To burn or not to burn: a rant on waste incineration

With regards to this article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/07/22/bc-waste-incinerator.html

In light of some recent news developments, such as Metro Vancouver's proposal to create larger incinerators and the Vancouver Island proposal for an American company to build a large private multinational incinerator in Gold River, I will quickly list some points as to why I believe incinerating waste to be a poor long-term plan, thus hopefully allowing one to ponder over the arguments.

A lot of people are quick to jump on the band wagon in deciding that incinerating is a beneficial conclusion for waste. One, new technology has created a more powerful filtering system that dramatically cuts down on airborne particulates, thus the system is cleaner than it once was; and two, the idea of creating energy and power from waste allows incinerators the ability to assist in alleviating the burden of increasingly larger land fills. Economically, mill-dry towns such as Gold River may hypothetically alleviate high unemployment rates, it is hard to say. 

This argument will be based on the two proposals for the the GVRD and the island. 

• Waste incineration needs a tremendous amount of waste in order to be productive. Numerous incinerators have been constructed worldwide, only to find that they could only operate at quarter capacity or less. There needs to be a lot of waste, particularly plastics, to be burnt in order to operate fully. Therefore, in order for these incinerators to create energy, they will need to begin importing waste from the USA and elsewhere. 

• The incinerator in Gold River is a proposal from an American corporation. They wish to burn local waste from the Island and Metro Vancouver, along with waste from Washington State, Oregon, California, and have proposed to import waste from as far away as Japan and China. Now this argument is weak in nature, but one must take a minute to think about how we would now be importing waste from around the world in order to incinerate it, for energy, which is something we already produce through somewhat environmentally friendly means (hydrological). The private owned incinerators in Vancouver and Burnaby would no doubt also need to begin taking waste from the USA. I am not against big business or private power, but in this case, I believe it will not be as beneficial for the local economies as hypothesized.  

• Once waste is incinerated, it is gone, forever. Basic chemistry tells us that once one burns a potential energy source, such as waste, it is transformed into energy and is gone. You are unable to re-transform this energy back into a tangible material. Thus, by burning plastics, we are inevitably removing them forever. Therefore, we can look at landfills as future potential storage areas of material. You cannot argue that resources, such as oil, are infinite. Plastics are made of oil, and thereby rely on fossil fuels to be created. You run out of oil, you run out of plastics. Of course,  I know that organic plastic will be developed in the future, but for now, we need to think of other long term options.By not incinerating the plastic, which is the main fuel for incinerators, one can hold on to the material to be mined in the future. Once we develop better recycling technology, we can then mine the landfills for plastics to be recycled and used when dwindling fossil fuel sources being to cut back on much needed plastic supplies. They are psychological barriers to recycling.

• Health issues. There are still an inordinate amount of health issues that have no been conclusively linked with waste incineration.  Dioxin and furan emissions, toxic ash, heavy metals, and other fine particulates are known to escape the filtration system. Although correlation of health issues do not equate to causation, there are strong medical arguments against the burning of waste and the future health implications of people living near or around the outflow. Scrubbing technology has advanced significantly, but it still does not filter out everything. Where will the fumes go? Will heavy metals end up in GVRD water reservoirs?

• They create psychological barriers to recycling. By demonstrating that waste can be burned, people may hypothetically begin to no longer care about recycling. Again, this is merely a short term fix. Most incinerators only operate 25-30 years, and therefore, would need to replaced. Idealistically, there must be a social change in order for society to begin looking in longer terms. Incineration may be a temporary alleviation to waste, but in the long term, it is not a reasonable goal.  The 'throw-away disposable' culture we live in, is not [WARNING: Buzz word] sustainable. Further education in recycling and waste management would be deemed necessary. 

• The landfill in Cache Creek can be extended. Although landfills are not necessarily the best plan, I still think that it is better than incinerating. The landfill in Cache Creek, as of a month ago, has asked to expand and could be operational until 2032. The private American company pushing the proposal has said that the landfill is at full capacity and cannot operate for more than 18 months. This is merely pressure in order to push through the incinerator proposal. 

• Possible loss of livelihood/employment. People live off of recycling, it is a sustainable livelihood. There are legitimate jobs, from binners, to weekend recyclers and dumpster divers, to recycling truck and plant operators. One recycling plant has already closed down in the Lower Mainland this year. More people could be out of jobs and employment if incinerating waste goes through. 

Anyhow, in my semi-environmentalist perspective, the only future long-term goal is a decline in consumption, a more environmental friendly means of packaging (less throw away plastics, such as bags), sorting of waste at home for organics and non-organics, thus organics can be composted and non-organics recycled, and more education on environmental stewardship.


There must be an alteration in the socially constructed ideals of waste management. Change does not occur quickly, but with patience and planning, it can be more beneficially than temporary short-term fixes.

*steps down off of soap-box*