Subscribe in a reader“High-Tech” Trash Burners Consume $$$ for Fuel
Today’s guest blogger is Jonathan Scott, Clean Water Action’s acting Communications Director and veteran of numerous campaigns for alternatives to incineration.
The sad saga of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s money-burning trash incinerator is only the latest in a long line of woeful tales heard ever since the “garbage crisis” and “rush to burn” of the 1980s. You may recall the infamous “garbage barge” from Islip, NY adrift on a worldwide cruise in search of a port willing to receive its refuse. That story and related “garbage crisis” hysteria whipped up by purveyors of incinerator technology led many communities around the country to make commitments similar to Harrisburg’s more recent one (a $125 million rebuild of an already-costly burner from the 1970s).
On the surface, the idea of harnessing technology that would allow a community to “safely and responsibly” manage its own waste had a lot of appeal. The idea that the same technology could also generate and sell electricity in the process proved irresistible to too many.
Clean Water Action was among the first environmental groups to challenge the safety and economics of trash incineration.
What’s wrong with incineration, other than its unsustainable price tag (as communities like Harrisburg have learned the hard way)? For one thing, the basic premise is flawed. Incineration doesn’t get rid of trash. It transforms trash into toxic air pollution, and the residue of whatever doesn’t burn gets concentrated as a toxic ash. Incinerators’ toxic ash output is often more difficult and costly to dispose of than the garbage was in the first place. As a “renewable” energy source, incinerators are a sham.
Consider what makes up most of the waste stream:
- Lawn and leaf debris and food waste – More easily and cheaply composted and mostly water, anyway. Should taxpayer dollars be spent on burning stuff that is mostly water?
- Paper, cardboard, boxboard and plastics – Sometimes burn OK (except for the toxic byproducts from plastics and inks), but they can almost always be recycled much more easily and cheaply.
- Metals – Don’t really burn very well, and when they do the emissions can be toxic. Recycling makes much more sense.
- Old electronics, broken toys, appliances, household fixtures and construction debris – most are not very combustible and serious sources of toxics. Trying to burn them is just not very smart.
As Clean Water Action Board Member and incinerator expert, Pat Costner, puts it, “Incinerators Trash Community Health.” On top of all that, as Harrisburg and other communities have learned, “modern” incinerators have insatiable appetites. They come with financial terms that penalize recycling, re-use and waste reduction efforts, and force the host towns to become regional waste importers.
Clean Water Action has helped dozens of communities defeat local incinerator proposals, advancing a range of “reduce-recycle first!” solutions in their place. Our Massachusetts Trash Action Coalition secured an incinerator moratorium in that state. Not to be outdone, Rhode Island forged ahead to pass the nation’s first incinerator ban and set ambitious 70%-plus recycling goals. Clean Water Action’s nationwide War on Waste campaign played a key role in winning smarter, safer ways for dealing with trash. But the pro-burn industry has come back with a vengeance of late. Rhode Islanders recently turned back an effort to undo their state’s landmark ban, and Clean Water Action is promoting an ambitious new initiative to make producers responsible for the waste they generate. Meanwhile, industry lobbyists continue to pressure the state’s lawmakers to move backwards into a new era of incineration. Clean Water Action is leading similar campaigns for sensible waste solutions in California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and other states.
