|
No
Incinerators for Broga,
No
Incinerators for Malaysia
Why "NO" to Incinerators
1. The proposed Broga site is right in the middle of the
Semenyih water catchment area, which is serving more than 1.5
million residents living in the Klang Valley and Putrajaya. It
will be disastrous if the plant contaminates the water here.
2. All incinerators, including the proposed world largest
fluidised-bed gasification type (to be designed and built by the
Ebara Corporation of Japan) in Broga, will inevitably discharge
dioxin and other toxic wastes. Considering that dioxin is known
to cause cancer and other diseases and that there is no such
thing as a safe level for dioxin, it is therefore unacceptable
to build incinerators in Malaysia.
3. Ebara has a very short track record in building
incinerators. It has only built a few incinerators as pilot
projects in Japan. The biggest incinerator it ever built has a
capacity of burning only 600 tons of waste per day. However, the
proposed Broga incinerator is set to burn 1,500 tons of rubbish
per day.
4. The proposed incinerator is going to cost more than
RM1.5 billion to build and may cost another RM 50 million a year
to maintain although the life-span of such incinerator is only
about 21 years.
5. The cost of burning municipal waste is more than RM240
a ton, as compared to the current cost of only about RM24 a ton
for the "landfill" method. This will inevitably push up the quit
rent and other utility fees for Malaysian households.
6. At least 20% of the incinerated waste remains as ash –
this must still be disposed of and requires specialised handling
as it contains heavy metals and dioxin. On the contrary, we can
achieve 60% waste reduction through recycling – this is a better
alternative and the residual waste is less dangerous.
7. A 400,000 ton per annum incinerator produces 200 kilos
of particulate emission per day – equivalent to 3.4 million
diesel vehicles travelling down a road every hour.
8. It will reduce the local council’s recycling drive, as
any shortfall in the supply of waste will result in fines by the
authorities.
9. Dioxin poisoning affects the immune, endocrine and
reproductive systems, changes the natural split between boys and
girls, and affects male sperm production, thereby reducing their
chances of fatherhood.
10. Dioxin may be responsible for 12% of incidences of
cancer in industrialised countries.
11. In England, 88 people die and 168 are hospitalised every
year for lung related diseases associated with emissions from
the country's 12 existing incinerators. The chance of a woman
developing breast cancer used to be 1 in 20 in 1960 - now it is
1 in 8.
12. The natural "safe" emission of nitrate oxides from the
incinerator chimney is most likely to irritate the lungs or
worsen the condition of asthma patients.
13. Sperm counts are down to 50% of what they were 50 years
ago.
14. Testicular cancer has tripled in the last 50 years while
prostrate cancer has doubled in the same period.
15. Dioxin crosses the placenta and is present in breast
milk – passing directly to a baby even before it is born.
16. The value of all properties in the vicinity will
plummet.
17. No insurance company is likely to underwrite such
"high-risk" mega- project, especially after the 9/11 incident.
18. In view of the serious hazards of incinerators, England,
Japan and many other countries have started to dismantle
existing incinerators and stop building new ones. The
Philippines have even passed a law to ban incinerators.
19. The Broga site earmarked for the plant sits on a hill
with an average gradient of 25+ degrees. The Selangor State
Government had issued several statements in the past (after the
Highland Towers tragedy and other major landslides in Ampang and
Gombak areas), stating that no development projects should be
allowed in hilly areas with a gradient of 25 degrees. Why is the
Selangor State government now going against its word?
Is the Barisan Nasional
Government willing to guarantee that it will compensate the
residents for loss of property value, and be responsible for the
loss of lives and good health in the event of a disaster related
to the incinerator? The answer is "NO".
Is there a better alternative for
waste management? The answer is "YES"!
*ZERO WASTE: The Way
Forward
Waste disposal is a multi-billion dollar global problem.
Currently, waste is either landfilled or incinerated, with
severe implications for the environment and human health.
Landfills are major producers of methane, and pollute water
tables. Incinerators, even so-called state-of-the-art ones that
have pollution control devices, produce greenhouse gases and are
a source of heavy metals, particulate and cancer causing
dioxins. They poison the air, soil and water.
Both systems are extremely costly and generate little local
income. Collection in the U.S. alone costs $US 4 billion
annually. In Asia, $US 25 billion is spent dealing with the
problem, a figure estimated to double by the next generation.
Society has been stuck with these expensive, unsafe, 'quick-fix'
waste management systems that perpetuate a mindless "throw away"
mentality to what is a potential resource for too long. A new
paradigm is required that looks at waste not as a problem to be
buried or burned but as an opportunity to recover valuable
resources, create jobs, save money and reduce pollution.
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.
Wasting Versus Recycling
Every day around the world, we burn and bury paper, metals and
plastics that, if recycled, would lighten the ever-growing
pressure on the world's forests, soils, and mineral resources by
making more with less. Doubling the life of a car saves the 15
tons of materials required to make a new one. Recycling paper
gives wood fibres six lives rather than one. Increasing the
productivity of resources in this way also leads to major
savings in energy. Zero Waste could play a central role in
cutting CO2 emissions and sequestering carbon in the soil.
Zero Waste also provides economic dividends. Redesigning
production and increasing recycling to eliminate waste is
stimulating a green industrial revolution. New materials and
growth industries are emerging, together with a growth in jobs.
Effective programmes for waste separation, as well as systems
for composting of organic waste – which accounts for at least
50% of waste in most countries – also generate local income.
Governments that embarked on policies to reduce waste in order
to combat pollution and climate change, are now realising that
Zero Waste is a key element in any post industrial economic
strategy. In Germany, recycling already employs more people than
telecommunications. In the US, it has overtaken the auto
industry in direct jobs. Local and national legislatures in
Australia, Denmark, the USA, New Zealand and Canada are already
advocating Zero Waste policies. Major corporations such as Sony,
Mitsubishi, Hewlett Packard and Toyota are also supporting the
principle. Some regions have reduced their waste problem by up
to 70% by recycling alone.
Producer responsibility
Zero Waste is not reliant purely on recycling. The growing
volume of waste is the result of wasteful production processes
and excess packaging. In order to solve the growing waste
problem, steps should be taken to reduce the amount of waste
produced by industries and decrease the amount thrown out by
consumers. Source reduction is the most efficient and
pollution-fee approach to the waste problem.
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.
Implementing Zero Waste
Governments' traditional role in waste management has been to
put it out of sight through burial or burning, but shrinking
landfill capacities, contamination, toxic emissions and
hazardous emissions from incineration show that the problem
never really goes away. To address the growing problem of modern
waste management, governments' must take a more active role in
tackling the waste problem in the future. They must raise demand
for recycled products, levy environmental taxation on bad
packaging, implement education and assistance programs and
establish economic incentives for disposal reduction and
development of sorting, recycling and composting projects and
facilities. Enlightened governments that are already following
these policies have proved it can work if the political will is
present.
Only well-implemented waste elimination, recycling and
composting systems based on source separation will lead us down
the path of zero waste and towards a sustainable future.
* Source of information: Greenpeace International
cc: World Health Organisation
United Nations
Jalan Semantan
Damansara Heights
Kuala Lumpur
Malaysia
Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting
The Minister of Housing and Local Government
Pusat Bandar Damansara
Kuala Lumpur
Reference
materials
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.
Greenpeace International
Keizersgracht 174
1016 DW Amsterdam
The Netherlands
[email protected]
|
http://dapmalaysia.org