|
Disappointed with Mahathir over his remark on opponents of the Broga
incinerators
Media Statement
by
Ronnie Liu Tiam Khiew
(Petaling
Jaya, Thursday):
I am very disappointed with the
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad 's remark and criticism
levelled at the opponents of the mega-incinerator project in his opening
address at the UMNO national conference today. The first time he expressed
his displeasure was seen in Agong's birthday message on June 7,2003.
In his opening speech today, he
said these projects were welcomed in more advanced countries such as Japan
but people here are against it.
"People in this country who are
ten times poorer than those in Japan are against the project," he said,
adding that the incinerator was safe, clean and not a health hazard as
claimed by its critics.
Mahathir has made a very
mistake when he claimed that incinerators were welcomed in more advanced
countries such as Japan. The fact is, the entire world is now shutting down
incinerators and shy away from building new ones after realising the
disastrous consequences of the incinerators. The Philippines has even passed
a law to ban incinerators in their country.
It is also very wrong and
baseless for Mahathir to claim that the incineration is safe, clean and not
a health hazard. If he cares to read and understand the facts and data
submitted by opponents of incinerators, he would understand that the Puchong
and Broga residents were saying NO to incinerators simply because no
incinerators is actually "safe, clean and not a health hazard". Not because
they are stubborn, unreasonable or anti-government.
The government had to relocate
an incinerator originally proposed to be built in Puchong to another
location in Broga, both in Selangor, following protest by the residents.
Similar protests are now being made by Broga residents. More than 10,000
residents in Broga/ Semenyih/ Kajang areas have signed in a protest campaign
initiated and organised by the local residents.
DAP, as a responsible political
party in the country, has taken a principal stance on the matter both within
and outside the Parliament.
On behalf of the DAP Selangor,
I have presented a 19-point memorandum to the Department of Environment,
Ministry of Science, Technology & Environment on Saturday, 2003-04-25,
titled "No Incinerators for Broga. No Incinerators for Malaysia. "
In the said memo, we have
stated clearly our reasons for the opposition. We have even presented the
"zero waste management method" as a better alternative in the said
memorandum.
What is Zero Waste?
Zero Waste is a new approach
being pioneered by leading corporations, municipalities, and progressive
governments. It strikes at the heart of the waste problem by tackling the
way products are designed and changing the way waste is handled so that
products last longer, materials are recycled, or, in the case of organic,
composted.
The philosophy has arisen out
of the realisation that the wastefulness of our industrial society is
compromising the ability of nature to sustain our needs and the needs of
future generations. Zero Waste is a whole system approach that aims to
fundamentally change the way in which materials flow through human society.
The goal is an industrial system directed towards material recovery rather
than material destruction.
Zero Waste is a total approach
from the beginning to the end of the production process. It incorporates the
principles of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which ensure
manufacturers take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products
and packaging. The cost of continuing to produce and package irresponsibly
currently falls on the local community through waste management taxation. If
a product and its packaging cannot be reused, recycled or composted then the
producer should bear the cost of collection and safe disposal.
Government policy can encourage
manufacturers to eliminate materials and products that are not reusable,
recyclable or compostable. Careful segregation of remaining discarded
materials is required to facilitate their recovery as resources ready for
use by industry. Producer responsibility legislation is already emerging in
Europe. The End of Life Vehicles Directive and the Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment Directives set high targets for reuse and recycling and
exclude the use of hazardous materials.
Many household items, such as
batteries, insect sprays, paper and plastic products, disposable razors and
hairsprays, contain dangerous toxic chemicals that pose serious health risks
and exacerbate the waste problem. Municipal solid waste that contains toxic
chemicals or materials is less likely to be recyclable and more likely to
cause environmental problems in landfills and incinerators. Manufacturers
must ensure they stop producing items that contain toxic chemicals.
The key to Zero Waste is
prevention: Preventing valuable resources from ever entering the disposal
stream in the first place. Preventing the mounting volume of disposable
products and packaging. Preventing the continuous use of dangerous toxic
substances in every-consumer items; and stopping the headlong rush to
incineration.
Until we achieve Zero Waste, we
may need to landfill a small portion of our waste especially in the
transition years. This should only happen after the maximum amount of
organic and dry recyclables have been removed. This residual waste needs to
be 'cleaned', that is made as biologically safe as possible to avoid the
chemical reactions, methane
emissions and leaching of poisons into
soil and groundwater which makes landfilling of mixed waste such a problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCE FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING
OF INCINERATION
INCINERATION: The Burning Issue
The world is running out of space to store its waste. Increasingly, rather
than recycling waste, industry and governments are burying or burning it.
Incineration is being promoted as the answer to the excesses of modern
consumer society.
Since industrialisation, the nature of our waste has changed dramatically;
most products and materials contain a cocktail of chemicals that is released
during incineration, with severe consequences for human health and the
environment. Incineration may put the waste problem out of our sight, but it
does not put it out of our minds, our lungs, our environment or our food
chain. Incineration causes more problems than it professes to remedy. It is
a multi- billion dollar pollutant.
Toxic Pollution
In many areas of the world, incinerators are
the largest source of toxic pollutants such as lead, mercury and
dioxins to the environment. In 1994, the US Environmental Protection
Agency identified medical and municipal waste incinerators as the
largest sources of dioxin emissions into the environment,
responsible for about 84% of the total dioxin emissions in the
United States. In Japan, incinerators are estimated to cause 93% of
dioxin emissions; in Switzerland, 85%; in Great Britain, 79%; and in
Denmark, 70%. Dioxin and Furan Inventories: National and Regional
Emissions of PCDD/PCDF; UNEP Chemicals, May 1999.
Scientists have identified over 200 toxic, or potentially toxic,
substances from the incineration of municipal solid waste alone. It
is likely many other chemicals are emitted that are, as yet, unknown
to science. Chemical reactions during incineration also mean that
new substances are created, many of which are more toxic than those
in the original waste.
Incinerators generate cancer causing dioxins, the most harmful
chemicals known to science. They also release heavy metals, furans
and halogenated organic compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenlys
(PCBs), and a range of other dangerous pollutants. These pollutants
cause a variety of health problems; immune and reproductive system
defects, spontaneous abortions, respiratory diseases, diabetes,
hormone disruption and cancers.
The pollutants are released into the environment in incinerator
smoke clouds and in the ash, which is then spread into the
environment and can leach into groundwater, contaminating rivers and
seas. It is estimated that, for every three tons of waste that is
incinerated, one ton of ash is generated. Even though it can contain
up to 100 times more dioxins than air emissions , the ash is usually
landfilled or sometimes used by the contruction industry to make
highways and cement.
Some fish caught in European Union waters are so contaminated with
dioxins they have been declared unfit for human consumption.
Significantly higher levels of dioxins are found in people, food and
soil near incinerators, in some areas higher than levels the World
Health Organisation considers safe.
Public opposition
Growing public concern has led to the closure
of some incinerators and to proposals for construction of new ones
being rejected. In the United States, since 1985 over 300 proposals
for waste incinerators have been defeated or put on hold. In the
Philippines, protests against plans to build the world's largest
municipal waste incinerator, led to a national ban on incineration
in 1999. Many state and local governments around the world, in
Canada, New Zealand and Argentina, have also banned waste
incineration.
Futility of controls and regulations
The incineration industry is responding by
installing expensive pollution control devices, such as filters and
scrubbers, in countries that can afford them. However, such devices
do not stop all emissions and the better the air pollution trapping
device, the more toxic the ash becomes. There may be high tech
incinerators but there is no such thing as a non-polluting
incinerator.
Attempts by government and industry to control emissions will soon
be overtaken by mandatory international regulations that will mean
incineration as a method of waste management will become untenable.
The Stockholm Convention, agreed by over 100 countries in 2001,
identified all waste incinerators, including cement kilns that burn
hazardous waste, as primary sources of dioxins, PCBs and furans.
Under the Treaty, governments have committed to eliminating these,
and other, harmful chemicals. The Treaty emphasises the need for
other methods of waste management – those which do not create
dioxins.
The "green energy" myth
A publicity machine is driving the move to
build more incinerators. They are being sold as "green energy"
providers, biomass systems, combined heating or power systems,
waste-to energy systems and any number of other forms of energy
creation. Incineration produces little subsequent energy. Indeed if
the energy of the materials burned is included in accounting, they
have a net energy loss. Recycling saves more energy than
incineration. Recycling reduces the energy input required to access,
manage and exploit natural resources, as well as lowering the energy
consumption of manufacturing industries. Incineration can only
recover some of the energy potential of the waste; it cannot recover
the energy involved in the manufacture of the products and materials
in the waste stream. Reuse and recyling can.
Money to burn
Advocates of incineration suggest it is saves
money. But the economics of incineration do not stand up to
scrutiny. Incinerators, particularly those that have pollution
control systems installed, are formidably expensive. Local
authorities that invest in incinerators often find they have less
money to invest in more sustainable forms of waste management, such
as reuse and recycling. Incinerators rely on the continued
generation of waste to support their high building and operating
costs.
Incineration usually costs 5 to 10 times more than landfilling,
though does not reduce the need for landfills because the ash is
deposited in them. In Hong Kong, proposals for two new incinerators
will cost nearly US$1 billion just to build. When pollution control
devices are used, costs further escalate. In the United Kingdom,
around 30% of the capital costs of a conventional British
incineration facility is attributable to the flue gas clean-up
system. In the Netherlands, a 1,800-ton per day facility, which went
on line near Amsterdam in 1995, cost US$600 million. US$300million,
half this cost, went on air pollution control devices.
Aside form the huge capital costs, many incinerators are plagued by
unexpected maintenance costs, explosions and unanticipated
down-time. Incineration schemes drain money from the local economy.
While the costs for running the incinerator are borne by the
taxpayer, they do not generate as many jobs in local communities as
waste reuse, recyling and composting schemes do. Incinerators are
usually built by huge engineering firms which are seldom located
within a community, so most of the economic benefits leave the
community. In addition, the human costs of damaged health and the
environment are impossible to measure.
The sustainable solution
Incineration is a costly, hazardous and
unsustainable approach to waste management. Rather than preventing
pollution, it burdens communities with higher costs, substantial
pollution and causes environmental degradation.
Adopting a more sustainable approach to the waste problem is far
safer and more cost effective. Waste is a potential resource that
should be recovered and brought back into the economy. Recycling and
composting waste is a more sustainable approach to waste management,
can reduce costs and create jobs as most recycling projects remain
in the local community, generating local income. Successful
recycling programmes in cities in Canada, Australia and Belgium have
brought about reductions in municipal waste of up to 70%.
Incineration also relies on the continuing cycle of dirty
production methods. While incineration is pursued as a solution to
the waste crisis, industry will not be forced to address the need to
design and manufacture products that do not contain toxic chemicals.
These can be reused, composted or recyled safely and provide a
sustainable solution to a global problem, in line with the
progressive vision of a Zero Waste society.
(19/6/2003)
* Ronnie Liu Tian
Khiew, DAP national publicity secretary
|
http://dapmalaysia.org