Upcoming Events

National | Environment

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link Officials and Provisionals Sat Apr 01, 2017 22:54 | James O'Brien

offsite link Interview with Cathal Goulding Mon Dec 26, 2016 17:11 | Cathal Goulding

offsite link Trump, Russia and the CIA Sat Dec 10, 2016 18:23 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Why is my rent so high? Mon Oct 31, 2016 18:51 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Review of Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises by Anwar Shaikh Sun Oct 30, 2016 16:21 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Fitzpatrick decision: A Banana Republic decision

offsite link Mattie McGrath TD: A dangerous ignoramus Anthony

offsite link Religion should have no control over the political process Anthony

offsite link Diarmaid Ferriter: Denial and the language of cute hoorism Anthony

offsite link Fianna Fail liars Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link SBU cleans-up after Ukrainian air force shoots down MH17 Sat May 27, 2017 01:01 | Scott
Featured image: Since Maidan in 2014, the SBU of Ukraine shares its main building with CIA headquarters. by Scott Humor Part I. SBU orders to destroy all evidence of the

offsite link Syrian War Report ? May 26, 2017: Syrian Army Liberated 5,000km2 From ISIS Fri May 26, 2017 16:03 | Scott
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-rep... If you?re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn?t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or

offsite link Trump: dancing with wolves on the Titanic Fri May 26, 2017 06:14 | The Saker
This article was written for the Unz Review. Robert Fisk put it best: ?Trump Is About To Really Mess Up In The Middle East?. Following his fantastically stupid decision to

offsite link Syrian War Report ? May 25, 2017: Govt Forces Liberate Large Areas In Aleppo And Homs Thu May 25, 2017 21:31 | Scott
https://southfront.org/syrian-war-rep... If you?re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn?t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or

offsite link Moveable Feast Cafe 2017/05/24 ? Open Thread Wed May 24, 2017 22:30 | Herb Swanson
2017/05/24 21:30:01Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link Human Rights-Based Integration Policy and the New ?Migrant Integration Strategy? Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:33 | Cliodhna Murphy

offsite link The Citizens Assembly Proposals: A Draft Bill Tue Apr 25, 2017 20:42 | admin

offsite link NUI Galway Announce New Director of Irish Centre for Human Rights Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:50 | Eoin Daly

offsite link Barriers to first trimester abortion care. Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:31 | admin

offsite link Why would any country put abortion in the Constitution? Thu Apr 20, 2017 17:28 | Máiréad Enright

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Indaver Ireland Throw a Tantrum?

category national | environment | news report author Sunday April 01, 2007 10:28author by Miriam Cotton - MediaBiteauthor email mcotton at mediabite dot org Report this post to the editors

Don't be fooled - this is pre-election play-acting

The Sunday Business Post reports today on what it alleges is a 'major setback to government waste policy'. If it is really true that Indaver intend to abandon plans for incinerators in Cork and Meath, in point of fact it would be the best news ever for government waste policy - a victory for the environment and for the thousands of people around the country who are implacably opposed to this unnecessary, filthy and deadly form of waste disposal. But let's not get too excited.

John Ahern, Managing Director, Indaver Ireland is quoted in the article as saying that Indaver had intended to spend E200million but that failure to implement the national waste strategy had persuaded them to head off to Britain instead. (Look out Britain, something evil your way comes.) But buried deep in the Business Post article is the following from Ahern:

'...We have done the ground work. We're not getting out and we'll be prepared to move when this market sorts itself out.'

There is a very strong probability that this threat to pull out is nothing but a pre-election ploy - a crafty way of seeming to hand a form of victory to objectors. Waste incineration was fair set to become a big local pre-election issue. But anti-incinerator campaigners in Cork and Meath who may be tempted to take their eyes off the ball would be seriously unwise to do so. There is nothing in this announcement that remotely suggests the government has reversed its policy and that it is not still doing its utmost to ease Indaver and others into operation against widespread and emphatic public objection. It's just that they are not able to do it quickly enough for Ahern and he is stamping his foot a bit. And this is a tricky time what with the election so close, and all. A final decision to approve planning permission for incineration in Cork, for example, at this stage would be electoral disaster on top of a series of other recent politically suicidal decisions in the region - e.g. reneging on the agreement to subsidise the completion of Cork Airport.

author by CHASEpublication date Sun Apr 01, 2007 23:13Report this post to the editors

CHASE Statement released 1 April, 2007

INDAVER WITHDRAWAL A STUNT TO PRESSURISE GOVERNMENT
BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR CHASE
_____________________________________________________

The announcement by Indaver Ireland of their intention to shelve plans to build two incinerators at Ringaskiddy Co Cork is a cynical effort to pressurise government to subsidise their lost cause – incineration – which even they now see as uneconomic.

A spokesperson for CHASE said “We regard this as a victory for the campaign because it proves what CHASE have been saying for the last 6 years, that these incinerators are not economically viable.

However, in real terms, nothing has changed. The EPA operating licence is still in place, as is the planning permission which attaches to the site so could be sold on. Both planning and licence are subject to High Court challenges, which will continue, as Indaver have stated that ‘when there is greater certainty in the market they’ll return to build those incinerators’.

Now more than ever, we need to ensure that the next government does not support incineration. CHASE will continue their campaign and will be asking people to vote only for candidates with No Incineration in their party policies, not for a Government who will waste taxpayers money while subsidising carbon credits for a toll-waste industry

While this victory will provide a morale boost to our campaign, we will celebrate only when the planning permission and operating licence are quashed or withdrawn.”

ENDS

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by John Ahern - Indaver Irelandpublication date Mon Apr 02, 2007 09:38Report this post to the editors

Miriam is of course correct. We is not abandoning our Cork project. It is still imperative that Ireland manages its own hazardous waste and stops sending it to other countries for incineration. Our issue, reported at the weekend, is with the municipal element of the project. Ireland is over reliant on landfill to manage its waste. Ireland needs to implement landfill diversion measures in order for incineration to be viable. This is achieved in other countries by using a landfill levy to make landfilling waste expensive. The proceeds from this levy are then used to promote and subsidise recycling (not incineration – we are not looking to be subsidised). Our call to Government is to implement these landfill diversion measures so that Ireland can move up the waste hierarchy.

John Ahern
Indaver Ireland

author by PJ Douthiepublication date Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:25Report this post to the editors


Indaver post:
Ireland needs to implement landfill diversion measures in order for incineration to be viable. This is achieved in other countries by using a landfill levy to make landfilling waste expensive. The proceeds from this levy are then used to promote and subsidise recycling (not incineration – we are not looking to be subsidised

Which can also be stated as, - Incineration will be viable when the government makes landfill more expensive,
Why would you need a subsidy when the government could make the alternative more expensive on your behalf?

Absent from these proposals is anything to promote a reduction in waste production, (as opposed to trying to recycle, bury or burn the waste we produce.
What a load of greenwash...

author by Cashcroppublication date Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:36Report this post to the editors



-"So Ireland can move up the waste hierarchy"
Please explain this john-

It's obvious enough where FF/PD think the money is, after years of encouraging
conspicuous consumption, global warming, eco-disaster - the pay off to the
huge companies such as Indaver must be enormous.

Must check out the boards of directors for the re-cycling/waste management/
companies.

Other lucrative private enterprises by FF/PD cronies include:

Pharmacies, (about to be de-regulated)
Nursing homes , (FF/PD encourage private profiteering orgs and even
have changed legislation so the profiteers can access equity from the
family home- rather than robbing pension books).
Waste management.

What next nuclear power?

author by Jasperpublication date Tue Apr 03, 2007 09:34Report this post to the editors

"Which can also be stated as, - Incineration will be viable when the government makes landfill more expensive,
Why would you need a subsidy when the government could make the alternative more expensive on your behalf?"

Firstly, I'll state that I'm not a particular fan of the Indaver plants though I'm not anti-incineration.

But would you like to explain how you think that making landfilling more expensive is a bad thing?

You'll also note he did say that the levies would be used to subsidise recycling.

Now, you can dismiss it as spin, as is you prerogative but don't come out using that "landfilling would be more expensive" as a stick to beat incineration with since making landfilling more expensive and thus reducing the amount going to landfill is what anyone with any interest in the environment should be hoping for. Isn't that the goal, PJ?

author by MBpublication date Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:34Report this post to the editors

John Ahern is an incinerator salesman, let no one forget that!

He is not here to do us any favours, he is here to make enormous profits.

What he doesn't tell us is that while he makes his profit, it will be us the taxpayers who will fork out 100s of millions of Euro in Carbon tax credits to subsidize his activities.

Ireland is already 25% over its 1990 levels and has paid 270 million of tax-payers money as a penalty. We are meant to be reducing our emissions not increasing them.

The tolling toxic mass burn incinerator proposed in Cork alone would cost the tax-payers 75 million Euro over its lifetime. It would pump 100s of thousand of tonnes of green house gases into the atmosphere while Indaver walk away with huge profits and leave us to pick up the tab.

The present Government want to build 8 tolling incinerators thro' out the country! The potential cost to the taxpayers in Co2 taxes and the abject waste of our money while the private operators make huge fortunes is totally unjustifiable and reprehensible.

Remember this Government has bent backwards to facilitate Indaver Ireland, it even appointed Indaver's project manager for the two incinerators Ms. Laura Burke to the Bord of the EPA. Don't be fooled by this clever piece of PR, the incineration debate is far from over.

Mr Ahern has highlighted the role this Government could play in making him a rich man.

Remember the elections are not far away. Use your vote wisely!

author by Miriam Cottonpublication date Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:59Report this post to the editors

Back at your station 'Jasper', I see.

The goal here is not to allow the likes of the Belgian company Indaver, and its few devoted disciples such as yourself, dishonestly to use arguments against landfill to further the deadly incineration agenda. Indaver wants the landfill to stop so it can burn the waste instead - so as to make a profit. That's a frying pan to the fire situation. Incineration is NOT the solution to landfill. Artifically jacking the cost of landfill so as to make incineration seem attractive is plain lunacy - the only interests served are those of the profiteering company with increased environmental and economic costs to be borne by ordinary people. Talk about fixing the market for yourself. Again you are attempting to establish a false dichotomy so as to take this news reporting down another of your dead-end arguments.

One thing that is striking about the quotes from John Ahern in the Business Post article and his post to Indymedia above, is the arrogance of his attitude towards the politicians who have done so much to pave the way for incineration in Ireland. Along with Shell, Statoil, Marathon and the rest, it's so obviously a case of 'do as you are told, boy' where Minister Roche and his colleagues are concerned.

author by PJ Douthiepublication date Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:51Report this post to the editors

FAO PJ Douthie
by Jasper Tue Apr 03, 2007 09:34

"But would you like to explain how you think that making landfilling more expensive is a bad thing?"

I made no such argument Jasper. Be honest if you want to debate. However, I would argue against making landfill more expensive without putting any changes in the production and use of packaging etc. It would

Jasper >
"You'll also note he did say that the levies would be used to subsidise recycling."

I noted that he referred to something that happens in other countries. I put as much faith in Indaver's spin as I do a pre-election promise. Recycling is very low priority in this country as far as the government is concerned. I'd like to see more of it. I'd also to see more consumers refusing to take the excess packaging home with them.

"Now, you can dismiss it as spin, as is you prerogative"
Thanks Jasper, glad to have your permission to give my opinion. : )

" but don't come out using that "landfilling would be more expensive" as a stick to beat incineration with since making landfilling more expensive and thus reducing the amount going to landfill"

Jasper, that doesn't necessarily follow either. A lot of people will simply pay more to get rid of the same amount of rubbish. Others will do worse

" is what anyone with any interest in the environment should be hoping for. Isn't that the goal, PJ?"

Again Jasper, that's not 100% correct.
I can think of another simplistic way to reduce the amount going to landfill. Hike up bin charges so that even more people dump illegally in other folk's gardens, farms, etc. as already happens around the country.
What people with an interest in the environment want to see is a reduction in POLLUTION. Using landfill as a measure is convenient for the incineration industry as it doesn't count their toxic emissions.
In other countries, shoppers can bring containers, some shops do that here as well.
It reduces the amount of waste produced in the first place. You don't have to burn or bury it if you don't make it in the first place, but then, that would deny packaging companies, waste companies, and Indaver their profit margins wouldn't it?

author by Jasperpublication date Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:26Report this post to the editors

"Back at your station 'Jasper', I see.

The goal here is not to allow the likes of the Belgian company Indaver, and its few devoted disciples such as yourself, dishonestly to use arguments against landfill to further the deadly incineration agenda. Indaver wants the landfill to stop so it can burn the waste instead - so as to make a profit."

If you read my post again, I said I didn't agree with the Indaver incinerator. But don't let that stop you ranting away.

Honestly, if ranting is all you have to offer, you do a disservice to the people who are anti-incineration and try to back it up rather than resort to name-caalling and other nonsense.

author by Nick Folley - Nonepublication date Tue Apr 03, 2007 23:24Report this post to the editors

"But would you like to explain how you think that making landfilling more expensive is a bad thing?
You'll also note he did say that the levies would be used to subsidise recycling"

Yes, Jasper, but I think the problem is this: much of the stuff we currently take to landfill can't be recycled - that is, there are no facilities to recycle it (such as polystyrene etc) though if suitable facilites existed, it might be possible to recycle it. Therefore, if people find it too expensive to landfill waste, what will their alternative be? It would make it easier to browbeat them with incineration. Now, as regards the levies being used to subsidise recyling: 1) what guarantees are being given that that will be the case? There are all sorts of levies being levied for this and that, and for the most part they all seem to end up in the same kitty at the end of the day. 2) even assuming some of the levied money is used to subsidise recycling, what kinds of recycling will be subsidised? If the aim is to find an alternative to landfill, there will have to be an expansion of the range of materials being recycled. It would be of little use simply to provide more bottle banks and paper banks, but have no facilities for polystyrene, plastic bags etc., etc., Once again, I can't find any detail in the governemnt plan, and it's the detail that's critical. Our experience with this government is that it lacks imagination, so I can't realistically see it having the vision to do any of the above effectively, leaving us vulnerable to pressure from companies like Indaver (who, by their own admission are not here simply to 'help us' deal with our waste but to make a profit)

For what it's worth, the city council is charging people to use its RECYCLING facilities at Kinsale Road as it stands, hardly conducive to diverting waste from landfill or illegal dumping. Mabye the levies could be used to re-instate free recycling.

I agree that landfill is not a desireable way to dispose of waste. But you have to read between the lines. Less landfill and levies might not be as beneficial as it appears at first sight, nor the intentions so honest. It all depends on how and why this is done.

author by Marie - CHASEpublication date Wed Apr 04, 2007 19:24Report this post to the editors

Indaver's heavy carbon footprints can be seen all over the Sunday Business Post headlines.
Let's talk the talk.
We are talking about finding it hard to get investment in what is considered an unethical industry. The preception of the public at large, of this industry is that it causes health problems and safety risks. Could that mean litigation? In Meath, an incinerator built on an aquafirm, in Cork, An incinerator burning the whole country's hazardous waste, built on a flooding site, on the River Lee, right beside our Navy and an international Martime 3rd Level college, with a stationary population of 750 personnel. Can you get insurance to build a transportation station for toxins, on a flooding site that has been confirmed as a flooding site?

In a significant vote in Feb. European Parliament, MEP’s rejected pro-incinerator amendments to the Waste Framework Directive which proposed to reclassify incinerators from a disposal to a recovery operation.
The reclassification of Incinerators as recovery was not accepted.
That vote was consistent with an earlier European Court of Justice ruling (case C-458/00) that classifies dedicated municipal waste incinerators as disposal operations with a side effect of energy production.
Burning waste creates high CO2 emissions for a low electricity output. It emits more CO2 than recycling, creates health problems and diverts waste from recycling.
When Mr. Bertie Ahern promised at Inchidonney that he had learned a lesson and would listen to the electorate, it meant nothing. What has he promised to the incineration industry?
Meeting our responsibilities on carbon emissions is a very inconvenient truth for both Mr. Aherns. .

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Thu Apr 05, 2007 17:30Report this post to the editors

All Indaver has to do is to create doubt. As well as toxins, this is their stock and trade. Incineration is not an alternative to Landfill. The toxic products will end up in landfill anyway, the volume will be reduced but the hazard will be hugely increased. Incineration should be termed " Skyfill" or " Lungfill" or "Foetusfill".
What John ahern is adept at is positing a false arguement of landfill versus incineration. This limits the debate to what we are witnessing and allows him to dictate it and we are willing victims.
It is time we framed the debate and he stuck to his job, selling the burning of toxins and trying to rationalise that for himself and his peace of mind. He has to fool himself not us in order for him to maintain the fiction-for himself-that incineration is legitimate. That is a form of denial that is necessary for him to sleep soundly at night. He has to lie to himself first then lieing to us becomes easy.
Incineration solves nothing, it enriches a few, poisons many and allows us all to proceed without questioning how we live and how we consume.

author by mairepublication date Fri Apr 06, 2007 13:37Report this post to the editors

The battle to turn the waste hierarchy upside down may have been lost , certainly global warming is going to sink many more ships. How skilled is the government at reading the compass.? John Ahern
of indaver may be reading the signs in the sky, changing course may be the correct decision.

author by Miriam Cottonpublication date Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:00Report this post to the editors

Sean McCartaigh in the Irish Examiner reported on Saturday about an alternative treatment method called mechanical biological treatment which makes it possible to recover the resources contained waste. It consists of automated mechanical sorting equipment which either takes out recyclable elements from mixed waste (metals plastics and glass) or processes them. The biological aspect of the process refers to either anaerobic digestion or composting.

In their eagerness to embrace incineration the governemnt have failed to take adequate account of alternative waste treatment methods such as MBT and a new repoort by a British environmental consultants Eunomia points out that the use of MBT has not been given serious consideration as a viable althernative by the authorities, even though it was a cheaper and more easily deliverable form of waste management.

The reports states: 'National policy appears to be completely wedded to the idea that Ireland must have incineration.' Dominic Hogg, the report's said that the government seemed to have a 'blind spot' about MBT. 'The length of time needed to bring incineration plants on line, coupled with local opposition, suggests Ireland needs a 'Plan B'. Dr Hogg said it was also incorrect to paint the picture as a choice between landfill and incineration since the benefits of 'thermal waste treatment' were not at all as clear cut as was being made out and he thought the government's focus on incineration was as a result of there being relatively little information about MBT in the late 1990s when most national and regional waste management policies were planned.

The report was commissioned by Greenstar, Ireland's largest waste management company whose chief Executive said that their objective had been to stimulate debate about alternative ways in which Ireland could achieve its waste policy objectives.

author by Recyclettapublication date Thu Apr 19, 2007 20:34Report this post to the editors



It's only commonsense that Indaver is moving away from municipal waste incineration. It simply isn't bankable or a suitable technology for this country - See the Eunomia report published in April 2007. MBT seems to be the way to go.

I dont see the point in increasing landfill taxes further - we already have some of the the highest landfill charges in Europe and it is really all tax anyway because the state runs just about all the landfills.

What needs to be done is to cut down the governments dependence on funding local authorities from the proceeds of ancient leaking County Council landfills on unsuitable sites. Carlow County Council has a landfill on a regionally important aquifer that should have been closed yonks ago and Cork waste is going into a leaking unlined dump on Kinsale Road. Theres loads of examples around the country.

The government lets the councils keep these old dumps, continuously extending them for years beyond their planned closing dates, purely for revenue generating purposes and with total disregard for the future needs of the country. EU fines loom.

The country needs Waste Minimisation, MBT and, for any leftover waste, a new network of modern landfills that use methane to generate electricity.

Its not rocket science.

author by M Cottonpublication date Fri Apr 20, 2007 14:13Report this post to the editors

Indaver have not said they are moving away from municipal waste incineration (and what about toxic waste incineration, we are threatened with one of those too in Cork) - they have not withdrawn any of their applications for permissions, despite what they say. It's business as usual so far as the incineration business is concerned. Maybe Indaver's wobbler was thrown in anticipation of the line McDowell has now taken. Whatever about his hypocrisy, the PD position on Poolbeg has driven a coach and horses through the governments policy on incineration where other protests are concerned. Still think the whole thing is a pre-election pantomime to make voters think there is a drawing back from incineration which is not a vote winner in any locality it is planned for. CHASE have issued a brief press release:

"The announcement by Indaver Ireland of their intention to shelve plans to build two incinerators at Ringaskiddy, Co. Cork is a cynical effort to pressurise government to subsidise their lost cause – incineration – which even they now see as uneconomic.

A spokesperson for CHASE said “We regard this as a victory for the campaign because it proves what CHASE have been saying for the last 6 years, that these incinerators are not economically viable.

However, in real terms, nothing has changed. The EPA operating licence is still in place, as is the planning permission which attaches to the site and so could be sold on. Both planning and licence are subject to High Court challenges, which will continue, as Indaver have stated that ‘when there is greater certainty in the market they’ll return to build those incinerators’.

Now more than ever, we need to ensure that the next government does not support incineration. CHASE will continue their campaign and will be asking people to vote only for candidates with No Incineration in their party policies, not for a Government who will waste taxpayers money while subsidising carbon credits for a toll-waste industry.

While this victory will provide a morale boost to our campaign, we will celebrate only when the planning permission and operating licence are quashed or withdrawn.”


ENDS
For further information contact:
Mary O’Leary, Chairperson, 086 8177737, 021 4811952
Mary Hurley, PRO, 086 8162448, 021 4803070
Linda FitzPatrick, 087 7410849, 021 4374506 "

author by M O' Brienpublication date Wed Apr 25, 2007 13:08Report this post to the editors

It's wise of Chase to be cautious about the Indaver news however it would be foolish not to take this as a great opportunity for the country to take a breather and examine the options. What is clear is that this wobbler thrown by Indaver proves that Ireland Inc simply cannot place its waste management future in the single incineration basket. Any wobbler thrown by Indaver or Elsam just highlights the risk to the economy of this single long term bet.

Recycletta is right. MBT is the only safe proven solution. Mechanically seperating out recyclables and using them anew is a proven technology. Composting the separated food fraction is a sucessful solution in many countries. And if it can't be recycled owing to contamination - landfill it in a modern landfill. And all the resources the county councils currently plough into promoting incineration could be freed up to promote waste minimisation.

Incineration is gone and we should firmly close the door behind it by offering the politicians and policymakers an alternative. Minimisation / MBT / Landfill can't be argued with. It works elsewhere.

author by Recylettapublication date Wed Apr 25, 2007 18:55Report this post to the editors

I agree. Incineration is gone. Financially not viable. No political will. It will not outlive the election. There is an alternative. MBT.

There is a rumour that Indaver is moving focus to the UK to build MBT plants in line with UK policy.

There is certainly more financial opportunity in it and it makes more technical sense.

For more information http://www.wasteconsult.de/mbt2007en.htm

International conference on MBT technologies.

Related Link: http://www.wasteconsult.de/mbt2007en.htm
author by Terencepublication date Wed Apr 25, 2007 19:24Report this post to the editors

MBT refers to Mechanical biological treatment ("MBT"), or "mechanical biological pre-treatment" is a category of waste treatment technologies that enables recovery of the resources contained in waste

More details at:

Related Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_biological_trea...tment
author by mairepublication date Thu Apr 26, 2007 09:28Report this post to the editors

Incineration is not gone if you listen to Fianna Fail government at their recent ardfheist . They call the tune at the moment.

The call from Dominic Hogg's report to challenge some of the assumptions behind the plan to burn our waste, and suggesting an alternative has fallen on deaf ears. MBT may be all it is made out to be, but without an open mind and some vision it will go nowhere.
Econonmics, health, safety, co2 emissions, will be airbrushed, in attempts to push through incineration. It should never have got this far, in a time of gllobal warming, when we must be prudent in our planning, in order to do no harm to the environmnet.

We are in the very unique position to go eco friendly.

author by Recyclettapublication date Thu Apr 26, 2007 14:11Report this post to the editors

Read between the lines Marie. The winds of change are upon us. There are three highly vulnerable election issues for FF which have the potential to lose traditionally safe seats. Galway water, Incineration and Property values / Stamp Duty. Money is being thrown at the Galway issue in a hope that it will go away. Stamp duty reform is not being ruled out if you listen carefully to statements from Brian Cowan although he does take the high moral ground blaming the current property freeze on PD meddling in this area. But FF won't not reform Stamp Duty just for high moral ground.

And if you listen to Dick Roche's reaction to Indaver's wobbler he does not lseem to like what could be perceived as arrogant ransom threats of the pro-incineration lobby and he seems wide open to hearing an alternative. The people need to give him that alternative and at the moment the best alternative I've heard is MBT. So instead of this handwringing over a perceived done deal, get on to the website of the Minister for Environment and tell him how waste management targets can be met to EU satisfaction through the use of MBT. Dick Roche has one of the most open webpages of any politician I've come across and he does answer comments himself. It is his way of testing the public mood.

www.dickroche.com is the web page and may I respectfully suggest that anyone following my advice leaves anti-FF feelings outside the door and tackle this as direct political lobbying. The prospect of your vote in exchange for a revised waste management policy that no longer relies on incineration but is open to other alternatives. You will hopefully be surprised at how little its going to take to convince the Minister. Civil Servants it seems are currently drafting policy changes in this area and now is the time to influence those changes.

Realise that the powerful force behind incineration is not the Government. Politicians would drop this political football in the morning. The EPA and RPS-MCOS are the misguided drivers of incineration policy in Ireland. The election could very well change that position.

So log on to www.dickroche.com and make your feelings known. The temptation of your vote in exchange for a revised national waste strategy without incineration. The only chance is now.

Related Link: http://www.dickroche.com
author by RJpublication date Sun Apr 29, 2007 16:46Report this post to the editors



I agree that the Indaver story is a tantrum but perhaps one tantrum too many...

Vote for anyone who promises an alternative to Incineration...

author by Carmelpublication date Mon Apr 30, 2007 22:17Report this post to the editors



This should be more of an election issue. There are alternatives. Vote for no incineration.

author by Johnpublication date Tue May 01, 2007 18:37Report this post to the editors


Surely MBT is government policy already? Surely anything that is higher up the waste hierarchy automatically becomes national policy as it is EU policy.

With MBT as an option ( see new Dominic Hogg report) surely all parties in the election can afford to cast off the Incineration issue and aim for higher up the hierarchy?

Vote for parties with policies that dont rely on incineration but focus on recycling.

author by Terencepublication date Wed May 02, 2007 14:28Report this post to the editors

There is a press release on the Greenstar website about the Dominc Hogg report on waste management. The full PDF version of the report can be found at: http://www.greenstar.ie/docs/Waste%20Policy%20in%20Irel...d.pdf

Some interesting things mentioned in the press release about the report are worth reproducing here. It opens with the statement. Ireland can take advantage of its late mover position and leap frog the waste management performance of other European countries if it addresses blind spots in its waste management policy, reveals a hard hitting independent report "Waste Policy, Planning and Regulation in Ireland"..

It goes on to say: The report is critical of the over emphasis on incineration in regional waste plans and the lack of consideration of alternative waste treatment options. These are identified as major impediments to ensuring Ireland builds world class waste infrastructure in time to meet the EU Landfill Directive targets, which become progressively tighter from 2010. The length of time needed to bring incineration plants on line, coupled with local opposition, suggests Ireland needs a 'Plan B'.


Hogg himself says in the report: Ireland is significantly behind other European countries in putting systems and supporting infrastructure in place that will allow Ireland meet its targets under the EU Landfill Directive and provide sustainable, waste treatment options that will also impact minimally on climate change.

And it says about MBT -Mechanical Biological Treatment -that its facilities include sorting, composting-style processes and recycling facilities and they are increasingly being used to deal with waste remaining after segregation at source in countries with progressive waste management systems, such as Austria and Germany.

The press release can be found at the URL below

So if somehow this issue can be raised higher on the agenda before the election, we may even get some of the politicians to

Related Link: http://www.greenstar.ie/htm/about/press_releases/2007_e...a.htm
author by John Gpublication date Wed May 02, 2007 17:35Report this post to the editors


The Hogg document is certainly the mother of all waste reports. MBT looks set to be the new alternative to Incineration. Is this report the reason behind Indaver's decision to pull out I wonder?

author by celinepublication date Thu May 03, 2007 09:49Report this post to the editors

Does anybody know how long it will take to get MBT off the ground? Does Hogg give any clue in his report?

If Indaver and Eslam are pulling out we will need a quick replacement to incineration.

author by Mairepublication date Thu May 03, 2007 10:15Report this post to the editors

Problem
Incineration is government policy

Q.
How do you change government policy?(In a dysfunctional democracy)

Solution.
You must change government.

Alternatives are the solution, to the problem.

author by Noel Heneghanpublication date Fri May 04, 2007 00:51Report this post to the editors



Whats the green party policy on incineration? MBT?

Looks like a FF/Green or FG/Green government to me...

Could we see MBT replace Incineration as govt policy after the election?.....

author by mairepublication date Fri May 04, 2007 12:09Report this post to the editors

Unfortunately if F.F. are again in government it is business as usual, that is incineration - burn the future, that is their policy, if you can change it before the election, that is another question.

author by recyclettapublication date Mon May 07, 2007 14:00Report this post to the editors

The issue is what is party policy on waste management. Who can we vote for?

It's not very clear. FG FF and Labour need to clarify what is now for each of them an ambiguous position on incineration.

Below is a summary of the most recent WM policy statements made by the parties. Despite a lot of waffle, only SF and the Greens are saying no incineration. Labour wants to recycle 75% which sort of rules out incineration but they dont come out and say that. FF has just announced that it will send only 10% to landfill but does not say how this is to be achieved and it does put a question mark over incineration as 30% of incinerated waste is ash for landfill. FG is suspicously vacant of any incineration policy.

Greens:

"We need to respond quickly to the growing waste crisis now confronting Irish society. Rather than investing in expensive resource-destruction technologies, the Irish Government needs to adopt a more sustainable approach to the recovery of materials for re-use or recycling. In a natural eco-system, there is a balance where the wastes from one process become the resources for other processes. Nothing is wasted. In a consumer society, however, waste is an accepted part of life. The Green Party believes that we need to reverse this trend and to avoid leaving future generations with a horrific waste legacy. '

Sinn Fein :

"It commits our party to defending the right of all people to a safe, clean and unpolluted environment. It reiterates our full opposition to incineration. ..'

Fine Gael:

Waste management is absent from recent policy statements. Plenty of individual deputies taking a no incineration stance but no formal policy on that.

Labour 2007 policy:

A State recycling agency for recycling charged with the development of recycling infrastructure and a market for recycled products.
Every household in Ireland to recycle 50 per cent of their rubbish by 2012, rising to 75 per cent by 2020.
A per capita target for municipal waste to encourage householders and local authorities prevent waste production.
Producers to assume responsibility for waste reduction at source through less and smarter packaging.

No labour party policy on incineration but an objective of 75% recycling effectively rules it out.

Fianna Fail Policy 2007

Ony 10% of waste to end up in landfill. No detail on how this is to be achieved. No change to incineration committment however decreasing landfilled waste to 10% would put another query over the viability of incineration as 30% of incinerated waste is landfilled ash which under FF policy may now have to go abroad. No committment to increased recycling.

The solution:

MBT is the only technology that can satisfy all policies!

author by arnie kpublication date Mon May 07, 2007 15:45Report this post to the editors

And you left out the PDs who are somewhat confused on the issue. Their party leader is anti incineration but the party is pro incineration.

Beware of false promises from politicans. Make sure its party policy not just the desperate election promise of one or two members....

author by marie - farmerpublication date Mon May 07, 2007 16:03Report this post to the editors

There is only one answer to this waste thing. Do not create it in the first place. Do not buy plastic bottles of water soft drinks or milk, . Buy vegetables and spuds from a place where you can pick them yourself. support local farming community and you will be helping everyone . Healthier too

author by recyclettapublication date Mon May 07, 2007 16:20Report this post to the editors

I agree with Marie Farmer but the best answer is not always achievable.

At the moment there is nowhere for your potato peelings to go except landfill where targets to remove such waste apply.

We need a way that your kitchen bin can be sorted through, all of the potato peelings etc removed and composted and all recyclables recovered.

That way is called MBT, certainly for the increasing number of apartment dwellers and small house dwellers who can't home compost.

MBT plants can be scaled down as zero waste ambitions are realised
This cannot be done with incineration which needs a high volume of waste to survive.

author by mairepublication date Mon May 07, 2007 16:48Report this post to the editors

Potato peelings go into the home composter, and make the most wonderful compost for your garden.
Have you any idea how many composters there are in this country.? There is a solution for peelings, and wormeries for cooked food, it just takes a little effort. maybe separated attached but removeable bins inside or out side the recycling bin. We really need more education on how to handle our waste.Those already using these methods are almost down to zero waste.
Can MBT produce compost for sale to the public and to state bodi?Is there a saleable product at the end, where can we see examples of this process? Can MBT be used locally?
Small is beautiful, Indaver did not see small. Can MBT?

author by Recyclettapublication date Mon May 07, 2007 16:58Report this post to the editors

Tanks to Terence post above we have a summary of what MBT does

The Dominic Hogg report on alternatives for the Irish Waste Problem can be found at the following link.

http://www.greenstar.ie/docs/Waste%20Policy%20in%20Irel...d.pdf

As DH has written for Greenpeace and Governments as well I think he has some credibility.

The whole idea of MBT is that it is small. Poolbeg is 600,000 tpa and MBT can be as low as 10,000 tpa, i.e sufficient for the needs of a small town.

The government or its successor needs a reason to reject Incineration. As most people cant manage a zero waste existance by themselves you are right in thinking that a local solution is the answer.

MBT is currently that alternative

Related Link: http://www.greenstar.ie/docs/Waste%20Policy%20in%20Irel...d.pdf
author by Ray Manpublication date Tue May 08, 2007 10:19Report this post to the editors

So why is the government supporting Incineration if your MBT is such a clear answer?

author by louispublication date Tue May 08, 2007 12:58Report this post to the editors

The government supports incineration because a company called RPS MCOS and its employee PJ Rudden advised them to.

The department of Environment has no experts of its own so they used their pet consultant PJ to help.

PJ and his company are paid fees which are directly linked to the size and scale of a project.

Incinerators are big, expensive and take a long time to get through the planning system.

To find out how much RPS made on fees advising local authorities to use incineration and managing the Poolbeg PPP and advising Meath and Cork CCs on Indaver applications, you will need to FOI each of the authorities.

When you add it all up it will make interesting multi million euro reading...

author by mairepublication date Tue May 08, 2007 18:02Report this post to the editors

Louis,
Would love to read the hardbacked copy. Is it as good as the Godfathers?

author by louispublication date Tue May 08, 2007 18:24Report this post to the editors

Probably better than the godfather Marie...

RPS enjoyed a turnover of almost 300 million euro in 2006....

author by Sid Playerpublication date Wed May 09, 2007 10:29Report this post to the editors


DELTA astonished by rumours regarding Indaver acquisition

Press Release
Middelburg, 04 April 2007
DELTA learned with astonishment of the debate that took place yesterday in the Dutch Lower House of Parliament concerning the partial acquisition (60%) of the Flemish company Indaver.

Peter Boerma, General Manager of DELTA, said: ‘The motion submitted by Senators Huub Doek and Joyce Sylvester was and is entirely clear to us. We may in no way use our energy network as security for foreign investments. We do not do so. Furthermore, this point was already raised at a meeting with Economic Affairs Minister Joop Wijn in January. So let’s base our discussions on facts, not on rumours’.

Firstly, at the end of 2006, DELTA had €200 million cash to pay towards the total of €285 million needed to acquire 60% of the Indaver shares. The company also had a borrowing capacity of €1,000 million. The €85 million of this used to finance the acquisition should be regarded in relation to this borrowing capacity of €1,000 million. In view of DELTA’s total assets, it should be clear that the networks were not used as security.

DELTA therefore looks forward to the announced investigation by the Office of Energy Regulation (DTe) into the financial assurances concerning the network with confidence.

Secondly, following a long preparatory process, DELTA made a binding offer for 60% of Indaver’s shares on 30 October 2006, while the motion was not adopted by the Senate until 21 November. DELTA therefore acted in compliance with the laws and regulations in effect at the time.

Furthermore, the company acted in accordance with the principles of good corporate governance. The shareholders, the Supervisory Board and the Works Council unanimously approved the investment.

DELTA acquired a majority interest in Indaver to complement the multi-utility strategy of investment in waste processing, energy and water. DELTA’s aim is to achieve profitable growth as a multi-utility business. The company shares this goal with its shareholders and Supervisory Board.

DELTA invested in a Flemish company located only about 50 km from its headquarters in Middelburg: i.e. closer than other DELTA investments in companies in the North of the Netherlands, for instance.

Note for Editors:
For further information, please contact:
DELTA N.V., Mirjam van Zuilen, Head of the Communication Department, Tel. +31 118 882041/+31 6 28906403

Mailing Address: Post Box 5048, NL-4330 KA Middelburg
Head Office: Poelendaelesingel 10, NL-4335 JA Middelburg
Fax: 0118 – 88 2100 / e-mail: persvoorlichting@delta.nl / website: www.delta.nl

author by mairepublication date Wed May 09, 2007 10:29Report this post to the editors

If RPS has benefited to the tune of 300 million in 2006, then it makes facinating reading of Andrew Buroni's (RPS) suggestion at the oral hearing of the proposed Ringsend incinerator that the local community may benefit from health gains from having an incinerator in their area.!!!
This is after a government Commissioned Health Review Board Report, Feb 2003 - "There is some evidence that incinerator emissions may be associated with respiratory morbidity." A number of well-designed studies have reported associations between developing certain cancers and living close to incinerator sites.
Maybe RPS consultants are advising our health strategy.!!

RPS Consultants were formerly MC O'Sullivan Consultants and have been responsible for advising on various levels of Waste Management Plans that promoted incineration. Minister Roche's appointment of Mr. C. Boland to the board of An Pleanala was totally inappropriate he having been responsible for the most recent review of the Dublin Regional Waste Management Plan, which is the main policy justification for the incinerator project. Now the person responsible for the recent version of this plan will be one of those considering these submissions. I do not accept An Bord Pleanala is now independent they should have rejected an appointment from a vested interest.
It is the same situation as the appointment of L. Burke of Indaver being appointed by Minister Cullen to the EPA before Indaver got their licence, for Meath and Cork.

Related Link: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79790
author by John Gpublication date Wed May 09, 2007 10:47Report this post to the editors

Sid Player,

Very interesting - Dutch government inquiry into Indaver it seems.

Marie,

See letter in yesterday's Irish Times. ABP must be under pressure re Conal Boland appointment...

author by recyclettapublication date Thu May 10, 2007 08:36Report this post to the editors

Sid player,

So is the Dutch Government investigation into the dealings of the Indaver parent company linked to the Indaver Ireland decision to move out of the country do you think?

Can any dutch bloggers check the dutch media reports that covered this issue that Indaver's parent sounds so sensitive about?

author by Irispublication date Sun May 13, 2007 13:48Report this post to the editors

Interesting...

Should the Irish Government be asking the Dutch Govt for an explanation re the current Indaver investment row in Holland? We do seem to be placing a a big bet in their hands that they will deliver the incinerators before the landfill diversion targets bite.

If Indaver collapses and doesnt make the targets on time it is the Irish People not Indaver or the Dutch Govt who will suffer the very heavy fines from the EU.

What is this Dutch national enquiry into Indaver's parent all about and will it cost Irish taxpayers money??

Bertie or his successor needs to get clarification on this from the Dutch Govt.

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Mon May 14, 2007 12:54Report this post to the editors

Wake up people. We are all falling for the ' waste is inevitable' fiction. Whether it's MBT, incineration or anything else then we are lost. To use Global Warming as an arguement against incineration without questioning the creation of the waste is just keeping us where we are-HEADING FOR THE WALL AT 90 MPH AS OPPOSED TO 100MPH!!
We have to ask ourselves the question of whether our lifestyles are sustainable? Of course they are not. Incineration is a symptom not a cause.
I support CHASE 100%. But the debate has to be broadened. Don't be afraid to challenge the way we live. It's all connected.
We have 5-10 years to get off the treadmill. I suspect it may already be too late. I remain an optimist, however, I feel a deathly chill.

author by Recyclettapublication date Wed May 16, 2007 17:38Report this post to the editors

You are right of course. We need to cut down on waste arisings. At 750kg per head of population per annum Ireland produces about 50% more waste than the European Average - we are trending towards US levels.

Government policy in 'Changing Our Ways' 1998 called for local authorities to concentrate the intellectual resources of their environment professionals towards waste education and minimisation together with increased enforcement with a view to reducing waste growth rates. All waste operations such as collection and recycling and landfilling were to become private sector operations strictly controlled through enforcement.

But look what happened. The county councils, needing money for local services since the abolition of water rates, decided to concentrate on EXTENDING THEIR OLD LANDFILLS, landfills that according to their own regional waste plans should have closed years ago. Operating these landfills are valuable engineers and scientists that should be focussing their attention on controlling the waste growth problem, not managing the problems of old type landfills that should be closed.

This is a waste of tax payers money and false economics. It would be better for future generations if local authority waste experts closed down their landfills and got on with the business of implementing government policy through the education of those same taxpayers to reduce waste.

How as a nation are we to afford modern waste technologies like MBT or bio-fuel from waste if waste revenues currently paid to Local Authority Landfills are going into paying for non-waste services like road maintenance and the like? Local authorities need to come up with alternative, more sustainable ways of generating local income instead of clinging onto old landfills with the excuse that they are waiting for incineration to happen. Incineration will never happen - the world has passed it by. But there are other more sustainable technologies out there which we need to invest in as a nation.

The idea that landfills should be taxed more to create opportunities for recycling is a bit of a red herring. Most of the landfills in the country are operated by local authorities who already use the full gate fee as a local tax. This is a twisted concept of polluter pays - the polluter instead of paying for the longterm impacts of his/her waste disposal is paying for road maintenance or housing maintenance or some other local authority expense that should be met in another way.

Until we get local authorities off the landfill habit, waste management in Ireland is going no-where. To do that, Government needs to find them an alternative way of funding local services and County Councils need to get out of the business of operating landfills and concentrate on what they should be doing - waste education.

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Thu May 17, 2007 13:11Report this post to the editors

Irish people have to take responsibility into their own hands-literally. The sham of democracy we are witnessing fills me with pessimism. Witness last night's childish debate. The fact is that our politicians are not qualified to comment on most of what they spend their time talking about.
The sad fact is that democracy in Ireland is meaningless. We have to be less passive with our politicians.
On another matter. Witness the veritable explosion of SUV's and other gas guzzlers on our roads. If Irish people wish to consume as they are doing then-and it pains me greatly to say this-incineration is inevitable. Recycling is an industry, business-as-usual, solution. It doesn't require the paradigm shift that non-consumption requires.
To oppose incineration, we also have to look at, what kind of car we drive, our flying habits and so on. Our lifestyles are totally unsustainable. Incineration is a symptom of hyper-consumerism.
The planet cannot accomodate our lifestyles and don't forget that by mid-century there will be 9 billion of us!!!!!!!
The debate has to be about survival and that of our children and grandchildren. At present we are behaving like sheep heading for slaughter-worse is that we are aware of it.
We live on a finite planet and exponential growth is the rationale of the cancer cell.
As for the Greens, they too undersate the seriousness of the predicament. The Stren Report is far too conservative. Look at the information coming fom the Hadley centre.
We're in serious trouble folks. Very serious trouble.
When I see all the SUV's invading our streets and the number of schoolkids driving to school, it depresses me.
Depression, it is said, is anger turned inward. It is time we expressed our anger towards our politicians, big businesses.
I am not advocating violence. But we have to act. Stop shopping. Cycle. Get public transport. Learn to say " no " to your children. Develop your inner sense not disguise your insecurities in expensive clothes. Be human. Turn off the TV. Stop going on shopping trips to New York. Stop watching Househunters In The Sun
The clock is ticking..............................................

author by Simhurrll - N/Apublication date Sat May 19, 2007 21:10Report this post to the editors

Reply to the rational ecologist....Recycletta Wed May 16, 2007 17:38.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my comments.

Converting the Biomass in Municipal Solid Waste need not cost any more than the current land filling programme.

The assumption is that for a typical biomass source material (and that is the residue left after recycling) the cost of treating the waste need be no more than the cost of disposing the material to land fill.....say €50-00 per tonne.

On the basis that a project for converting this waste would be priced at around 30% of the equivalent waste to energy plant (on a like for like basis) then after less than four years of operation the plant will have generated enough revenue to pay off its dues resulting from the design and construct and operate costs ((including bank financing costs)) and then it would produce a continuing revenue stream from selling the fuel Ethanol which can then be ploughed back to the Corporation of Cork or Dublin or Meath or Galway or for that matter Belfast or Glasgow or Edinburgh, etc.) to support the needs of other Corporation or City needs.

Effectively this is using the material as a means to provide the income you talked about.

Converting Waste to Ethanol is the only way forward that promises this.

Converting Waste to Ethanol turns around the notion that treating waste should always cost money, it does not have to be so.

We have the means to effect this here and now, and Ireland needs it.

Waste in Ireland is an election issue. The current policy needs addressing in this, Converting Waste to Ethanol is the best way to do this.

I trust that this helps.

author by recyclettapublication date Mon May 21, 2007 15:11Report this post to the editors

Rational Ecologist and Simuurrl

I believe we are all saying the same thing actually.

It has to be asked why we are still in this mess over a decade since policy makers started making serious plans to reduce waste and meet targets.

We are still in this mess because county councils rely on income from landfills to support other infrastructure since water rates were abolished.

To reduce consumption the population must be educated. The people given that task by our government are too busy running old landfills that they themselves had planned to close over a decade ago. Close the landfills and free up engineers and scientists to educate the public.

County Councils will never have the capabilities to build recycling and ethanol plants. This will have to be done by private sector experts in that field.

But while county councils hold onto landfills for ECONOMIC reasons it is difficult for private companies to make commercial decisions on new technology such as biofuel from waste and state of the art MBT processes. And remember local authorities also have a say in whether such 'competing' infrastructure gets planning permission in the first place.

For financial reasons it suits county councils to keep their old leaking landfills open ( these were built decades ago, before any modern standards) by saying that we are just waiting for the incinerators to be built. This is the planning excuse that will be used to refuse ethanol plants as well - not enough waste as the waste plans say incineration.

But the incinerators will never be built because the technology has been overtaken by the fuel and carbon debate.

So this is what needs to be done :

The new government needs to pull a plug on incineration - quickly. No Poolbeg.
Close all old andfills that were earmarked for closure in the first regional waste plans ( thats a lot!)
A government policy statement opening up non- incineration options based on carbon footprint
Revision of the regional plans by the end of this summer.

Don't vote for anyone who isnt prepared to progress along these lines.

author by John Boypublication date Mon May 21, 2007 15:18Report this post to the editors

"So this is what needs to be done :

The new government needs to pull a plug on incineration - quickly. No Poolbeg.
Close all old andfills that were earmarked for closure in the first regional waste plans ( thats a lot!)
A government policy statement opening up non- incineration options based on carbon footprint
Revision of the regional plans by the end of this summer.

Don't vote for anyone who isnt prepared to progress along these lines."

I'm not going to suggest that Indaver should be given the go-ahead for their incinerator, but...you're not really leaving any options for dealing with residual waste there.

It's going to take a few years to turn it all around, even with the best will in the world from all concerned. So if we go along with closing landfills etc it will mean exporting the waste to be landfilled and incinerated abroad for another few years at least. That's no more ideal.

author by Recyclettapublication date Mon May 21, 2007 16:07Report this post to the editors

Keep open as many landfills as the regional plans provide for. Nobody is saying that landfill is not needed as part of the solution - all of the waste plans have some landfill. The government policy is for fewer bigger landfills, phased out as other solutions take over, but not a nationwide spread of local dumps whose revenue supports housing estate maintenance!

Close all the old dumps that the first waste plans said they would close - eg Kinsale Road and Youghal in Cork, Carlow, Portlaois, Kilkenny, Monaghan, Cavan, Roscommon, Tullamore, Athlone, Roscrea, the list goes on and on. There must be twenty of them.

It just confuses the planning of alternatives and many of these have polluted groundwater underneath anyway.

author by John Boypublication date Mon May 21, 2007 16:12Report this post to the editors

Fair enough.

But there needs to be sufficient capacity though and some provision for some considerable time ahead because any alternative facilities such as MBT plants and what-not will take a long time to get through the inevitable red tape that accompanies everything these days.

If the bigger landfills can provide this, then they can close the smaller ones.

I'm not sure if there's sufficient capacity, myself.

author by recyclettapublication date Mon May 21, 2007 16:27Report this post to the editors

They have to be closed John Boy. The country can't move forward while the county councils are reliant on old landfills for revenue for filling pot holes while at the same time commenting on approval processes for 'competing' waste technologies.

Nothing will get built.

Temporarily increase a few of the bigger landfills if you have to. At least bigger landfills can be used to make electricity as per government policy.

author by bholgpublication date Mon Jun 04, 2007 14:52Report this post to the editors

Why are people so anti-incineration in the first place? The WHO, EU and many of our own state bodies have declared this practice safe in terms of human health and and environmentally sound option if done within the limits of the waste incineration directive. Is this an anti-environmental conspiracy by the evil-doers at the WHO and the EU?? are these highly qualified people who conduct investigations lying or somehow compromised by 'big business'

As much as we would all like it, its completely unrealistic to imagine that

a) national consumption habits will change in time to avert this waste crisis of ours if we really really try..
b) even if there is a great increase in recycling, it will ever pass about 50-60%. ,
c) Landfilling and our current course doesent leave a worse combined greenhouse/environmental sitation than incineration.

It shuld be noted regarding b) above, that the countries in the EU with the highest incineration rates also have the highest recycling rates
Im a masters student studying renewable technologies at the moment. I am in no way connected to the industry. I dont believe that incineration is the total cure for our ills wrt waste, but it certainly has a role, and I feel many (not all) of the opposing voices are a knee jerk/nimby reaction to an industry which is viewed with suspision, and are somewhat misinformed with regard to modern incineration.

author by Miriam Cottonpublication date Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:48Report this post to the editors

There are several reports/threads on Indymedia - with detailed explanations for why incineration is madness - economically silly and environmentally disastrous. Search for 'incineration'. I'm not sure what they are teaching you about renewable energy, but the idea that waste incineration has a role to play in that is a red herring - an attempt by a profit orientated, heavily polluting industry to present itself as having dual advantage when it does not. As I say, search for the threads and see the information presented.

author by mairepublication date Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:33Report this post to the editors

"Why are people so anti-incineration in the first place?"

Well bholg its like this.
Burning resources commercially make people ask questions?
Is it safe?
Is it healthy?
Is it economically viable?
Will it affect my quality of life?
Will it affect the equity of my home?
Is it sustainable?
What will its affects be in the future?
Are there safer alternatives?
What are the risks from emissions?
Can I trust the company putting in this incinerator into my backyard. ?

Most of these questions are answered on the Cork Harbour for a Safe Environment website www.chaseirland.org.
A lot of the material there is from the WHO, EU and qualified master environmentalists.
Our own Health Research Board have warned there are respiratory risks which will affect those living close to these incinerators.
Head of the EPA Mary Kelly has stated that there are no resources to routinely monitor the health of people living near incinerators.
The industry itself is questioning the economics of incineration when the playing pitch is even, this is before alternatives have been explored, - remember when it comes to landfill and export Indaver stated -

For every 1M tonnes of toxic waste burnt 333,000 tonnes of toxic ash will have to be exported.
ratio admitted by Indaver, An Bord Pleanala Oral Hearing

My humble suggestion to you would be to be more curious when passing by and to read on the CHASE website, -
Interesting reading:-
"WHO Fact Sheet - Particulate matter air pollution: how it harms health (pdf)
Emissions from incinerators include fine particulates [dust]. This fact sheet outlines the harmful health effects of these particulates. "

The EU feelings are described as following:-Professor Ludwig Krämer Head of Environmental Governance at the Environmental Director Generalate of the European Commission.

He wrote: “We do not consider that this technique is favourable to the environment or that it is necessary to ensure a stable supply of waste for combustion over the long term.

“Such a strategy would only slow innovation. We should be promoting prevention and recycling above all. Those countries which are in the process of drafting their planning should not base it upon incineration.”

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Tue Jun 05, 2007 13:24Report this post to the editors

Could someone please define sustainability? It's used a lot but no-one seems to say what it means.
Cork harbour is due to be massively developed and for this to happen an incinerator will " have " to be put in place. What is the alternative? Is it acceptable that our waste is exported and inhaled by non-Irish lungs?
This is not black & white.
The choice is to keep on consuming or having a serious look at the consequences of our lifestyles.
Last week most people who voted, did so for all the main parties. This was a vote for incineration and the consumption orgy. The greens seem to be the only party fundamentally opposed to incineration and taking a meaningful look at our current lifestyle. Sure they have their faults, perhaps they are not radical enough, however, those who supported other parties, by default, voted for incineration. I am not a member of the Green Party but I may join.
Broaden the arguement for God's sake. We know incineration is bad, so is driving. What car you drive and how often you use it are issues too.
Can CHASE provide us with what is their vision for the future. I know you-rightly-oppose incineration. What is your vision for Cork's future?

author by mairepublication date Tue Jun 05, 2007 17:43Report this post to the editors

Rational Ecologist

"Sustainability" in managing waste would involve reduction, reuse and recycling which represent a future win-win strategy, and can be contrasted with waste destroyed in an incinerator that will be replaced, and is in direct competition with reclycling, - the waste stream feed is being reduced by recycling, and that is the object. The clear message should be - "your product is unsustainable and a health hazard - stop making it"

Cork Harbour is already heavily developed and its value in tourism and amenity must be assessed and acknowledged, and its sustainability and uniqueness assured for the future.

Cork Harbour is fundamentally flawed as a site for a monopoly tolling commercial toxic and municipal incinerator as was already signaled in our development plan which Indaver succeeded in ignoring. The site being in the lower harbour where the Lee joins the sea, where the site is an acknowledged flooding site, has an eroding coast line, and is in a thermal inversion valley.

The economics of commercial incineration "as a must have" for Cork Harbour is very bleak.
Cork based pharmaceutical industried have already invested in EU reg compliant in house incinerators which are an integral part of the plants in question, they have no interest in paying-out again to Indavar to incinerate their waste, beside the Proximity Principal assigns the origin of less than l5% of available relevant waste coming from Cork.

The greens were not the only party opposed to incineration, F.G. Labour, Greens, and S.F. did not have commercial incineration on their agenda. now or in the past. The P.D.s in their 2003 manifesto, aimed to take the opportunity of avoiding incineration, they went into government and remained silent.

"Vision for the future"

CHASE Submissions

CHASE campaigns vigorously to prevent construction of the toxic and municipal waste incinerators at Ringaskiddy. CHASE also actively researches and promotes alternative strategies for waste management. As part of these activities, we make many submissions to the Planning Authority, the EPA, and other relevant bodies.

Here are links to just some of the submissions made by CHASE on behalf of the communities of Cork Harbour, they can all be found on our website www.chaseireland.org, under interesting reading. The arguement is broad enough to include economics, safety, risks, health etc.

Submission to Review of Cork County Development Plan

Submission re. Revision of Waste Framework Directive (28-11-06)

Submission to Active Citizen Task Force

Related Link: http://www.chaseireland.org
author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:57Report this post to the editors

I appreciate your feedback and I admire the work of CHASE, however, to play the game by the rules of the system merely legitimises the system. CHASE needs to be more radical and environmental.
None of the parties you mention are seriously seeking a better way and will let you down in time.
I hope that the Greens have raised this issue in their negotiations for Governement.
Any Greens out there?

author by Recyclettapublication date Thu Jun 07, 2007 15:22Report this post to the editors



Quote from yesterday's Irish Times from sources close to FF

"Fianna Fáil is willing to accept local government reform which is also being sought by the Greens, including the possibility of directly-elected mayors, sources close to the talks told The Irish Times.

It has also expressed a willingness to consider a review and potential moratorium on municipal incineration, but on the basis that it could not apply to plants with current planning approval, or those in the middle of the planning process.

The incineration company Indaver has put plans to build incinerators in Meath and Cork Harbour on hold because of unhappiness over Government policy, while a third planned incinerator for Poolbeg in Dublin Bay has also run into difficulties."

So what does this mean? Will the Greens go into Govt on the basis that Poolbeg in Gormley's constituancy will go but Indaver Incinerators in Meath and Cork will stay?

Where are the Meath and Cork Greens in this debate?

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:36Report this post to the editors

The Labour Party is the real prize for Bertie. FF are not and never were a party of reform. They don't have an ideology and we are now seeing the effects of 10 years of unregulated consumption.
As regards Indaver and incineration. They haven't gone away you know!
Forming a government may yet prove to be impossible for Bertie and in my opinion, no-one should be talking to him.
We will soon know if incineration is part of the so-called Green/FF deal. One that will not materialise.
I am amused, confused and bemused.
I need a rainbow.
Who's the Wizard?

author by AJpublication date Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:56Report this post to the editors

Rational Ecologist,

its true that Indaver won't go away. however the big unfair inappropriate trump card that Indaver holds is that 36% of the country's waste has been 'ring-fenced' for incineration-only in the 11 regional waste management plans. This means that a planning application for more appropriate technology such as MBT would most likely be refused by the authorities because it's not incineration. So even if Indaver takes 40 years to get its plants through the planning system - no other technology can touch that waste, the way that plans have been drafted.

To get around this, the new Government could issue a policy statement advising planning authorities that Incineration should not be the only technology considered for dealing with this portion of the waste stream. Then, An Bord Pleanala could effectively ignore the existence of incineration developments that dont yet have full court-clear permissions and fill the need for waste recovery with other more appropriate technologies. Whether or not incinerators will be built will be subject to the economic climate at the time when they eventually clear the courts, which is unlikely to be any more favourable than it is at present. But at least other more appropriate technologies would have been granted an opportunity to go through the planning system.

author by mairepublication date Tue Jun 12, 2007 16:19Report this post to the editors

Someone somewhere has to ask the question how did this particular company Indaver get such preferencial treatment - to be invited in and gifted the control of mononoly tolling waste incinerators, where ring fencing 36% of the country's waste as their material supply was set up.

The inappropriate siting of these proposed incinerators for the benefit of Indaver and certainly not for the common good. A toxic incinerator 50 yds from an entrance to a third level school of 750 pupils !!

How did Indaver get their hands on a site in Cork Harbour, designated in Cork's development plan as Port related Industry only, and not to be used for commercial incineration.?

Did this site originally pass for money to Indaver from Ispat who bought if from the government for one old pound, and within weeks of the said Ispat going bankrupt . Leaving the taxpayer to pay for the clean up of the Irish Steel site after Ispat had finished using it. Cost 30 million plus .

The again inappropriate appointment of Indaver's project manager to the EPA before Indaver got their licence has to be brought up again and again. Meath and Cork deserve to know who exactly gifted this inappropriate trump card that Indaver now holds?

author by Jasperpublication date Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:19Report this post to the editors

"its true that Indaver won't go away. however the big unfair inappropriate trump card that Indaver holds is that 36% of the country's waste has been 'ring-fenced' for incineration-only in the 11 regional waste management plans. This means that a planning application for more appropriate technology such as MBT would most likely be refused by the authorities because it's not incineration. So even if Indaver takes 40 years to get its plants through the planning system - no other technology can touch that waste, the way that plans have been drafted. "

Regional waste management plans must be written every five years so in 40 years time there will have been quite a few new sets of Waste Management Plans so it's not quite so dramatic.

author by MLpublication date Wed Jul 11, 2007 17:08Report this post to the editors

Next six months crucial to Meath incinerator plan

Ann Casey

THE future of the proposed incinerator at Carranstown, Duleek, is still unclear this week, just over two weeks before the Bord Pleanala decision on an increased capacity at the plant is due.

A spokesperson for Indaver Ireland, the company behind the proposed facility, said this week it would be in a position to start work on the project at the end of this year but this would depend on the next six months or so.

Gayle Pierce said that the new Government had strongly restated its commitment to an integrated waste management policy, although it had indicated that it would not increase landfill levies in such a way as to give incineration a competitive advantage.

Last year, Indaver said that it would be putting its Duleek plans on hold unless landfill levies were increased to make incineration more competitive. Ms Pierce said that the next six months or so would see the new Government settling in and the company would see what it intended to do in this respect.

She said Indaver was pleased at the recent decision by the EU to reclassify waste-to-energy plants, such as those proposed by Indaver, as ‘recovery operations’.

Meanwhile local Green Party spokesman, Sean Ó Buachalla, has reiterated his party’s opposition to incineration as the solution to the country’s growing waste problem and hailed the recycling commitments in the new Programme for Government.

Mr Ó Buachalla said the programme stipulated that the landfill levy would not be increased so as to give a competitive advantage to incineration. He said it was his belief that this would effectively put an end to Indaver Ireland’s plan to build an incinerator at Carranstown.

“This is a solid gain for all those who campaigned against the incinerator and also for a proper waste management strategy to deal with our growing waste problem in the region,” he said.

“The Programme for Government states that it is committed to a waste management hierarchy, based on the cornerstone of reduction, re-use, recycling and the marketing of recycled products.

“The programme also makes a commitment to see charges for waste management for the consumer reduced. This is a key issue also, as the public should be encouraged and rewarded for adopting new waste disposal habits, not punished,” he said.

“This plan will see that those who make the effort to reduce and recycle, both domestic and corporate, will be rewarded for their efforts.”

An Bord Pleanala is due to give a decision on Indaver Ireland’s planning application for increased capacity at the proposed Carranstown incinerator on 19th July.

Meanwhile, the European Commission has acknowledged that waste-to-energy, under certain conditions, should be classified as recovery not disposal. “It is great that waste-to-energy is recognised as recovery as it produces heat and electricity. Our Meath facility will generate enough energy to power over 20,000 homes, equivalent to the towns of Duleek and Drogheda combined,” said John Ahern, managing director of Indaver.

According to the company, the EU has confirmed that waste-to-energy plays an important role in climate change strategy, the production of renewable energy and the diversion of waste from landfill, and is the most energy efficient option for waste management.

Meath Chronicle (Sat, 7 Jul 2007)

author by Ali Gpublication date Sun Jul 15, 2007 22:00Report this post to the editors

Aha - perhaps this nervousness has more to do with the problems of Indaver's new parent company at home - see other indaver thread.

Sure why would Indaver even think that the Greenparty could be a supporter of burning waste?

author by Lolapublication date Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:20Report this post to the editors

If Is you say ndaver's parent company is suddnly devalued through the effects of the new legislation brought in by Dutch Government then surely building low margin incineratiors in Ireland is the last thing they need to do?

John Gormley should be talking to the Dutch Minister for Env to get the low down on this new move. Why on earth would Ireland continue to entrust Indaver with the role of protecting Ireland against EU fines if the economists are saying the Incinerators will never be built?

author by Lindapublication date Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:09Report this post to the editors

See poolbeg thread for lots of recent comment about the uneconomical aspects of incineration. Thats enough of a reason on its own to justify the departure of indaver. They're probably only maintaining this pretence of staying in Ireland to keep the company value up and marketable...

author by mairepublication date Wed Jul 25, 2007 16:43Report this post to the editors

What insurance company will insure a toxic transport station and a toxic incinerator, against the ongoing risks from flooding on a site that was publically earmarked as a flooding site, on the River Lee. See Photo Gallery www.chaseireland.org.

author by MLpublication date Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:13Report this post to the editors

I don't know the detail of the flooding risk at the proposed Cork incinerator site, however I suspect that after recent catastrophic flooding in the UK such issues lend stronger weight now than they ever did.

author by Annapublication date Mon Aug 13, 2007 11:33Report this post to the editors

See below conference details:

Attendance is vital for anyone interested in hearing Dominic Hogg speak about alternatives to incineration - namely MBT. What makes this even more interesting is that the session is chared by PJ Rudden of MCOS - authors of Irelands Incineration policy...

The third annual Environment Ireland conference will be held this year on September 3 and 4 at the Burlington Hotel in Dublin.

Sponsored by the department of the environment and local government and the EPA, the theme of this year's conference will be 'Towards 2020: The Environment in Ireland's Future'. It will focus on issues such as climate change, sustainable development, and the environmental impact of transport. Plenary sessions and workshops will examine waste management, managing the local environment, water resources, and the impact of environmental issues on the economy. For registration visit www. environmentireland. ie.

Related Link: http://www.environmentireland.ie
author by MLpublication date Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:38Report this post to the editors


Interesting discussion at the conference. For those of you who weren't there, John Ahern of Indaver also participated from the audience. He asked if Indaver should build Carranstown given the fact that it already has planning permission. Dr Hogg replied on the lines that it was up to Indaver to make that call but that planning permission doesn't mean it will be a successful business decision.

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2017 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy