The planning meeting for the proposed Battlefield incinerator will be at Meole Brace School, Longden Road, Shrewsbury SY3 9DW
on Wednesday 1st September at 2pm.
The BBC will be filming there from 1pm (Inside Out programme on waste PFI schemes in the West Midlands).
Please be there if you can. The more the better!
SWiS, NOBIS, FoE and other interested parties have been given a slot to speak.
Chineham re-visited
On 21 July, 2010, Miriam Walton and Alan Goater visited Chineham incinerator on a day when VIPs from Shropshire (or elsewhere) were not expected. This is what we saw:
2) The smoke plume. It can ground anywhere within about 15 miles of Chineham but usually they ground within a couple of miles. The prevailing wind is S-Westerly and there is a nursery school about 1/4 of a mile N-E of the incinerator.
1) Green waste being delivered to the incinerator
OK, we know it's supposed to be a 'sorting station' but what's your bet......??
2) The smoke plume. It can ground anywhere within about 15 miles of Chineham but usually they ground within a couple of miles. The prevailing wind is S-Westerly and there is a nursery school about 1/4 of a mile N-E of the incinerator.
3) the sheer massive size and ugliness of this 'state of the art' facility
4)The visual impact of the
incinerator and how it dominates parts of the village of Chineham
Incinerator Planning Meeting Postponed...
..until Wednesday 1st September at 2pm.
The letters inviting members of the public to speak were only posted yesterday and therefore anyone applying was told they had missed the deadline.
So - yet more time wasted for people who are trying to scrutinise this very important decision in their own time and at their own expense!
Venue for the meeting is still Meole Brace School, Longden Road, Shrewsbury SY3 9DW.
The letters inviting members of the public to speak were only posted yesterday and therefore anyone applying was told they had missed the deadline.
So - yet more time wasted for people who are trying to scrutinise this very important decision in their own time and at their own expense!
Venue for the meeting is still Meole Brace School, Longden Road, Shrewsbury SY3 9DW.
Steve's trip to Chineham
Anti-incinerator protestor gatecrashes councillors’ Hampshire burner trip - on his bicycle!Members of Shropshire Council's Strategic Planning Committee on a guided tour of Veolia’s incinerator in Chineham on Monday 9th July, were surprised to be joined by an extra member of their party - Steve Boulding, pictured on the left.
For some time, Safe Waste in Shropshire has suspected that visitors to the incinerator get a kind of ‘Royal Visit’ – all fresh paint and flowers rather than noise, fumes and lorries. In order to find out, Safe Waste in Shropshire supporter, Steve Boulding, got on his bike, literally, and managed to slip through the incinerator's front gate and talk his way onto the tour – in Chineham.
Steve, who is in his 60s, and was Green parliamentary candidate for North Shropshire back in May, cycled the 12 miles from his home in N Shropshire to Shrewsbury Station, then again from Basingstoke to Chineham, repeating it all for the return trip – a 40 mile cycle in order to find out for us all just what councillors get to see and hear when they visit Veolia’s ‘flagship’ incinerator.
Travel note - Wrexham and Shropshire trains are particularly cycle-friendly and comfortable!
This is Steve’s account of the tour:
‘The five Shropshire councillors, Arthur Walpole, Tudor Bebb, David Evans, Karen Calder and Stuart West. were accompanied by three Council officers including Ian Kilby, Head of Development Management and Malcolm Bell, Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control and we were all shown a slick video presentation and an edited guided tour.
Andy MacQueen of Veolia ES, Hampshire seemed proud of his "high-tech power station" (below, right) but made many misleading and inaccurate comments about the whole waste process.
This is Steve’s account of the tour:
‘The five Shropshire councillors, Arthur Walpole, Tudor Bebb, David Evans, Karen Calder and Stuart West. were accompanied by three Council officers including Ian Kilby, Head of Development Management and Malcolm Bell, Malcolm Bell, Head of Planning and Development Control and we were all shown a slick video presentation and an edited guided tour.
Andy MacQueen of Veolia ES, Hampshire seemed proud of his "high-tech power station" (below, right) but made many misleading and inaccurate comments about the whole waste process.
He stated that their filters (which are apparently renewed only every ten years or so), remove ALL particles from the flue gases before discharge. When I asked him about pm 2.5's and below, i.e. the particularly dangerous ones, he asked "Ah, but how do you measure them?" I said that I thought, as the engineer, he might know the answer to that one! Veolia ES Shropshire was claiming to be monitoring PM2.5s at Sundorne Sports village in 2008.
Half of the feedstock comes from south and west Hampshire because “Portsmouth and Southampton couldn't cope” (and some from outside the county) and that "a percentage" was commercial and a "very small percentage" industrial, including such items as “garage waste”. He acknowledged that as households compost and recycle more, that other waste streams – commercial and industrial - will make up a bigger percentage of feedstock. ‘
At no time was the fact that waste figures are falling mentioned, or that the Hampshire incinerators recently applied to the Environment Agency to burn more waste than their permits originally allowed. The Veolia ES website laments that the UK “only recycles 30% of waste’ – a somewhat misleading statement since as at 2009 the figure was already 38.8% (that’s all kinds of waste) and it continues to rise.When one of the councillors remarked that they expected more noise from the plant, Mr MacQueen “remembered” that there was some maintenance going on and the plant was operating at a fraction of its normal capacity. Previous showcase Shropshire visits to the incinerator have also coincided with “maintenance”. We wondered which process/malfunction had produced the pronounced dent in the pipework (see photo on left, above)
He seemed to regard the lime residue resulting from the de-acidification of the flue gases, as an inert and safe product (no mention of what else it might contain) and said it is trucked elsewhere. He referred to bottom ash as "aggregate residue", saying it was used "in road building and construction". In fact foamed concrete containing bottom ash, whatever you choose to call it, is currently banned by the Highways Agency and other contractors because of its unstable nature.
Although the glossy brochure given to the councillors contains the familiar line which seems to form part of every media report about the incinerator, "…provides 7MW of electricity, enough to meet the electricity demand of 10,000 local homes", Mr MacQueen made no claims as to how much electricity is actually produced, merely confirming that it is sold to the National Grid.
I had to own up to the councillors that I hadn't actually cycled all the way from Shropshire that morning, Nonetheless, I think some of them were impressed by my cheek!
While I was outside awaiting the councillors, I counted fourteen refuse trucks going in between approx. 1100 and 1145, at which point, a security man took up position outside and started intercepting trucks and telling them to turn round and come back later. Ten minutes later, the councillors' coach arrived. Curious....’
Miriam Walton, secretary of Safe Waste in Shropshire commented:
‘We are very proud of Steve’s effort which confirms just what kind of flawed and incomplete information the councillors are being given to make this vital decision which will effect Shropshire people’s finances and health for the next quarter-century.
The Chair of Chineham Parish Council, Chris Tomblin, had urged our councillors to take a route through Chineham which would let them see the real visual impact of the incinerator (see photo on the right). He also sent a list of comments and questions about the incinerator which we passed on to Malcolm Bell and the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee several days before the trip, Steve reported that they were ignored, as were another set of questions provided to Mr Bell by campaigner Nick Hall about the operation of the incinerator.
We have also been shocked to learn that some local residents in Harlescott have taken Veolia’s repeated claims about the electricity generated by the incinerator to mean that they will get free power. They will not, and we urge the local media to correct this misapprehension.’
Planning Officers recommend the Battlefield incinerator to be passed
Planning officers have released their assessment of Veolia's planning application for the incinerator. They have recommended that the application should be accepted.
They have also recommended that the application be sent to the Government Office of the West Midlands as it is 'not fully consistent with the Waste Local Plan'.
This comes as little surprise to anyone. The application will be heard on Monday 26 July at 2pm at Meole Brace School, Shrewsbury. We strongly recommend people to try and attend this meeting even if it is only beforehand outside to demonstrate the strength of feeling against the incinerator.
Shropshire Star has put the news on the front page today with brief comments from Safe Waste in Shropshire. The planners' report is flawed and we will strongly challenge it. More news about this in due course!
There are some good comments on the Shropshire Star's web page at:
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/07/12/shropshire-council-backs-shrewsbury-incinerator
Here is ours:
Veolia claims that with the incinerator, only 5% of waste will go to landfill. So what will they do with the 25% left as ash? Even after metal extraction that is a lot of landfill. Some ash is too toxic for 'normal' landfill so it will get trucked off to special sites - in lorries past people's homes. Who trusts Veolia not to make mistakes with this?
Every time the Shropshire Star mentions the incinerator it repeats Veolia's claim that the incinerator will 'generate enough electricity to power 10,000' homes'. This has led some people to believe this means free electricity for homes near the incinerator. Think again! It means big money for Veolia and will not in any way affect local electricity bills.
The incinerator is a licence to print money - for Veolia. The planners have advised passing it on old and faulty figures which paint a picture of waste rising and landfill costing the earth.
Remember: an incinerator is actually a 'giant landfill in the sky'. It doesn't magic away our waste; it burns it and it goes up in the air - and comes down again in the form of toxic material, most of it invisible, on you, your children, your gardens, fields, animals. The tiny particulates in the 'plume' enter your bloodstream via your lungs and the very young and the vulnerable will be the first to suffer. Many credible studies have shown this but our elected representatives and Quangos prefer to pretend that this isn't the case. Is anyone surprised that the Environment Agency considers incineration to be safe when its pension fund is known to have investments in Veolia?
Do we really want to take this risk when cheaper, safer alternatives exist to incineration (and landfill)?
Question: why have some Shropshire Council officials been telling people that there are 'problems' with the Ludlow anaerobic digester? It couldn't be anything to do with the clause in the Waste contract that obliges Shropshire Council to support Veolia's planning application for an incinerator, could it? Surely not?
Many past developments have caused those who came after to curse those who passed them: asbestos, smoking, high-rise developments. Those who have the power of 'life and death' over Shropshire residents must think long and hard about their decision on 26th July if they wish to avoid leaving a deadly and expensive legacy for their electors and their electors' children.
They have also recommended that the application be sent to the Government Office of the West Midlands as it is 'not fully consistent with the Waste Local Plan'.
This comes as little surprise to anyone. The application will be heard on Monday 26 July at 2pm at Meole Brace School, Shrewsbury. We strongly recommend people to try and attend this meeting even if it is only beforehand outside to demonstrate the strength of feeling against the incinerator.
Shropshire Star has put the news on the front page today with brief comments from Safe Waste in Shropshire. The planners' report is flawed and we will strongly challenge it. More news about this in due course!
There are some good comments on the Shropshire Star's web page at:
http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2010/07/12/shropshire-council-backs-shrewsbury-incinerator
Here is ours:
Veolia claims that with the incinerator, only 5% of waste will go to landfill. So what will they do with the 25% left as ash? Even after metal extraction that is a lot of landfill. Some ash is too toxic for 'normal' landfill so it will get trucked off to special sites - in lorries past people's homes. Who trusts Veolia not to make mistakes with this?
Every time the Shropshire Star mentions the incinerator it repeats Veolia's claim that the incinerator will 'generate enough electricity to power 10,000' homes'. This has led some people to believe this means free electricity for homes near the incinerator. Think again! It means big money for Veolia and will not in any way affect local electricity bills.
The incinerator is a licence to print money - for Veolia. The planners have advised passing it on old and faulty figures which paint a picture of waste rising and landfill costing the earth.
Remember: an incinerator is actually a 'giant landfill in the sky'. It doesn't magic away our waste; it burns it and it goes up in the air - and comes down again in the form of toxic material, most of it invisible, on you, your children, your gardens, fields, animals. The tiny particulates in the 'plume' enter your bloodstream via your lungs and the very young and the vulnerable will be the first to suffer. Many credible studies have shown this but our elected representatives and Quangos prefer to pretend that this isn't the case. Is anyone surprised that the Environment Agency considers incineration to be safe when its pension fund is known to have investments in Veolia?
Do we really want to take this risk when cheaper, safer alternatives exist to incineration (and landfill)?
Question: why have some Shropshire Council officials been telling people that there are 'problems' with the Ludlow anaerobic digester? It couldn't be anything to do with the clause in the Waste contract that obliges Shropshire Council to support Veolia's planning application for an incinerator, could it? Surely not?
Many past developments have caused those who came after to curse those who passed them: asbestos, smoking, high-rise developments. Those who have the power of 'life and death' over Shropshire residents must think long and hard about their decision on 26th July if they wish to avoid leaving a deadly and expensive legacy for their electors and their electors' children.
Incinerator Hearing Date set for Monday 26 July at 2pm
The Strategic Planning Group will be deciding on the planning application for the proposed Battlefield Incinerator on Monday 26 July - keeping up a noble tradition of any developments taking place during holidays - at Meole Brace School, Longden Road Shrewsbury at 2pm.
The councillors will visit the Chineham incinerator on Monday 12th July. This is the trip when everything looks nice and shiny and quiet, no ash anywhere and free Veolia sandwiches are handed round.
If anyone is interested in visiting Chinehaml that day to see what the councillors see i.e. check on incinerator conditions, what the councillors get shown outside the complex i.e. what views of the incinerator etc. this would be useful Please let us know if you are interested; but bring your own sandwiches as I don't think that we're invited. As on our last Chineham trip there should be some local residents who will be happy to talk to us.
The planners will issue their report to the Committee on 9th July and it will be clear from this what they are recommending. We are ready to object to it if necessary and rebut any claims that we can.
Whatever the decision, it is certain not to be the end of the story as the application may be 'called in' to the Government Office of the West Midlands anyway. If it is refused, Veolia will appeal.
Safe Waste in Shropshire - contact details on the panel on the right of this page.
Members of Safe Waste in Shropshire viewing the Chineham incinerator in 2008. Note its immense size and ugly construction - and this is 'state of the art' - according to Veolia!
The councillors will visit the Chineham incinerator on Monday 12th July. This is the trip when everything looks nice and shiny and quiet, no ash anywhere and free Veolia sandwiches are handed round.
If anyone is interested in visiting Chinehaml that day to see what the councillors see i.e. check on incinerator conditions, what the councillors get shown outside the complex i.e. what views of the incinerator etc. this would be useful Please let us know if you are interested; but bring your own sandwiches as I don't think that we're invited. As on our last Chineham trip there should be some local residents who will be happy to talk to us.
The planners will issue their report to the Committee on 9th July and it will be clear from this what they are recommending. We are ready to object to it if necessary and rebut any claims that we can.
Whatever the decision, it is certain not to be the end of the story as the application may be 'called in' to the Government Office of the West Midlands anyway. If it is refused, Veolia will appeal.
Safe Waste in Shropshire - contact details on the panel on the right of this page.
Members of Safe Waste in Shropshire viewing the Chineham incinerator in 2008. Note its immense size and ugly construction - and this is 'state of the art' - according to Veolia!
The True Cost of Air Pollution on Human Life
This article by Yvonne Cookpeers was published by the Independent on September 02, 2009. Thank you to Michael Ryan for drawing it to our attention. See also http://markwrite.co.uk/Incinerator.htm
Clean air could save thousands of lives
Pollutants take a huge toll on human life, and are estimated to cost £20bn a year in ill-health and time off work.
If someone was killing thousands of UK residents every year, you’d expect no effort would be spared to bring them to justice. Not so, according to a report entitled Crime is in the Air to be published tomorrow by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Its author, Reece Walters, Professor of Criminology at The Open University, argues that industries who poison the air we breathe are getting away virtually scot-free.
Air pollution is a health threat that is only now coming to prominence in the run-up to the 2012 Olympic Games. The situation is sufficiently serious that earlier this year the European Union threatened to take the UK to court for consistently breaching pollution limits. The Government’s advisory committee on the medical effects of air pollutants (Comeap) estimates that as many as 24,000 UK residents may be dying prematurely every year as a result of air pollution, and thousands more are hospitalised. The cost from ill- health and time off work is thought to be in the region of 20bn a year.
And the blackspot is London, where air quality is among the worst in Europe, according to a report by the London Assembly’s cross- party environment committee in May. Living in London will take, on average, three years off your life, according to Walters. “We’re not talking about people getting sick and dying in a few weeks, it’s a long-term process. We’re talking about people dying prematurely, sooner that they would do if the air conditions were better.”
Road traffic is often blamed for air pollution, and much attention has rightly been focused on cutting vehicle emissions. But a significant amount also comes from industry, particularly manufacturing industry and power stations. Another important source is the gas and oil-based fuels we use in our buildings. Between them, they throw into the air a cocktail of harmful substances linked to respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis, heart and circulatory disease, cancer, neural damage and even birth defects. [see details in red (SWIS' emphasis, below]
Among the pollutants causing the most concern are the fine particles which are inhaled into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, which can cause cancer and heart disease. A major source is diesel engines, not just in vehicles but in factories and offices which use diesel to power heating and air-conditioning.
Another major cause of harm is sulphur dioxide, which can damage lungs even at moderate levels. It’s produced by vehicle emissions and also by commercial activity – factories with the appropriate permit can legally burn off sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere
Ironically, when it comes to air pollution monitoring the UK is regarded as something of a model by other countries, particularly for its National Air Quality Archive which has sites all over the UK. And there is almost an embarrassment of legislation controlling emissions, founded on the landmark Environmental Protection Act 1990 and supplemented later by EU-inspired laws. So what’s going wrong?
“Firstly, the levels of permitted pollution under current legislation are too high,” says Walters. "They need to be reduced across all industries. That would really have a dramatic effect.
“Then the regulatory authorities need more resources, so they can do more in terms of knocking on the doors of those industries that are producing the air pollution. They need to conduct unexpected site visits, which doesn’t happen to any extent at the moment.”
In practice, most authorities go after the “easy pickings”, which means small-time polluters rather than major ones, says Walters. “We see individuals getting prosecuted for causing black smoke by burning off a few rubber tyres in their backyard. Whereas if you have a factory exceeding its emission limits, you’ll more than likely get a warning letter.”
At the root of the problem, argues Walters, is a regulatory system which treats air pollution by industry as an administrative slip-up rather than a crime. The model is not one of punishment but of partnership, negotiation and self-regulation, resulting in a system which favours the polluter.
“If you open a factory to produce, say, plastics, you have a lot of residue from what you produce. What do you do with this waste? You burn it off into the atmosphere and it causes pollution. You’re allowed to do this by law, provided you have a permit from the local council that says you can release no more than a certain amount on each day for a certain number of days per year,” he says.
"If you exceed that permitted amount, firstly, you have to be detected, and most of the time you’re not because there is no really effective monitoring arrangement. But if you are, you will be referred to as ‘exceeding air pollution standards’ – it’s not a crime, it’s simply an ‘exceedance’.
“The authority will write you a letter saying effectively: ’You’re going to have to do something about this’. A few weeks later, they come back and check. If you start doing it again, you might get a second letter, and a third letter, and a fourth letter. By the time it gets to prosecution, we’re talking about a very, very small percentage of polluters.” And for the few who do end up being prosecuted, the penalties are relatively light.
Walters says the present system is too industry-led, and needs to be made more independent and transparent. “Industries get their own scientists to come in and write reports for government on what they consider to be best available practice. There’s not enough government oversight. The partnership model works well if everyone is doing the right thing, not so well if everyone is not.”
However, the main thrust of his argument is that air pollution should no longer be viewed as an “exceedance”, but as an eco-crime. "Calling it an eco-crime elevates the seriousness of air pollution as a social concern and an environmental concern.
“It takes it from the realm of misdemeanour or administrative error and places it firmly within the rhetoric of a serious action that requires significant government intervention. And until we start shifting the rhetoric, I don’t think we are going to get a shift in the regulatory practice.”
Getting industry to clean up its act would be costly, Walters acknowledges. “Trade and development are crucial to the way in which we want to live our lives, but they come with a cost, and that includes air pollution. The question is, how do we weigh the balance between trade and health?”
Professor Walters is a specialist in green criminology. He contributes to the OU courses Crime and Justice (DD301); and Earth in Crisis: environmental policy in an international context (DU311). The report, Crime is in the air, will be downloadable at www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
Invisible killers: the main components of man-made pollution
Sulphur dioxide, from burning sulphur in fossil fuels and oil. Damages lungs.
Nitrogen oxides, from vehicle emissions and the production of electricity. Causes respiratory and viral illness, particularly in children.
Toxic organic micro-pollutants (Tomps), chemicals in waste from industry smoke stacks, and vehicular and engine emissions. Includes dioxins and others linked to cancer, lung disease, immune deficiency and cerebral dysfunction in young children.
Fine particles. Carcinogenic, causing inflammation and more serious conditions such as heart disease.
Lead and heavy metals from smoke and vapour waste, emitted in industrial areas. Can cause mental, neurological and visual problems in children, and birth defects.
Butadiene, released by burning rubber and synthetics and emissions from petrol- and diesel-operated machinery. Can cause birth defects, organ damage and also reproductive disorders.
Carbon monoxide from petrol engines. Reduces the supply of oxygen to major organs, including the heart, and causes heart disease.
Ozone and volatile organic compounds (Vols). Causes damage to the natural environment as well as asthma and lung disease.
© 2009 Independent, The; London (UK). Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Clean air could save thousands of lives
Pollutants take a huge toll on human life, and are estimated to cost £20bn a year in ill-health and time off work.
If someone was killing thousands of UK residents every year, you’d expect no effort would be spared to bring them to justice. Not so, according to a report entitled Crime is in the Air to be published tomorrow by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Its author, Reece Walters, Professor of Criminology at The Open University, argues that industries who poison the air we breathe are getting away virtually scot-free.
Air pollution is a health threat that is only now coming to prominence in the run-up to the 2012 Olympic Games. The situation is sufficiently serious that earlier this year the European Union threatened to take the UK to court for consistently breaching pollution limits. The Government’s advisory committee on the medical effects of air pollutants (Comeap) estimates that as many as 24,000 UK residents may be dying prematurely every year as a result of air pollution, and thousands more are hospitalised. The cost from ill- health and time off work is thought to be in the region of 20bn a year.
And the blackspot is London, where air quality is among the worst in Europe, according to a report by the London Assembly’s cross- party environment committee in May. Living in London will take, on average, three years off your life, according to Walters. “We’re not talking about people getting sick and dying in a few weeks, it’s a long-term process. We’re talking about people dying prematurely, sooner that they would do if the air conditions were better.”
Road traffic is often blamed for air pollution, and much attention has rightly been focused on cutting vehicle emissions. But a significant amount also comes from industry, particularly manufacturing industry and power stations. Another important source is the gas and oil-based fuels we use in our buildings. Between them, they throw into the air a cocktail of harmful substances linked to respiratory conditions such as asthma and bronchitis, heart and circulatory disease, cancer, neural damage and even birth defects. [see details in red (SWIS' emphasis, below]
Among the pollutants causing the most concern are the fine particles which are inhaled into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, which can cause cancer and heart disease. A major source is diesel engines, not just in vehicles but in factories and offices which use diesel to power heating and air-conditioning.
Another major cause of harm is sulphur dioxide, which can damage lungs even at moderate levels. It’s produced by vehicle emissions and also by commercial activity – factories with the appropriate permit can legally burn off sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere
Ironically, when it comes to air pollution monitoring the UK is regarded as something of a model by other countries, particularly for its National Air Quality Archive which has sites all over the UK. And there is almost an embarrassment of legislation controlling emissions, founded on the landmark Environmental Protection Act 1990 and supplemented later by EU-inspired laws. So what’s going wrong?
“Firstly, the levels of permitted pollution under current legislation are too high,” says Walters. "They need to be reduced across all industries. That would really have a dramatic effect.
“Then the regulatory authorities need more resources, so they can do more in terms of knocking on the doors of those industries that are producing the air pollution. They need to conduct unexpected site visits, which doesn’t happen to any extent at the moment.”
In practice, most authorities go after the “easy pickings”, which means small-time polluters rather than major ones, says Walters. “We see individuals getting prosecuted for causing black smoke by burning off a few rubber tyres in their backyard. Whereas if you have a factory exceeding its emission limits, you’ll more than likely get a warning letter.”
At the root of the problem, argues Walters, is a regulatory system which treats air pollution by industry as an administrative slip-up rather than a crime. The model is not one of punishment but of partnership, negotiation and self-regulation, resulting in a system which favours the polluter.
“If you open a factory to produce, say, plastics, you have a lot of residue from what you produce. What do you do with this waste? You burn it off into the atmosphere and it causes pollution. You’re allowed to do this by law, provided you have a permit from the local council that says you can release no more than a certain amount on each day for a certain number of days per year,” he says.
"If you exceed that permitted amount, firstly, you have to be detected, and most of the time you’re not because there is no really effective monitoring arrangement. But if you are, you will be referred to as ‘exceeding air pollution standards’ – it’s not a crime, it’s simply an ‘exceedance’.
“The authority will write you a letter saying effectively: ’You’re going to have to do something about this’. A few weeks later, they come back and check. If you start doing it again, you might get a second letter, and a third letter, and a fourth letter. By the time it gets to prosecution, we’re talking about a very, very small percentage of polluters.” And for the few who do end up being prosecuted, the penalties are relatively light.
Walters says the present system is too industry-led, and needs to be made more independent and transparent. “Industries get their own scientists to come in and write reports for government on what they consider to be best available practice. There’s not enough government oversight. The partnership model works well if everyone is doing the right thing, not so well if everyone is not.”
However, the main thrust of his argument is that air pollution should no longer be viewed as an “exceedance”, but as an eco-crime. "Calling it an eco-crime elevates the seriousness of air pollution as a social concern and an environmental concern.
“It takes it from the realm of misdemeanour or administrative error and places it firmly within the rhetoric of a serious action that requires significant government intervention. And until we start shifting the rhetoric, I don’t think we are going to get a shift in the regulatory practice.”
Getting industry to clean up its act would be costly, Walters acknowledges. “Trade and development are crucial to the way in which we want to live our lives, but they come with a cost, and that includes air pollution. The question is, how do we weigh the balance between trade and health?”
Professor Walters is a specialist in green criminology. He contributes to the OU courses Crime and Justice (DD301); and Earth in Crisis: environmental policy in an international context (DU311). The report, Crime is in the air, will be downloadable at www.crimeandjustice.org.uk
Invisible killers: the main components of man-made pollution
Sulphur dioxide, from burning sulphur in fossil fuels and oil. Damages lungs.
Nitrogen oxides, from vehicle emissions and the production of electricity. Causes respiratory and viral illness, particularly in children.
Toxic organic micro-pollutants (Tomps), chemicals in waste from industry smoke stacks, and vehicular and engine emissions. Includes dioxins and others linked to cancer, lung disease, immune deficiency and cerebral dysfunction in young children.
Fine particles. Carcinogenic, causing inflammation and more serious conditions such as heart disease.
Lead and heavy metals from smoke and vapour waste, emitted in industrial areas. Can cause mental, neurological and visual problems in children, and birth defects.
Butadiene, released by burning rubber and synthetics and emissions from petrol- and diesel-operated machinery. Can cause birth defects, organ damage and also reproductive disorders.
Carbon monoxide from petrol engines. Reduces the supply of oxygen to major organs, including the heart, and causes heart disease.
Ozone and volatile organic compounds (Vols). Causes damage to the natural environment as well as asthma and lung disease.
© 2009 Independent, The; London (UK). Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.
A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)