlan landfill hardly serves Palestinian communities. Instead, it is used by Israel for dumping waste from the illegal Israeli settlements built on Palestinian land in the West Bank. Tovlan accounts for 14 percent of Israel's solid waste dumped in landfills, or 602,766 tons annually. In 2006, dumping one ton of waste at the site cost around 40 shekels ($10), a price Palestinian municipalities can hardly afford. In addition to the dumping charge a substantial amount is required for the transportation of waste, whereby trucks are hindered by the numerous Israeli checkpoints located throughout the West Bank.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice stated that Israel should dismantle the settlements built in the OPT. Instead, Israel has accelerated the expansion of settlements. After Veolia's involvement in the Jerusalem light rail project, intended to transport settlers to and from the city, the company now assists Israel in "solving" the problem of waste from the settlements. With the Tovlan "sanitary" landfill in the OPT, Veolia leaves Palestine with an unacceptable scar of garbage in the Jordan Valley, a monument to the company being on the wrong track yet again.

Adri Nieuwhof is a consultant and human rights advocate.

For more information about Veolia's track record in Israel/Palestine and other countries, email safe_waste_shropshire@yahoo.com.

GIANT INCINERATOR RUBBISHED

A timely warning from Wales.

Meanwhile, Veolia's application for an incinerator at Battlefield is expected to be submitted in 'Mid January' and SITA's application for the Granville incinerator is already in. Keep watching this site and the local media for more details and for help with objecting. People who want to object to the Granville incinerator should look at: http://www.nogranville.blogspot.com/ as a matter of urgency.

It is vital that members of the public object to incineration. If the people responsible for our health and well-being get away with building the incinerators at Battlefield and Granville, we will be paying the price for decades to come with our health and pockets.

Don't believe the hype: incinerators are not safe, clean or the only alternative to landfill. They can be stopped. Read our site, follow the links for more information. Get informed and HELP STOP INCINERATION IN SHROPSHIRE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newswales.co.uk/?section=Environment&F=1&id=15783

Cardiff giant incinerator rubbished 10/12/2008

A hugely over-sized and polluting waste incinerator plant could be coming to Cardiff if plans submitted to the City Council are given the go-ahead, says the environmental campaigning organization Cardiff Friends of the Earth.

The council received the planning application from waste management company Viridor on November 27 for an incinerator in Trident Park, Cardiff Bay.The timing of the application means that any objections have to be submitted to the planning department by Christmas Eve for a decision early in the New Year.

Heather Webber of Cardiff Friends of the Earth said: "Hauling huge amounts of rubbish around the country to be burnt is not a sensible, or sustainable, waste solution."This incinerator is massively over-sized, and would release dangerous emissions and increase congestion and pollution in Wales' capital city."If this incinerator is given the go-ahead, there will be more than 250 large lorries rumbling through Cardiff every day - feeding the incinerator's demands for a third of a million tonnes of rubbish a year."

Incineration is supposed to be the answer to keeping waste out of landfill, but for the environment, burning rubbish is worse than burying it."There are other, sustainable solutions available - incineration on this scale is absolutely not necessary, will hit recycling rates, and won't be able to adapt to the changing demands of the future."

The timing of the submission in the busy run-up to Christmas would appear to be a cynical move by Viridor to avoid public objection."If we don't want Cardiff to become the waste capital of Wales, residents urgently need to contact the planning department with their concerns."

Vote for Caroline Jackson MEP - environment MEP paid by incineration firm

SHE CAME SECOND!!

http://www.worstlobby.eu/2008/home

Caroline Jackson, Member of the European Parliament

Nominated for her twin roles as an elected representative dealing with environmental issues and as an appointed environmental advisor to a private waste management company, Shanks.

Jackson chaired the Committee on Environment, Consumer Protection and Public Health between 1999 and 2004, and is the UK Conservative Party Environment Spokesperson in Europe. Jackson is paid £6000 as a member of the Shanks environmental advisory board (EAB), a position she still holds.

In 2005/6 Jackson acted as rapporteur for the Waste Framework Directive (WFD), a policy area that clearly interests her private sector employers Shanks plc.

The chair of Shank’s Environmental Advisory Board praised Jackson’s “wide knowledge of European legislation” which it said has “been a benefit to our work”. In the company’s 2006/07 report, Shanks attested “The EC waste framework directive is [...] being revised and as the MEP within the European Parliament responsible for the revision of the Directive, EAB member Caroline Jackson was able to keep us updated on progress during the year. This will have far-reaching implications for waste management and the EAB will consider its impacts on Shanks activities in the UK and mainland Europe.”

Michael Averill, Chief Executive of Shanks, was also the President of the European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services (FEAD) until February 2008, which represents the European waste management industry. FEAD ran a ‘consultancy group’ that looked at Jackson’s waste management report and lobbied Jackson three times. So Jackson, as the Rapporteur of a report on the waste framework directive, was lobbied by the industry group headed by the boss of a waste company where she is a consultant!

Despite this rather close relationship Jackson maintains that there is no conflict of interest as Shanks has no interest in incinerating waste. But Shanks website contradicts this, stating that it “remediates PCB and pesticide contaminated soil through high temperature incineration at dedicated facilities in the UK and the Netherlands.”

Vote for Jackson if you are opposed to elected representatives getting too close to private interests and compromising their ability to act in the public interest


Vote here:
http://www.worstlobby.eu/2008/vote/index/worstconflictofinterest

Additional information :
Too Close for Comfort?, Andy Rowell, Spinwatch, July 2008.
About Shanks. Background, Shanks Website, last visited 15 October 2008.
Declaration of Member’s Financial Interests 2007, Caroline Jackson.
MEP on waste company payroll, Andrew Bounds, Financial Times, 13 June 2008.
Safety, Health and Environment Report 2006/2007, Shanks Group.
FEAD Bulletin N°15, June 21 – November 10 2006, European Federation of Waste Management and Environmental Services.
Services. Remediation, Shanks website, last visited 15 October 2008.

UK National Waste Policy – A Bridge Half Built: A Zero Waste Alliance Declaration

Submission to the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee to examine Waste Strategy for England November, 2008

[PDF version at: http://www.zwallianceuk.org/html/declaration.pdf]

Zero Waste Alliance UK is a company registered by guarantee in England & Wales, company number 04452297, charity registered number 1122168 www.zwallianceuk.org

UK National Waste Policy - A Bridge Half Built
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 ear-marking its proceeds to promote Zero Waste.
accelerating and extending producer responsibility legislation

After the launch of the Charter, the Government’s Strategy Unit supported many of the principles of the Charter. It led to a radical increase in the landfill tax. It supported increased rates of recycling and composting, secured additional funding for WRAP to engage in waste prevention and recycling, 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 and regions in Europe are now recycling and composting 60% of their municipal waste. The UK remains a straggler. Recycling has doubled in four years, but still stands at no more than 23.5% in 2004/5. DEFRA’s current review proposes a maximum target of 50% by 2020, a level that the best UK authority is already meeting. This sets the bar too low. It offers too little too late.

Holding back recycling and composting and promoting incineration will not reduce CO2 emissions. Yet this has been the consistent thread of Government policy since the Strategy Unit Review:

The UK government is notorious in Europe for its opposition to the EU Bio waste directive, and has had it shelved . The UK Animal By-Products Regulations have 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 is pressing the EU Commission to redefine incineration as recovery rather than disposal

Funds for PFI waste disposal contracts have been increased, encouraging large scale, capital intensive disposal technologies and 20-25 year contracts and reducing the incentive to maximise recycling1

In proposing 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) Government encourages disposal authorities to crowd 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. In spite of massive local opposition the DTI has approved the proposal for a giant incinerator at Belvedere in East London (up to 800,000 tonnes, making it the largest incinerator in Europe), so creating a long term appetite for paper and plastic from Greater London, that should be recycled to save CO2 emissions. Belvedere’s approval sets a precedent for giant schemes throughout the country.

DEFRA’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. 2

But it under-estimates:

The loss of stored up energy embodied in recyclable materials prematurely incinerated (notably paper, aluminium, 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.3

the fact that electricity-only incinerators generate4 more fossil CO2 than gas fired power stations and more in total than coal power stations, while CHP or heat only incinerators are only marginally better than gas fired stations even if the heat is put to good use - not always possible even in areas like Scandinavia where the demand for heat is higher than in the UK5

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 ‘grey energy’ embodied in the materials they burn increases the need for new energy intensive virgin materials.

The incentive structure and the process of decisions on disposal of waste are 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 £2 a tonne.

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.6

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 ‘refusederived fuel’ as a feedstock. They have made MBT, a potentially more flexiblemeans 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 Alliance Proposals

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:

1. Set long term recycling and composting targets of 75% for all local authorities by 2015, (and a minimum of 60% for each individual local authority) along with waste minimisation targets, to prevent their crowding out by local and regional long term disposal contracts.

2. Press the EU to introduce the Biowaste Directive, and its requirement for kerbside kitchen waste collections in all cities, towns and villages with over 1,500 population.

3. Switch the government subsidy of PFI schemes to the start up costs of food waste collection and composting, as part of the Treasury’s forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review.

4. Extend the grant of carbon credits to recycling and composting to reflect their impact on the reduction of CO2 emissions generated by the production of virgin materials.

5. Extend Producer Responsibility Legislation to cover all materials in the household waste stream, and raise the targets for recycling of plastic packaging, glass and metals under existing legislation to those set by the leading countries in Europe.

6. Recognise incineration as disposal not recovery, in line with the EU Waste Framework Directive and rulings of the European Court of Justice.

7. Fund a major research programme to identify the hazards of nano particles, particulate aerosols, and brominated flame retardants that arise from the burning of mixed waste.

8. Introduce an incineration tax of at least £12 per tonne.

9. 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) and reduce the landfill tax to £6 a tonne for bio-degradable waste, stabilised to the levels set out in the 2nd draft of the Biowaste Directive.

10. Require compulsory insurance against future pollution and health claims for all disposal and recovery facilities.

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 is not 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 year7 and in spite of its higher CO2 emissions relative to gas fired electricity generation, the Government is still promoting incineration as a source of green energy.

What is required is return to the boldness of the Strategy Unit’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 waste industry, and complete the work that was left half finished after the Strategy Unit’s Review.

The Zero Waste Alliance
Zero Waste Charter
The organisations, groups and individuals who have signed this charter are committed to achieving Zero Waste in Britain by 2020. Zero Waste is a new concept being pioneered by leading corporations, municipalities, and now provincial and national governments. It entails re-designing products and changing the way waste is handled so that products last longer, materials are recycled, or, in the case of organics, composted. Waste is in the process of being designed away.

The immediate imperatives behind the drive for Zero Waste are environmental. There is a new awareness of the dangers to human health of waste landfills and incinerators. Landfills are major producers of methane, and polluters of water tables. Incinerators produce greenhouse gases, and are a source of heavy metals, particulates and dioxins.

Zero Waste strikes at the cause of this pollution. It also lightens the ever growing pressure on the world’s forests, soils, and mineral resources by making more with less. Doubling the life of a car saves the 15 tonnes of materials required to make a new one. Recycling paper gives wood fibres six lives rather than one. Increasing the productivity of resources in this way also leads to major savings in energy. Zero Waste will play a central role in cutting CO2 emissions
and sequestering carbon in the soil.

There is a further economic dividend. Redesigning production and increasing recycling to eliminate waste is stimulating a green industrial revolution. New materials and growth industries are emerging, together with a growth in jobs. In Germany recycling already employs more people than telecommunications. In the US, it has overtaken the auto industry in direct jobs. Governments that embarked on policies to reduce waste in order to combat pollution and climate change, are now realising that zero waste is a key element in any post industrial economic strategy.

Municipalities and companies overseas are well on their way to zero waste. They have shown that it is possible to recycle and compost 70% or more of their waste streams with existing product design. Residual materials which are hazardous, or are costly to recycle can then be phased out and replaced by new clean materials that can be returned to use efficiently and effectively.

Increasing numbers of cities and states have adopted the goal of Zero Waste, including Canberra, Toronto, the state of California, and most recently the Government of New Zealand. This charter seeks to extend these pioneering practices to all the municipalities and producers in the UK.

Our starting point is to create zero waste areas where we live and work – in our streets, and villages, in our schools and hospitals, in municipalities and our many different workplaces. We invite local communities, elected councils at every level, and our major institutions and corporations to sign up to these goals, to put in place7 measures to reduce their waste, and to expand recycling and composting with the goal of achieving Zero Waste by 2020.

By ourselves we can only go so far. The current waste regime still favours disposal over recycling. The Government must change this. Many products are difficult or too hazardous to recycle. The Government can change this, too, by making the manufacturers who produce them responsible for the waste that results, and for redesigning products so that they are safe, long lasting and can be easily recycled. We call on the Governments of Britain, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to end a decade of policy timidity and give a lead to the promotion of Zero Waste by adopting the following 10 point plan to transform Britain’s waste economy:

1. Set a target of Zero Waste for all municipal waste in Britain by 2020 (50% by
2010 and 75% by 2015).
2. Extend the doorstep collection of dry recyclables to every home in Britain without
delay
3. Provide doorstep collection of organic waste, and establish a network of local
closed vessel compost plants.
4. Convert civic amenity sites into re-use and recycling centres.
5. Ban from 2006 the landfilling of biological waste which has not been treated and
neutralised.
6. Ban any new thermal treatment of mixed waste and limit disposal contracts to a
maximum of ten years.
7. Extend the Landfill Tax into a disposal tax. Increase its level, and use it to fund
the Zero Waste programmes.
8. Extend Producer Responsibility legislation to all products and materials that are
hazardous or difficult to recycle.
9. Open up waste planning to greater public participation and end the commercial
confidentiality of waste contracts.
10. Establish a Zero Waste Agency to promote resource efficiency and act as a
guardian of public health.
Signed:

1 The National Audit Office report notes that PFI deals take longer to bring to financial close than other types of procurement, and that after nine years, only six residual waste plants are in place or under construction.
2 Defra (2006) Review of England’s Waste Strategy: A Consultation Document, February 2006. Its wording is: “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.” p.60
3 Eunomia, A Changing Climate for Energy from Waste, Friends of the Earth, May 2006.
4 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 emit twice the fossil CO2 of gas power stations, and probably more than new or refitted coal power stations using up to 20% biomass. Wastes contain both fossil carbon derived from oil and other fossil fuels and biogenic carbon from wood and plants. When biogenic carbon and time are included in the analysis, energy from waste incineration – where only electricity is generated – looks like a mediocre performer (Eunomia 5.2). Indeed, if the residual waste is landfilled after the stabilising treatment now required, it is only marginally better than landfilling. The Eunomia report contains a valuable critique of the ERM Report for DEFRA that has been used to justify the Government’s incinerator policy, see pp.74 sq. and ERM (2006) Impact from Energy from Waste and Recycling Policy on UK Greenhouse Emissions, Final Report for Defra, January 2006
5. Eunomia, p6
7WRAP, 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.

Veolia at the image laundry

Large companies love greenwash and it seems there's always someone waiting to oblige. In 2006, Veolia ES Hampshire, which operates 3 incinerators, was given a 'Green Hero' award by The Green Organisation, a company whose main function appears to be as an image-laundry for large companies: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Green_Apple_Environment_Awards.

'Green Apple Awards' are given to a variety of projects, some genuinely 'green' and some rather less-so. More 'prestigious' initiatives/companies (like, er, Veolia) get 'Green Hero' status.

Veolia is in good company: Green Apple/Hero awards have been awarded to EDF Energy, DHL, Bovis, Defra, McAlpine, Tesco and many other luminaries of green practice.

Even the Barnstaple Western Bypass (that's the actual bypass) got one, despite being bitterly opposed by local green campaigners in Friends of the Earth and the Green Party for its destruction of natural habitats and encouragement of car-use etc: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3117587.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/3999003.stm

The Green Organisation also owns Live Earth a company about which there is even less information than its 'parent'. Multi-millionaire owner of the Green Organisation, Jan Telensky, received a Live Earth Award for his own tourist development - AquaCity - a resort in Slovakia. http://jtcompanynews.blogspot.com/2008/06/worlds-leading-green-resort-achieves.html

Winners of the Gold Green Apple in 2008 win a free holiday in...................AquaCity, which is described as 'conveniently positioned within just 8 minutes of Poprad international airport, AquaCity is also just 15 minutes' drive of the dramatic High Tatras Mountains.'

We hope that Green Apple winners are at least offered the green travel option: 'AquaCity is less than ten minutes' walk from Poprad mainline station, with good and inexpensive rail links to main towns and cities throughout Slovakia, including the capital, Bratislava and over the mountains into Poland, to link with Krakow.'

A 'cathedral' for Shrewsbury?

Those people who long for Shrewsbury to achieve city status may get their wish - if Veolia gets its way to build a 'Cathedral of Incineration' at Battlefield.

http://www.veoliaenvironmentalservices.co.uk/hampshire/pages/pdfs/Waste_Watch_20.pdf

THE PORTSMOUTH INCINERATOR: 'The site was highly praised for its elegant design and materials by judge, reporter and architecture critic Tom Dyckoff who said: "This cathedral of incineration has a style of industrial, almost minimalist chic. It's an incinerator that isn't an eyesore."'

As you can see, from the image of the Portsmouth incinerator, below, such a 'cathedral' could knock spots off Battlefield Church and Shrewsbury Abbey......

Do you see a field? Perhaps near a 15th-century national heritage site and upwind of growing crops and 100s of Shropshire families?

FROM 'THE ECOLOGIST MAGAZINE, FEBRUARY 2008' (Their version of Veolia's glossy ad. campaign!)

'Do you see a field? We see the opportunity to add to our fleet of six incinerators, which pump dioxins, greenhouse gases and heavy metals across local communities.

By tying Nottinghamshire Council into a 25-year waste contract we landed it with a National Audit Office Inquiry over the use of public funds. In 2006, we topped-up our Hampshire incinerator with waste from people's recycling boxes. In March 2007, we tried to dig a landfill above a major aquifer in West Sussex and in July we were fined for preparing to dump highly flammable liquids into a landfill full of hazardous waste.

The environment is an industrial challenge - VEOLIA'

Dr Dick Van Steenis on YouTube - interview 21.10 08 in Sherifhales near Telford

Click on the title of this post (in blue, above) to visit the Telford PAIN anti-incineration site and watch a short YouTube video of Dr Dick Van Steenis being interviewed by PAIN on 21 October. He spells out the lethal effects of incineration and also points out the links between Shrewsbury environmental consultants Enviros and the incineration industry. He also urges people to contact their local Primary Care Trust and demand that independent Health Impact Assessments of the 2 proposed Shropshire incinerators be done before the planning hearings.

Watch the video, then write to:

Dr Isabel Gillis, Director of Public Health
Shropshire County PCT
William Farr HouseMytton Oak Road
SHREWSBURYSY3 8XL

Tel: (01743) 261300
Fax: (01743) 261303
isabel.gillis@shropshirepct.nhs.uk

and tell her of your concerns about the health effects of incinerators. Tell Dr. Gillis that public safety requires the PCT to carry out a rigorous Health Impact Assessment of the proposed incinerators at Battlefield, Shrewsbury and at Granville, Telford.

A case to answer

Studies showing links between incinerators and infant mortality must be addressed by elected representatives and health officials.

In 2004, a Japanese study of 63 incinerators (see note 1, below) and a 2007 Italian study of 27 incinerators (see note 2, below) have both found elevated infant mortality rates around incinerators.

The first sentence of the conclusion in the Japanese study states: "Our study shows a peak-decline in risk with distance from the municipal solid waste incinerators for infant deaths and infant deaths with all congenital malformations combined."

The conclusion of the Italian study is: "Findings call for further insight by analytic epidemiologic studies to confirm possible association between infant mortality and living near incinerators."

Michael Ryan, a researcher from Shrewsbury has examined infant mortality rates at electoral ward level around twenty-eight incinerators and has consistently found high rates in wards which are exposed to PM2.5 emissions from such plants.

A map showing high infant mortality in wards associated with the Bernard Road incinerator at Sheffield can be found at: http://www.ukhr.org/incineration/sheffieldincinerator.pdf

Pooled 2004-2006 infant mortality data for electoral wards in Bolton.
Bolton has two incinerators: The White Rose incinerator at Bolton General Infirmary burns clinical & radioactive waste:

Astley Bridge; 472 live births; 4 infant deaths; 8.5 per 1,000 live births
Bradshaw; 363; 3; 8.3
Breightmet; 533; 5; 9.4
Bromley Cross; 326; 2; 6.1
Crompton; 785; 9; 11.5
Farnworth; 749; 4; 5.3
Great Lever; 901; 14; 15.5 [Municipal incinerator, Raikes Lane]
Halliwell; 639; 5; 7.8
Harper Green; 611; 3; 4.9 [White Rose incinerator at Bolton General Infirmary]
Heaton & Lostock; 334; 1; 3.0
Horwich & Blackrod; 408; 1; 2.5
Horwich North East335; Nil; 0.0
Hulton; 488; 3; 6.1
Kearsley; 496; 2; 4.0
Little Lever & Darcy Lever; 397; 1; 2.5
Rumworth; 860; 4; 4.7
Smithills; 490; 1; 2.0 T
onge with the Haulgh; 519; 4; 7.7
West Haughton North & Chew Moor; 394; Nil; 0.0
West Houghton South; 523; 4; 7.6

Bolton in 2004: 3402 live births, 20 infant deaths; 5.9 per 1,000 live births
Bolton in 2005: 3576 live births, 24 infant deaths; 6.7 per 1,000
Bolton in 2006: 3645 live births, 27 infant deaths; 7.4 per 1,000

Mr Ryan has discovered that the 2002-2006 infant mortality rate in his ward [Bowbrook, where there is a hospital incinerator] is 14.7 per 1,000 live births. An incinerator is planned for north Shrewsbury and elected officials, officers, the incineration companies and supposedly independent environmental consultancies consistently refuse to engage with Mr Ryan’s research into adverse health effects.

Mr Ryan attributes the deaths of two of his four children to the adverse effects of living near an incinerator. He has been carrying out this research to help prevent further loss of life.

Note 1 J Epidemiol. 2004 May;14(3):83-93.Risk of adverse reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan. Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T.
Department of Technology Assessment and Biostatistics, National Institute of Public Health, Wako, Saitama, Japan.

Note 2 Epidemiology: Volume 18(5) SupplSeptember 2007p S125 Infant Mortality in 27 Italian Municipalities With Solid Waste Incinerators (1981-2001) [ISEE 2007 CONFERENCE ABSTRACTS SUPPLEMENT: Abstracts] Bianchi, F; Minichilli, F; Pierini, A; Linzalone, N; Rial, M CNR National Research Council, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Epidemiology Unit, Pisa, Italy.

UN threatens to act against Britain for failure to protect Battlefield (well why not?)

Unesco may put buildings on endangered list
New legislation to address concerns, say ministers
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent The Guardian,
Monday September 8 2008

Stonehenge
The UN is threatening to put the Tower of London on its list of world heritage sites in danger after its experts accused the UK of damaging globally significant sites such as Stonehenge, the old town of Edinburgh and the Georgian centre of Bath, the Guardian has learned.
Unesco, the UN's cultural agency, has told ministers in London and Edinburgh that it wants urgent action to protect seven world heritage sites which it claims are in danger from building developments, and said in some cases the UK is ignoring its legal obligations to protect them.
Their complaints range from decisions to approve new tower blocks in central London, such as the 66-storey "shard of glass" at London Bridge, to the failure to relocate the A344 beside Stonehenge despite promising action for 22 years, to a proposed wind farm which threatens neolithic sites on Orkney.

'UK is too keen on prestige development'
For all seven sites, it has asked the UK to write detailed progress reports replying to its concerns by February.
Unesco's world heritage centre in Paris is also sending two teams of inspectors to Edinburgh and Bath this winter to investigate its concerns that new buildings in both cities will damage their "integrity" and their "outstanding universal value."
In its strongest criticism, Unesco's world heritage committee has said it "deeply regrets" the decision by Edinburgh city council to press ahead with a hotel, housing and offices development called Caltongate next to the Royal Mile, despite expert evidence it will ruin the medieval old town's unique form.
In the committee's final report after its annual meeting in July in Quebec, which has just been released, it also accuses the UK of breaching world heritage site guidelines by failing to warn it in advance about the Caltongate scheme. Last month, Koichiro Matsuura, Unesco's director general, told the Scotsman there was growing concern about Edinburgh. "It is crucial that its outstanding features are preserved and protected," he said.
Leading architects and conservationists, including Sir Terry Farrell and Marcus Binney, chairman of Save Britain's Heritage, have said they share Unesco's anxieties. Farrell, appointed Edinburgh's "design champion", told the Guardian the city urgently needed a proper urban design masterplan. "I'm very supportive of Unesco's position," he said.
Binney said: "Heritage has taken a back seat to Cool Britannia and encouraging everything modern, and we're now uncomfortably in the limelight for failing to have proper policies to protect our world heritage sites, and timely criticisms are now being made."
In potentially its most serious conflict with ministers, Unesco has said it could put the Tower of London on its "world heritage in danger" list next year if ministers fail to honour promises to strengthen planning guidelines for the area.
Unesco is worried that the "iconic" Norman Tower and its 13th-century walls will be overshadowed by Renzo Piano's London Bridge tower, the so-called "shard of glass", and a 39-floor tower on Fenchurch Street in the City. It accepts that a new management plan for the area is being drafted but is angry that the new towers are still being approved.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has lead responsibility for protecting the UK's 27 world heritage sites, says it is introducing a heritage protection bill which will give all sites in England the same legal protection as a conservation area.
It said its delegation to the Quebec meeting had successfully challenged some criticism from Unesco by showing that planners were acting to draft guidelines on protecting several sites and their skylines. "The tone of the meeting was very positive and our delegates came away with a very positive feeling about the likely final outcome," it said. "Nothing has been said or received subsequently to alter this impression."
The UK overturned a proposed warning that the Palace of Westminster world heritage site, which includes the abbey and St Margaret's church, could also be added to the "in danger" list next year if Unesco's concerns were ignored, by citing the heritage protection bill and planning guidelines. But Unesco still "regrets" that the UK has failed to put in a "buffer zone" to restrict damaging developments and draw up a proper "skyline study" to allow planners to rapidly assess development proposals. It accuses the UK of a "lack of clarity" in assessing the conflicts between conservation and development.
Of the seven sites examined by Unesco, Liverpool had the greatest success: the city council was praised for acting on Unesco's fears about the damage to its Georgian buildings from building plans.
In advance of the inspectors' visit to Bath, DCMS officials have said they are "extremely concerned" about the accuracy of claims in Unesco's report about the damage that could be caused by proposals for seven-storey flats and a college to its Georgian centre.
John Graham, chief executive of Historic Scotland, said he shared Unesco's anxieties about plans for high rises in Edinburgh's Leith docks and a tower to replace the St James' centre, a 70s concrete shopping centre in the New Town due for demolition.
But he had no fears about the Unesco inspectors' visit in November.
"The judgments we've reached are sound and defensible; that is the stance we will be taking when the mission arrives," he said.

Heritage sites under threat:
Stonehenge and Avebury
Site The neolithic stone circle and avenues, and the associated megalith circles at Avebury, were listed in 1986.
Problem A cause of anxiety for 22 years, Unesco is angry that plans to reroute the A344 with a tunnel and build an offsite visitors' centre have again been scrapped. It "regrets" the continued delays and "urges" ministers to act quickly.
[Battlefield, Shrewsbury
Site Site of the Battle of Shrewsbury and historic Battlefield Church
Problem A 90,000-ton proposed incinerator as part of a planned 27-year waste contract between Shropshire County Council and the waste company Veolia. The incinerator would visually obliterate the site and would inundate it with toxic chemicals every time there is a temperature inversion or a SW (prevailing) wind] added by Safe Waste Shropshire!]
Neolithic ruins, Orkney
Site Skara Brae, Maeshowe and the Ring of Brodgar were among the ancient sites listed in 1999.
Problem Three planned wind turbines will be visible and Unesco wants the project stopped. Historic Scotland agrees they will damage it. A public inquiry will report soon.
Edinburgh
Site The "remarkable" medieval Old Town and Georgian New Town of central Edinburgh were listed in 1995.
Problem Unesco fears several building projects in the city centre and Leith docks will damage the site's architectural heritage. It "deeply regrets" the city has approved a hotel, office and housing complex by the Royal Mile, and is sending inspectors to visit.
Bath
Site The city's grand neo-classical Georgian crescents, terraces and squares were listed in 1987.
Problem Unesco fears plans to build 2,000 flats in buildings up to nine storeys, and an engineering school sponsored by James Dyson, will damage the site's setting. It is sending inspectors and wants the schemes blocked until its committee has studied the plans.
Liverpool
Site Its maritime mercantile city, with its churches and Georgian warehouses, was listed in 2004.
Problem Unesco is happy the city swiftly acted on concerns that a new museum, a 24-storey tower and a new conference centre threatened the site's setting and integrity. Unesco wants further action to protect it.
Westminster, London
Site The Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret's Church were listed in 1987.
Problem Unesco believes several new tower blocks, including the 170-metre Beetham tower in Southwark and a 144m tower at Doon Street, will affect the site. It is annoyed its demands for a buffer zone and a detailed study of the skyline have been ignored.
Tower of London
Site The Norman tower and its 13th-century walls were listed in 1988.
Problem New buildings, such as the 66-storey "shard of glass" tower and a 39-floor tower at Fenchurch Street, will dominate the skyline. Unesco "regrets" the UK has failed to implement a robust buffer zone or an effective local plan. It is threatening to put the tower on its "world heritage in danger" list.

The Story of Stuff

Here’s a 20 minute brilliant video “... fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns.” with Annie Leonard:

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

After you’ve watched it, you can look this short home made music video someone made in response to it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdAuSNYV-tM

Another Way - 10 ways to act on what you've just seen
Many people who have seen The Story of Stuff have asked what they can do to address the problems identified in the film.

Each of us can promote sustainability and justice at multiple levels: as an individual, as a teacher or parent, a community member, a national citizen, and as a global citizen. As Annie says in the film, “the good thing about such an all pervasive problem is that there are so many points of intervention.” That means that there are lots and lots of places to plug in, to get involved, and to make a difference. There is no single simple thing to do, because the set of problems we’re addressing just isn’t simple. But everyone can make a difference, but the bigger your action the bigger the difference you’ll make. Here are some ideas:

10 Little and Big Things You Can Do

Power down! A great deal of the resources we use and the waste we create is in the energy we consume. Look for opportunities in your life to significantly reduce energy use: drive less, fly less, turn off lights, buy local seasonal food (food takes energy to grow, package, store and transport), wear a sweater instead of turning up the heat, use a clothesline instead of a dryer, vacation closer to home, buy used or borrow things before buying new, recycle. All these things save energy and save you money. And, if you can switch to alternative energy by supporting a company that sells green energy to the grid or by installing solar panels on your home, bravo!

Waste less.
Per capita waste production in the U.S. just keeps growing. There are hundreds of opportunities each day to nurture a Zero Waste culture in your home, school, workplace, church, community. This takes developing new habits which soon become second nature. Use both sides of the paper, carry your own mugs and shopping bags, get printer cartridges refilled instead of replaced, compost food scraps, avoid bottled water and other over packaged products, upgrade computers rather than buying new ones, repair and mend rather than replace….the list is endless! The more we visibly engage in re-use over wasting, the more we cultivate a new cultural norm, or actually, reclaim an old one!
Talk to everyone about these issues. At school, your neighbors, in line at the supermarket, on the bus…A student once asked Cesar Chavez how he organized. He said, “First, I talk to one person. Then I talk to another person.” “No,” said the student, “how do you organize?” Chavez answered, “First I talk to one person. Then I talk to another person.” You get the point. Talking about these issues raises awareness, builds community and can inspire others to action.

Make Your Voice Heard.
Write letters to the editor and submit articles to local press. In the last two years, and especially with Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the media has been forced to write about Climate Change. As individuals, we can influence the media to better represent other important issues as well. Letters to the editor are a great way to help newspaper readers make connections they might not make without your help. Also local papers are often willing to print book and film reviews, interviews and articles by community members. Let’s get the issues we care about in the news.

DeTox your body, DeTox your home, and DeTox the Economy. Many of today’s consumer products – from children’s pajamas to lipstick – contain toxic chemical additives that simply aren’t necessary. Research online (for example, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/) before you buy to be sure you’re not inadvertently introducing toxics into your home and body. Then tell your friends about toxics in consumer products. Together, ask the businesses why they’re using toxic chemicals without any warning labels. And ask your elected officials why they are permitting this practice. The European Union has adopted strong policies that require toxics to be removed from many products. So, while our electronic gadgets and cosmetics have toxics in them, people in Europe can buy the same things toxics-free. Let’s demand the same thing here. Getting the toxics out of production at the source is the best way to ensure they don’t get into any home and body.

Unplug (the TV and internet) and Plug In (the community).
The average person in the U.S. watches T.V. over 4 hours a day. Four hours per day filled with messages about stuff we should buy. That is four hours a day that could be spent with family, friends and in our community. On-line activism is a good start, but spending time in face-to-face civic or community activities strengthens the community and many studies show that a stronger community is a source of social and logistical support, greater security and happiness. A strong community is also critical to having a strong, active democracy.

Park your car and walk…and when necessary MARCH!
Car-centric land use policies and life styles lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel extraction, conversion of agricultural and wildlands to roads and parking lots. Driving less and walking more is good for the climate, the planet, your health, and your wallet. But sometimes we don’t have an option to leave the car home because of inadequate bike lanes or public transportation options. Then, we may need to march, to join with others to demand sustainable transportation options. Throughout U.S. history, peaceful non-violent marches have played a powerful role in raising awareness about issues, mobilizing people, and sending messages to decision makers.

Change your lightbulbs…and then, change your paradigm.
Changing lightbulbs is quick and easy. Energy efficient lightbulbs use 75% less energy and last 10 times longer than conventional ones. That's a no-brainer. But changing lightbulbs is just tinkering at the margins of a fundamentally flawed system unless we also change our paradigm. A paradigm is a collection of assumptions, concepts, beliefs, and values that together make up a community’s way of viewing reality. Our current paradigm dictates that more stuff is better, that infinite economic growth is desirable and possible, and that pollution is the price of progress. To really turn things around, we need to nurture a different paradigm based on the values of sustainability, justice, health, and community.

Recycle your trash…and, recycle your elected officials.
Recycling saves energy and reduces both waste and the pressure to harvest and mine new stuff. Unfortunately, many cities still don’t have adequate recycling systems in place. In that case you can usually find some recycling options in the phone book to start recycling while you’re pressuring your local government to support recycling city-wide. Also, many products – for example, most electronics - are designed not to be recycled or contain toxics so recycling is hazardous. In these cases, we need to lobby government to prohibit toxics in consumer products and to enact Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, as is happening in Europe. EPR is a policy which holds producers responsible for the entire lifecycle of their products, so that electronics company who use toxics in their products, have to take them back. That is a great incentive for them to get the toxics out!

Buy Green, Buy Fair, Buy Local, Buy Used, and most importantly, Buy Less.
Shopping is not the solution to the environmental problems we currently face because the real changes we need just aren’t for sale in even the greenest shop. But, when we do shop, we should ensure our dollars support businesses that protect the environment and worker rights. Look beyond vague claims on packages like “all natural” to find hard facts. Is it organic? Is it free of super-toxic PVC plastic? When you can, buy local products from local stores, which keeps more of our hard earned money in the community. Buying used items keeps them out of the trash and avoids the upstream waste created during extraction and production. But, buying less may be the best option of all. Less pollution. Less Waste. Less time working to pay for the stuff. Sometimes, less really is more.

Say no to a huge expansion of incineration - write to Joan Ruddock MP

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/waste/press_for_change/13841.html read full article and view sample letter to Joan Ruddock, MP - the minister responsbile for waste.

Help stop dozens of new incinerators, which will waste valuable resources and contribute to climate change.

Incinerator map
A new interactive map of the UK shows the location of current and proposed incinerator sites.

It shows 150 sites being considered, in order to build around 80 new facilities.
Incinerators contribute to climate change by:
Releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide.
Wasting energy that could be saved through recycling.

Misspent taxes
£2 billion of Government funding is helping councils to pay for many of these incinerators.
At the same time, the Government has cut funds for promoting recycling by a third.

Climate friendly solutions
Maximising recycling and composting rates would be much better for the climate than incineration.

We should deal with the left over waste by using more sustainable alternatives to landfill and incineration, such as mechanical biological treatment.

Please take action by asking the Minister responsible for waste - Joan Ruddock MP - to stop wasting taxpayer's money on subsidising incinerators and instead invest in green alternatives.

Veolia - a silent and deadly neighbour?

Today, Safe Waste in Shropshire members visited Chineham near Basingstoke. Chineham has the same kind of incinerator as is planned for Shrewsbury and which Veolia hopes will burn Shropshire's waste.

The residents we met described the incinerator as their 'silent and deadly neighbour'. Pictured here is the Chineham incinerator. The sheer size and ugliness of this plant in a rural setting is a real shock. Imagine what it might look like at the Battlefield site proposed for it.

The Chineham residents told us about the processes which had led up to their losing the battle against the incinerator. The 'done deal', the manipulated 'consultation', the railroading of the planning process and the assumption of compliance among both residents and elected representatives has left a legacy of bitterness and cynicism in an area of the country not noted for dissent.

It is time for Shropshire people to wake up and realise what is being done under their noses before it is too late and we, like the people of Chineham, find ourselves with a 'silent and deadly' neighbour.

Here is a reminder of the sort of company we are dealing with. Veolia is a global, multi-billion dollar mega-corporation which has not grown so rich on caring about people's health or well-being. They have many incarnations, of which Veolia ES Shropshire is just one of the latest. Look at one of their American cousins and what they are getting up to in Texas, USA:

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/dayton_vx/dayton_vx.html

The Army's deadly VX waste is burning in Port Arthur Smokestacks at Veolia Incinerator Facility near Port Arthur, Texas. PORT ARTHUR, TX -- "Once again an impoverished Texas neighborhood, in this case in the town of Port Arthur, has become the disposal point for hazardous waste, only this time the waste is potentially so lethal that a drop the size of a pinhead can kill. A chemical-weapons facility in Indiana is destroying obsolete weapons containing VX nerve agent, producing caustic wastewater that the Army is shipping to Veolia Environmental Services for incineration. The Army has claimed the waste is no more dangerous than kitchen cleaners. But when environmental scientists began looking at the disposal process, they found scary scenarios. The 'neutralized' waste still contains some VX, and the incinerators might not destroy all of it. There are no monitors on the incinerator smokestacks to sound the alert if it isn’t eliminated. And VX components in the water could reconstitute in shipping tanks under certain conditions, endangering lives along the transportation route," Rusty Middleton, The Texas Observer.

AN INCINERATOR IN THEIR BACK-YARD

Alternative trip to Veolia’s 'flagship' incinerator

Safe Waste in Shropshire has organised a ‘fact-finding mission’ to meet residents in Chineham - home of Veolia's 'flagship' incinerator and to hear directly from them what life is really like with a Veolia incinerator towering over your neighbourhood.

Veolia Environmental Services, who will be applying to SCC at the end of 2008 for permission to build a 90,000 ton incinerator at Battlefield, Shrewsbury, has been taking elected representatives, journalists and residents on tours of the ‘flagship’ Chineham incinerator since 2007 as it is the same size as the one projected for Shrewsbury. There, they are given a tour of the incinerator, a free lunch and plenty of soft-soap about how clean the incinerator is. No mention is ever made of how small particulates are not monitored or the embarrassing leaks in 2003 when black smoke poured out of the chimney. Neither are visitors ever introduced to any local people. Our regular readers will remember Veolia's embarrassing over-reaction when we published a picture of the smoke issuing from the incinerator chimney on this site i.e. they accused us of lying when of course what we had reported was genuine!

The new breed of incinerators, branded 'Energy Recovery Facilities' (referring to the fact that they function as expensive power stations) are claimed to be much cleaner. They are not supposed to emit black smoke anymore. Incinerator salesmen never mention that the invisible, unmonitored, tiny particulates - PM1s and PM2.5s - are the ones that cause real health damage. What looks 'clean' can actually be deadly and the UK government at the moment is doing nothing to change this situation.

When Chris Tomblin, the Chair of Chineham Parish Council, told Safe Waste in Shropshire, ‘Having had one of the "first" new plants we can share a lot of the truth of living with one and it is also frustrating when people tour the Chineham plant and we, the local community, are never invited to meet and give our views’, the group decided that they would give Chineham residents the hearing Veolia denies them. The visit will be fully documented with photographs and recordings and we will share our findings when we get back!

Read more at:

http://safewasteshrewsbury.blogspot.com/2008/03/veolia-seeks-information.html

http://www.netpark-ltd.co.uk/bbac/Incidents.shtml#BBAC-Systems-crash-at-Chineham-Burner-causes-concern

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1895&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

ENERGY FROM WASTE NOT AS GREEN AS IT'S PAINTED

Waste-to-energy not climate friendly, research shows

Source URL: http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=11395

Mountains of rubbish: the Government is currently reviewing the UK's long-term waste strategy Waste companies' claims that incineration produces green energy are false, new research has found. Getting energy from burning waste in incinerators produces 33% more greenhouse gases than burning coal in power stations, according to research published by Friends of the Earth on Wednesday. Despite this, waste companies and Government alike promote it as a "green" way of dealing with rubbish.

FOE's waste campaigner Dr Michael Warhurst said: "The Government and waste industry must stop peddling the myth that waste incineration is green energy. Incinerators can generate electricity, but they produce more climate emissions than a gas-fired power station." The environmental group released the report entitled A changing climate for energy from waste as the consultation period on the Government's long-term waste strategy (see related story) comes to a close. While the strategy aims is to "reduce the impact of waste on climate change," it proposes an increase in the proportion of waste incinerated from 9% to around 27% by 2020. As we get better at recycling and the proportion of burned plastics decreases, fossil fuel-derived CO2 released from burning waste is likely to fall. But the report estimates that by 2020 incinerators will still be almost as polluting in CO2 terms as new coal-fired power stations, and 78% worse than gas-fired ones, taking changes to technology and recycling into account. "The Government must make it clear that they will not support the building of such polluting plants. Using these incinerators to produce energy will undermine Government attempts to tackle climate change. Ministers must back truly renewable energy sources instead," said Dr. Warhurst.

The report says the Government should invest in greener waste-to-energy methods instead, such as anaerobic digestion, a process by which methane is produced from kitchen and commercial food waste, and burnt as fuel to produce energy. The full report commissioned by FOE from Eunomia Consulting can be accessed here.

INCINERATOR FIRE - COULD THIS BE SHREWSBURY IN A FEW YEAR'S TIME?

News in from USA: a second fire at an 'energy recovery facility' (i.e. waste to energy incinerator). Note that the county officials 'still have full confidence in the operators'. That would be because there is no health risk, of course. For those of you still seeking 'a balanced view', perhaps you need to read this report very carefully, especially those of you with responsibility for the health of the people of Shropshire.

Inferno at the incinerator - Second fire at facility this year

June 12, 2008 - 7:50PM By Ryan Burr News Herald Writer

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1184417205/bclid1171892348/bctid1604920039?src=mrss

http://www.newsherald.com/news/bayou_4414___article.html/george_incinerator.html
BAYOU GEORGE — A large fire erupted on the tipping floor of the Bay County waste-to-energy incinerator on Thursday, the second blaze to break out there since late March.

County spokeswoman Valerie Lovett said a dump truck emptied trash that contained a small fire, and it quickly worsened once on the tipping floor, where garbage is deposited before it is sent up a conveyor belt to be burnt.

Twenty-three firefighters were called to the scene, the first at 10:40 a.m., and fire crews still were hosing down the flames into the evening Thursday. Lovett said she expected them to be at the site through Friday to ensure nothing reignites.

A damage estimate could not be immediately determined. The blaze, which produced a thick plume of black smoke because of tires in the garbage, scorched the inside of the tipping room, melting away some of its plastic walls. The facility's conveyer belt also caught fire, but that was extinguished with the aid of a sprinkler system in that area.

The administrative building, which is partially connected to the tipping floor, was not damaged. No employees or firefighters were injured, Lovett said. "Because of the design of the building, the fire is not expected to spread anywhere else," she said.

Mark Bowen, the county's chief of emergency services, said the strategy employed Thursday was no different from the handling other large fires.

David Creamer, owner of nearby Creamer Cabinets Inc. on Bay Line Drive off U.S. 231, suspected the county, which owns the incinerator, was putting too much garbage inside.

But Lovett said less garbage than normal was in the tipping area because of upcoming maintenance at the facility. The dearth of garbage could have been menace, Lovett said, because more air can aid the flames of a small fire.

Still confident
Despite the two recent fires, Lovett said the county had not lost confidence in the operator's ability. At the end of last year, Joe Tannehill Jr. and his father Joe Tannehill Sr., of Engen LLC, took over management of the business. The Tannehills were out of the country and not available for comment Thursday, but Lovett said county officials will be talking with them about ways to reduce risk.

The threat of fire sparking in an incinerator cannot be eliminated, Lovett added. "It's an issue that comes with operation of an incinerator." The first fire, on March 25, also occurred in the incinerator's tipping room but was smaller. It caused minimal internal damage, amounting to less than $6,000, Lovett said. Incinerator officials said in March that the fire was likely started by spontaneous combustion.

Dump truck fires are not uncommon and can occur simply by friction of charcoal or other combustible material as the garbage shifts around during travel. Lovett said the county is not planning to hold the dump truck driver or the driver's employer accountable for the damage.
Thursday's fire drew onlookers from several businesses, who avoided smoke because easterly winds were steering it away.

"It will be smoking for a few days probably. I'll dread coming to work tomorrow if that wind shifts and we have to brief that in," Creamer said. By late afternoon Thursday, Lovett said the smoke had almost entirely dissipated. "There is no health risk."
The tipping room still is usable, but operations at the incinerator will be shut down until the fire is out,

MODEL PLANNING OBJECTION FROM RAINWORTH NEAR NOTTINGHAM

Read a model objection document to a planned incinerator at Rainworth, in Nottingham. Very readable and clear:

http://www.p-a-in.co.uk/planningobj.htm

Anti-incineration expert 'pops up' again!

'Don’t let high paid consultants take either your common sense or your democracy away from you.' : Doctor Paul Connett.

On Saturday 1 March, BBC Radio Shropshire invited John Collis of Veolia to answer questions on the proposed incinerator. This was occasioned by a public meeting Safe Waste in Shropshire held the night before which had been addressed by Dr Dick Van Steenis, an independent health campaigner.

During the programme, Mr Collis dismissed Dr Van Steenis as just another of the occasional anti-incineration experts who 'pop-up from time to time' and then leave the country (this must invalidate their work, presumably). He specifically mentioned Professor Vyvyan Howard and Paul Connett in this context.

For the information of Mr Collis, Professor Vyvyan Howard is living in Belfast and is still working on links between incineration and health. Dr Paul Connett does indeed work in the USA and he has just produced a chapter on Zero Waste v. incineration for a forthcoming book. Here is an extract (a link for the full article can be found at the bottom of the piece).

Thanks to the member of Safe Waste in Shropshire who got in touch with Dr Connett and found this information.

Extract from: 'Zero Waste: A Key Move towards a Sustainable Society'
by Paul Connett, PhD

Our current age is sleep walking. Most of us living in Western societies have nearly
everything our parents and grandparents ever dreamed of – except one thing,
sustainability. We cannot share our current consumption patterns with the future. We are
living on this planet as if we had another one to go to. A little thought should make us
realize that, as far as raw materials are concerned, we simply can’t run a “throwaway
society” on a finite planet.

Waste is the evidence that we are doing something wrong. Landfills simply bury the
evidence and incinerators (by whatever fancy name they are called) simply burn the
evidence. We have to face the real problem: our task is to fight over-consumption and its
most visible manifestation: the throwaway ethic. Instead of trying to become more
sophisticated about getting rid of waste, we have to stop buying things we do not need,
and industries have to stop making things, which cannot be reused in some way.

Meanwhile, not only is the throwaway society presenting us with a local waste crisis, it is
contributing to the global crisis. It is important to see what has caused this crisis and how
a Zero Waste strategy can take an important step towards addressing the issue. We need
to move from a linear society to a sustainable society.

Conclusions

Incineration is not necessary. There is a better alternative strategy, which is not only
better for our health, but is better for the local economy, and for our planet.
However, there remains an obstacle, which I call “the bad law of pollution.” When we
compare communities, provinces or countries, “the level of pollution increases as the
level of corruption increases.” The more corrupt your community the more polluted it
will be. Nowhere is this more apparent than with the city of Naples, Italy.

Fortunately, there is “the good law of pollution,” which states that “the level of pollution
decreases as the level of public participation increases.” In short, we need to clean up the
political system in order to clean up our environment.

Nowhere is this corruption more apparent than the continued promotion of mega-landfills
and incinerators. A few people make a huge amount of money from building and running
these entities but the rest of the public foots the bill in countless ways.

However, the one good thing that comes out of these projects is that it galvanizes the
public into vociferous opposition. It is this passion, and the networking it generates,
which provides the push for the alternative zero waste strategy. In the last few years in
Italy this networking has received a huge boost from Beppe Grillo, a former TV
comedian who is capable of drawing 10,000 people at a time to meetings where he uses
his wit (along with recruited scientists) to educate millions on waste and other pressing
social and technical issues.

Today, nowhere is the struggle between the mindless political pressures for incineration
and the counter citizen pressure for Zero Waste more apparent than in Italy. The world
watches its response to the Naples crisis. Will invested interests succeed in getting
communities to build incinerators or will its citizens demand the kind of creative
leadership in these matters that the world once saw from Italy in artistic and scientific
matters during the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution?

Three final messages.

I always end up my public presentations with three short messages.

The first message is directed towards CITIZENS. Don’t let high paid consultants take
either your common sense or your democracy away from you.

The second is directed towards POLITICIANS. Put your faith back in people. Without all
waste solutions will fail. Give us source separation and door to door collection systems
and we will not let you down!

The third is for ACTIVISTS. Have fun! This is essential if we are to avoid burn out.

http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/zerowaste.pdf