Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork
Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork
Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Chapter 3: The politics of wastewould mix bottom ash with fly ash. The next complete berk was soon revealed tobe running <strong>the</strong> giant Edmonton incinerator in London. LondonWaste sold off itsash for use in cement blocks, so creating “a chemical booby trap” for builders oranyone else taking a hammer or drill to <strong>the</strong> wall [2005: 194]. Over 5 million blockswere made before <strong>the</strong> scam was uncovered and <strong>the</strong> UK’s Environment Agency wasunable to trace <strong>the</strong>m.The third problem is <strong>the</strong> cost itself. Large incinerators are capital intensive and inEurope respectable pollution control comes close to doubling <strong>the</strong> price. A 2,000tonne per day giant built in 1995 in <strong>the</strong> Ne<strong>the</strong>rlands cost US$600 million (aboutR4.5 billion) according to Connett. 39 GAIA [2004] lists new proposals in <strong>the</strong> globalSouth which come in at a fraction of <strong>the</strong> price, suggesting that pollution controlis somewhat less respectable. They are never<strong>the</strong>less still very costly with proposalsfor new plants ranging from US$41 million (R307 million) for a 600 t/d plant inChennai, India, to US$315 million (R2.4 billion) for a 1,500 t/d plant in Selangor,Malaysia. Most are built by nor<strong>the</strong>rn engineering corporations and many arefinanced with international debt.They are also costly to run provided that <strong>the</strong> pollution control is properly servicedand ash is properly disposed. In <strong>the</strong> US, customers pay twice as much to dump inan incinerator than in a landfill, irrespective of revenues from electricity generation.In Europe disposal fees are generally supplemented by taxes, creating a subsidy forbig waste generators. Such subsidies are even greater in many Sou<strong>the</strong>rn countriesaccording to GAIA. North and South, standard contracts include a municipalguarantee to deliver a minimum quantity of waste for 25 to 30 years whe<strong>the</strong>r to covercapital debt and running costs or to guarantee <strong>the</strong> fuel for electricity generation.This indicates <strong>the</strong> fourth problem: incinerators demand waste in contradiction to<strong>the</strong> aims set out in <strong>the</strong> waste hierarchy. Not only do <strong>the</strong>y demand waste but <strong>the</strong>ydrain local revenues which might o<strong>the</strong>rwise be used for minimisation or recyclinginitiatives. In economists’ parlance, <strong>the</strong> opportunity cost precludes o<strong>the</strong>r options.The Stockton Borough Council in Britain concluded that “we are into wastemaximisation” [quoted in Girling 2005: 203].39 Exhange rate calculated at R7.5 to US$1, <strong>the</strong> low end of present volatile price fluctuations. Gaia [2003] givesUS$658 and 808 million (R4.9 and 6 bn) for two much smaller incinerators (200 and 400 tonnes) built in Japanin <strong>the</strong> late 1990s. Girling gives ₤100 million (R1.5 bn) as a ball park figure.- 58 - groundWork - <strong>Wasting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Nation</strong>