Boston, MA – Seven national and local advocacy groups released a report today, An Industry Blowing Smoke: 10 Reasons Why Gasification, Pyrolysis & Plasma Incineration are Not “Green Solutions” revealing that new incineration technologies are no better than conventional trash-burning. The report cites consultant reviews, government studies and scientific literature to conclude that despite recent industry claims of technological breakthroughs, the core impacts of all types of incinerators remain the same: they are toxic to public health, harmful to the economy, environment and climate, and undermine recycling and waste reduction programs. The report spotlights Massachusetts, referring repeatedly to a study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recommending against the construction of new incinerators in the state.
“This report debunks every claim made by the waste industry. Solid science still demonstrates that emissions from incinerators are harmful to public health. This is a dinosaur technology that should be retired, not renewed,” said Sylvia Broude, Lead Organizer for Toxics Action Center, a contributor to the report and one of the founding organizations of the alliance, ‘Don’t Waste Massachusetts.’ The alliance includes more than 25 groups as of press time, and continues to expand as awareness of the threat of more incineration grows..
Lifting a 19-year old moratorium on new incineration capacity in Massachusetts is under consideration as the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) drafts the Solid Waste Master Plan (SWMP) for the next decade. The SWMP is the state’s blueprint for dealing with waste. Battle lines are being drawn between waste industry representatives such as Covanta and Casella who want to manage waste largely through burning and newer incineration technologies, and a growing alliance of civic, public health and environmental groups who are asking the DEP to make a serious and comprehensive commitment to reducing waste. The waste industry is misleadingly marketing a new generation of incinerator technologies as “green” technologies. This new report debunks industry efforts to greenwash gasification, pyrolysis and plasma incineration, pointing to more sensible directions that should be considered by decision-makers.
Although the incinerator industry claims that toxic emissions are a problem of the past, An Industry Blowing Smoke contends that new incineration technologies produce the same harmful toxic releases as traditional trash-burners. In the United States, trash incineration is the leading source of dioxin, a carcinogen and one of the most toxic classes of chemicals known to humans. “Creating a ‘landfill in the sky’ by burning trash is no solution to our problem of too much garbage,” said Richard Clapp, Professor of Environmental Health at the Boston University School for Public Health. In addition to toxic emissions, the report says that newer incineration technologies are unproven, risky investments and notes a history of malfunctions, explosions and shut-downs.
Environmental and public health advocates in Massachusetts also argue that incineration competes directly with recycling. Recycling in Massachusetts has declined in recent years to 33%, and the state came nowhere near its own goals for recycling and waste reduction in the 2000-2010 master plan.
“You can’t deal with being overweight by loosening your belt,” said Janet Domenitz, Executive Director of MASSPIRG, another alliance organization. “We have never mastered the basic ‘reduce/reuse/recycle’ mandate so we keep producing more garbage and throwing it away. Meanwhile, there are other cities, states, and even countries that are on a trajectory towards ‘zero waste’ and we should be looking that way instead of at smokestacks.”
In a time when both the public and private sectors are focused on fighting global warming, trash companies falsely claim that burning garbage is the solution to both the waste and energy crises. Not so, says Lynne Pledger of Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club Zero Waste Committee, a contributor to the report. “Incinerators emit more carbon dioxide than even coal-burning power plants, and only one-fifth of the energy in trash is captured by incinerators.”
In fact the DEP’s own study recommended recycling as the best way to save energy when it comes to managing waste. The state commissioned the Tellus Institute last fall to examine the feasibility of new incineration technologies, and they were unable to find any benefit for allowing new incinerators into the state. The Tellus report states, “locking in the use of waste for energy production may forestall potential additional recycling or composting in the future, something the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan has heretofore explicitly avoided.”
Still, the incinerator moratorium is on the table and DEP Commissioner Laurie Burt has said that anything is possible with the next master plan. Don’t Waste Massachusetts has vowed to fight any burning plans, and they are gaining support throughout the state. “In Massachusetts we already incinerate 34% of our municipal solid waste, a huge amount when compared to other states," commented Representative Mark Falzone of Saugus. "Incineration, and these so-called green alternatives, hamper the ability of our recycling industry to expand by competing for the same raw materials, stifling a valuable and job creating industry for the Commonwealth. I commend all of these organizations for their efforts on this report, and hope that the information provided here will be given the attention that it deserves.”
Links to the report can be found at www.toxicsaction.org and www.no-burn.org.
