At one time landfill was a problem; increasingly large swathes of lands were needed, with all the ensuing problems of methane leakage and forever plastics. When landfill sites were full to capacity, rather than tackling the problem holistically (what can we do to reduce waste?) we sidestepped and introduced waste incinerators. These incinerators currently provide about 3.1% of all the UK’s energy.
Burning waste to produce energy seems on the face of it to be a good idea. However waste incinerators are not the panacea they initially appear to be. It has been shown that toxic pollution from the burning of plastics, plus the unpleasant side-effects of industry on the doorstep for local residents, is a real problem.
A recent study by the BBC examining five years of data from across the country found that burning waste produces the same amount of greenhouse gases for each unit of energy as coal power. The BBCs study also showed that deprived areas are ten times more likely to have an energy-from-waste incinerator in their midst than wealthier areas.
Recently a £1m settlement was awarded to residents living close to the Runcorn incinerator in Liverpool, which included a gagging order. However some residents didn’t sign, including one who commented “we have been inundated with flies, rats, smell, noise. It’s just been horrendous.”
Much of the pollution comes from burning plastics. Among the toxins released are dioxins, which are known human carcinogens and endocrine disruptors, that also cause developmental neuro-behavioural defects. Dioxins from incinerators have fallen considerably in recent years, but are still a concern. Incinerators do not run under optimal conditions all the time, and pollution is an inevitable by-product.
The incinerator dilemma is double pronged, incorporating both a waste and a clean energy conundrum.
The obvious way to reduce toxic emissions from incinerators would be to stop burning plastics. But to stop burning plastics we need to stop buying them too. Much of the plastic we buy is not recyclable, and even if we do recycle diligently, the recycling system is flawed and too much finds its way into watercourses and clogs up oceans worldwide. A study a few years ago by Greenpeace showed that another problem was that our plastic was being dumped and burned in Turkey; in 2021 this amounted to 40% of our plastic waste.
Far better than to improve the disposal of our plastic, would be to reduce our plastic use altogether. Food is an obvious place to start. Make a pledge to stop buying pre-packaged items wherever possible. This is hard in a supermarket where aisle upon aisle of fresh products are shrink wrapped. However there are some excellent local independent shops which offer loose groceries, and will be glad to have your custom.
Clothes and other textiles are often plastic based. Fast-fashions that don’t last are bad on so many fronts. Can you reduce what goes to the incinerator by buying secondhand clothes and donating anything you no longer need to charity? Buying quality items that will last, from clothes to white goods is important.
In the spend-fest leading up to Christmas it is essential to question any purchases made. Don’t be tempted to buy novelty tat that will end up in the bin. Our family has a tradition of giving second-hand or home-made presents. The randomness of the gifts makes it great fun, and unwanted gifts can be donated back to charity in the new year; a fine example of circular spending.
So in a nutshell to reduce pollution caused by incinerators we need to buy less, waste less, and cut down on the energy we use so that generating energy through incineration becomes less essential. Like so many lauded panaceas, the truth behind the scenes is often less miraculous than it at first seems.