1st December 2007

Dear Editor.

There is one vital statistic missing from the press release accompanying the official opening of the Bernard Road incinerator (Star 26 November). The total amount of CO2 emitted by the incinerator is 17 tonnes per hour (nearly twice the average citizen's annual allowance). Around half of this is from sources like plastic, which is like burning a fossil fuel and in no way clean. This figure does not include the "embodied energy" which was needed
to extract, manufacture and transport the goods which end up as "waste". It is important to think about the carbon footprint of an object (i.e. where it has come from, how it was made), not just about the carbon emissions released into the atmosphere by the incinerator itself.

The Green Party accepts that the carbon footprint of incineration with reclamation of heat and power is better than landfilling for most waste, but this is not a substitute for waste reduction. Just because we have a shiny new incinerator does not mean waste is no longer a problem. Waste reduction is the best greenhouse gas reduction strategy.

Recycling plastics and textiles would save around 4 tonnes of greenhouse gases per hour. Landfilling plastics is actually better in terms of greehouse gas release (though not much else) because they break down so slowly! In any waste treatment solution there may need to be a proportion of incinertion, at least until new technologies such as gas pyrolisis are proved. However, incineration should be the at end of a process of reclaiming from waste, not the main solution.

Yours faithfully

Jason Leman