Incineration is more environmentally friendly than landfilling

national | miscellaneous | news report Wednesday June 12, 2002 23:49 by polorian

Great myths of the incineration industry #1

Burning and burying are not the only options for waste materials, most of which can be reused or recycled. One of the biggest environmental problems posed by landfills is the leaching of decomposing organic material. If kitchen and garden waste were dealt with by composting, this problem would be largely resolved. If, in addition, all other reusable and recyclable materials such as paper, metal, glass and textiles were collected separately, the volume of waste in most communities would have been reduced by over 70%.

There is nothing environmentally friendly about incineration. Even a supposedly state-of-the-art incinerator discharges a hazardous cocktail of dioxin, greenhouse gases, dust and other pollutants. After the rubbish is burned, a minimum of 30% of what goes in remains as bottom and highly toxic fly ash. Incinerator operators claim - despite unresolved concerns about the safety of this practice - that bottom ash can be "recycled" in road and building materials. It should not be put to this use. Fly ash from the filter systems which capture some pollutants (and comprises more than 10% of total ash) must legally be disposed of in secure hazardous waste landfill sites.

A number of efforts have been made to quantify the environmental costs and benefits of various waste disposal options. According to published figures, incineration with energy recovery is bad for the environment, having an estimated environmental cost of €16 per tonne. This compares to an environmental cost of €5 per tonne for landfill. Recycling, on the other hand, provides an overall environmental benefit of €230 per tonne.