14th May 2001
Labour Party isolated as the only party that favours waste incineration

A new report published today by Greenpeace reveals a wide body of evidence demonstrating the negative health impacts of waste incineration. These include cancers, heart disease, birth defects, allergies and breathing problems. Despite these health concerns, new political analysis shows that the Labour Party are the only mainstream party that favours incineration.
Current Government plans identify more than 100 potential new incinerators, despite widespread public opposition and the fact that both Tories and Lib Dems are seeking a moratorium.

The report, called Incineration and Human Health (Acrobat File), is a comprehensive review of all available scientific data on the impacts of incineration on human health and the effects of specific chemicals discharged from incinerators.

Greenpeace toxics campaigner Mark Strutt said
"This review makes it clear that by any reasonable assessment of the available evidence it is reckless and harmful to continue the incineration of domestic waste. Rather than proposing a massive expansion in the number of incinerators, the Government should be shutting them down as soon as possible."

"Labour are clearly the party of incineration. Their waste policy compromises any attempts to appear green and they will suffer the political consequences of attempting to foist more than 100 incinerators on an unwilling public."

People living near incinerators risk exposure to a range of toxic chemicals by breathing contaminated air or by eating contaminated produce like vegetables, eggs and milk, or by skin contact with contaminated soil. The most notorious by-products of burning rubbish are dioxins, which are formed when substances that contain chlorine like PVC are burnt. Dioxins are highly toxic and accumulate in the food chain. One of the dioxin family has been described as the most toxic chemical known to science.

Numerous studies confirm that a typical incinerator releases a cocktail of toxic chemicals, including dioxins, lead, cadmium, mercury and fine particles, into the atmosphere. However, there has been little follow up investigation into the effects of these poisons on people near incinerators.

Despite this, Incineration and Human Health contains some worrying findings, for example:

*       A study conducted on 70 municipal waste incinerators in the UK operating between 1974 and 1987, and 307 hospital waste incinerators from 1953 to 1980, identified a 2-fold increase in the cancer deaths in children living nearby. These results were consistent with a second study showing increased child cancers for hospital incinerators and large scale, high
temperature combustion industries (study dates 1998 and 2000).

*       In 1996, a study on residents living in an urban area in Italy found a 6.7-fold increase in deaths from lung cancer.

*       A study in 1989 on people working at a Swedish incinerator between 1920 and 1985 found a 3.5-fold increase in deaths from lung cancer, and a 1.5-fold increase in deaths from cancer of the oesophagus. The same study also found an excess of ischemic heart disease, especially in workers with more than 40 years exposure.

In the UK it is often argued that 'new' incinerators that were built or upgraded after new laws came into force in 1996 to clean up incinerators, are much superior to older plants, eliminating many health concerns.  This is far from the truth. Modern incinerators still emit large quantities of toxic chemicals into the air. Reductions of some compounds emitted to air have been achieved, but these are merely transferred to ashes, which are dumped in landfills, where the chemicals may leach out. Some incinerators have been mixing the toxic waste ashes with building aggregate to be used in road building, leaving a toxic heritage for future generations.

Strutt added
"Not enough is known about the full toxic legacy of Britain's incinerators. But the evidence compiled in this report makes it clear that it would be reckless for the Government or any planning authority of good conscience to allow another incinerator application to go ahead."
 

Notes
Incineration and Human Health is available in full and abridged versions from the Greenpeace Press Office or on http://www.greenpeace.org.uk

Conservative Party position on incineration:
"We will introduce a moratorium on new incinerators until independent British scientific evidence proves they are safe."
A Cleaner Greener Britain: a Blue Green Approach to Waste and Recycling

"Conservatives have already condemned the Government for relying too heavily on the incineration of rubbish, rather than recycling. The findings of this report show that the government may not only be ignoring its environment responsibilities, but may also be ignoring its safety responsibilities."
Damian Green MP press release, 30 October 2000, on the DETR report which predicts that new incinerators could lead to 349 deaths a year.

"The Prime Minister has already proved he is profoundly uninterested in the environment and is fooling no-one with this sudden burst of concern...Four years of failure on green issues cannot be repaired by one speech... The Government's environmental failures include: plans to build dozens of new incinerators instead of encouraging recycling of household waste."
Damian Green press release, 5 March 2001, before Blair's WWF/RIIA speech.

Liberal Democrat position on incineration:
"Liberal Democrat proposals would see a massive increase in recycling, re-use and waste minimisation and a reduction in landfill without resorting to unpopular, dangerous incinerators."
Tom Brake speaking at the launch of the Liberal Democrat
Waste Charter, 23 May 2000

"Liberal Democrats want to see: a  presumption against landfill and incineration and in favour of recycling and composting."
Liberal Democrat Waste Charter May 2000

The direct action followed a four hour negotiation last night between Greenpeace and the plant management during which the company, owned by the German based 'Heidelberg Cement Group', stated that it would not stop burning waste and releasing toxic pollution into the environment. It added that its policy was to increase waste burning in its plants. (1)
"It's companies like 'Cementa' that are causing the world's current toxic pollution crisis," said Greenpeace Nordic toxic campaigner Gunnar Lind.
"The company's own emission data and reports show it's emitting more and more toxic pollution into the environment and plans to release yet more with no concern for the health and environmental problems they cause," he added.

The 100 year old 'Cementa' plant started burning waste rubber tires and plastics in 1997. This year, it was permitted to import 25,000 tonnes of hazardous waste from the UK for a "trial burn". Cement kilns that burn hazardous waste are listed as significant sources of some of the persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as cancer causing dioxins, that are targeted
for elimination under the new POPs convention, to be signed and adopted by over 120 countries in Stockholm next week. (2)
"It is pure hypocrisy for the country hosting the dawning of this new treaty is allowing its own industries to generate even more of these toxic poisons," said Lind. "If the commitment to solve this toxic problem is genuine, every government around the world will take immediate action to stop burning of waste and to eliminate other sources of these dangerous pollutants. The Swedish government should start by setting a clear example here," he added.
Greenpeace started its protest against 'Cementa' yesterday when activists took plastic waste from the plant and put it onboard the organisations vessel, MV Greenpeace, that is docked near the plant. The MV Greenpeace is currently touring the Baltic to expose the sources of persistent organic pollutants in the region. The tour, which is the last leg of a global toxic tour, will end in Stockholm where the waste will be delivered to delegates signing of the treaty to stress that they should take action to solve the
POPs problem created by the incineration of waste and other industries.

Notes to Editors:
(1) Emissions data from the plant reveals that the emissions of heavy metals and some other toxic compounds increased since the plant started to burn waste tires and plastics.  Emissions of toxic chlorinated compounds as well as dioxins increased significantly during the test burn.

(2) The United Nations Environment Programme has listed burning hazardous waste in cement kilns as having the potential for comparatively high formation and release of dioxins, furans, hexachlorobenzene and PCBs in the final text of the upcoming Stockholm Convention.

Stockholm, Sweden 18th May 2001: Greenpeace this morning dumped  waste on the doorstep of 'Cementa', located on Gotland Island off the  Swedish coast, and accused the company of importing and incinerating  waste illegally. The action occurred after Greenpeace discovered  Norwegian waste at the plant for which the company has no permit.  Greenpeace has called in the police to investigate the company.

"It's clear that 'Cementa' is systematically lying," said Greenpeace campaigner, Gunnar Lind, on board the MV Greenpeace that is moored at Cementa's quayside. "Now it's transpired they are misleading the authorities as well by illegally burning this Norwegian waste," he added.

Greenpeace activists have been occupying the company's incinerator  stack and blocking the conveyor belt that carries plastic waste to the kiln  for the past 48 hours to protest against the company's policy of burning  waste.
It started burning waste tires and waste plastics in 1997 and, this  year, started a "trial" burn of 25,000 tonnes of hazardous waste from the  UK. The company's own records show emission's have increased since  they started burning this waste, including heavy metals and POPs.

Next week, approximately 120 countries are expected to sign a global agreement to ban persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in Stockholm.  Cement kilns that burn hazardous waste as well as other incinerators are  listed as a significant source of some of the POPs, such as cancer  causing dioxins, that are targeted for elimination under the new POPs  convention.

" 'Cementa' is probably profiting by fuelling its ovens with this waste rather than paying for  oil and coal fuels," said Lind. "But it has to stop releasing the toxic poisons. The authorities can no longer let this go.
They must stop this plant burning waste immediately ," he added.

A new report published today reveals that incinerators in England are committing hundreds of  pollution offences every          year by discharging more toxic pollution than legally permitted.

The ten plants examined broke pollution laws a total of 553 times in 1999 and 2000 but incurred only one prosecution for
the entire period. The report identifies Sheffield as being the  worst incinerator in England with 156 breaches over a two-year
period. Significantly, all the incinerators are in constituencies held by Labour before the current general election.

Early this morning Greenpeace volunteers scaled the chimney of the Sheffield plant and blocked the rubbish feeders,
successfully shutting down operations.

The volunteers will  maintain the occupation until the owners agree to the permanent closure of the incinerator.

The report is based on data obtained from Environment Agency  pollution registers and shows the following league table of
 pollution offences in 1999 and 2000:

                                  Name of incinerator           No. of offences
                                      Sheffield                                            156
                                      Stoke                                                 40
                                      Coventry                                            90
                                      Edmonton (N London)                       25
                                      Dudley                                               80
                                      Tyseley                                              15
                                      Wolverhampton                                 68
                                      Cleveland                                          11
                                      Nottingham                                        53
                                     Lewisham                                            9

The Greenpeace action comes on the same day that the  Government signs up to an international treaty in Stockholm,  which is meant to eliminate some of the worst toxic chemical  discharges including dioxins.

Mark Strutt, one of the volunteers occupying the chimney said:
"Sheffield incinerator has an appalling criminal record and is the worst in England. It has been bombarding the people of Sheffield with toxic chemicals for too long. Enough is enough, this plant must be shut for good.

We know that burning rubbish gives off poisons that cause  cancers, heart disease and breathing problems. Sheffield and the other nine incinerators already have a whole catalogue of   pollution offences and the Stockholm treaty commits us to eliminating dangerous chemicals, yet still Labour will allow up to  100 more incinerators to be built."

Incineration has already become an issue in the UK general  election. Both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives have
called for a moratorium on the building of new incinerators until  the threats to public health have been fully evaluated.

In contrast, Labour's waste strategy suggests a need for up to 166 new incinerators to be built in Britain without any further
debate or study. Many have already submitted planning  applications.

Greenpeace's report Incineration: Criminal Damage shows,  firstly, that even though the emissions limits are based on what
 is technologically achievable and not on what is safe for human  health, no incinerator manages to stay within these limits.

Secondly, that the monitoring regime is inadequate. It is entirely  based on self-assessment and the range of measured pollutants
is too narrow, less than half a dozen substances are continually  monitored. The most toxic chemicals are only checked a few
times a year, which is likely to miss any peaks in production.

The report concludes, "incineration is an unreliable and  dangerous technology incapable of being regulated with proper regard to human health and the environment.... Currently  operating incinerators are clearly incapable of functioning safely and should be closed as soon as technically possible."

The burning of household rubbish leads to the formation of many  new and toxic chemical compounds. The number of new
substances released from incineration may run into thousands  and these will be emitted both as toxic gases from chimneys
and as contaminated ash.

People living near incinerators risk exposure to a range of toxic chemicals by breathing contaminated air or by eating contaminated produce like vegetables, eggs and milk, or by skin contact with contaminated soil.

The most notorious by-products of burning rubbish are dioxins, which are formed when substances that contain chlorine, like
PVC plastic, are burnt. Dioxins are highly toxic and accumulate in the food chain. The most dangerous dioxin is classified as a
human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and has been described as the most toxic chemical
known to science.

Last week, Greenpeace published a comprehensive review of all  the scientific studies carried out on people living near to or
 working in incinerators. Overall the balance of evidence points to  the fact that burning rubbish is bad for human health.

One study concluded that children living near 70 British  incinerators were twice as likely to die from cancer. Another study on incinerator workers in Sweden showed increases in deaths from lung cancer, cancer of the oesophagus and heart  disease.

Strutt added
"Labour must abandon its commitment to incineration and at  the very least join the other parties in calling for a moratorium on new incinerators. The Government has a pathetic recycling  target. By 2015 we will have a recycling rate less than the  current rates of many other European countries. What Britain  urgently needs is an intelligent waste plan that adopts a reduce,  reuse and recycle approach."

Further information:
Greenpeace's report, Incineration: Criminal Damage

Contact:
Greenpeace Press office: 020 7865 8255

GENEVA/NAIROBI   27 April 2001:
Everyone has the right to live in a world  free from toxic pollution and environmental degradation, the United  Nations Commission on Human Rights has concluded.

 The decision, the first time the Commission has addressed the links  between the environment  and  human  rights,  was made at its annual  meeting which ended today in Geneva.

Mary  Robinson,  the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Klaus  Toepfer, the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment  Programme, have been invited to organize an international seminar to  explore how environmental and human rights principles can be strengthened.

 Mr  Toepfer  welcomed  the  historic  move saying: "Many of the  fundamental rights  enshrined  in  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights have significant environmental dimensions".

"Environmental  conditions  clearly  help  to determine the extent to  which people enjoy their basic rights to life, health, adequate food and  housing, and  traditional livelihood and culture. It is time to recognize  that those who  pollute  or  destroy the natural environment are not just  committing a crime against nature, but are violating human rights as  well," he said.

 "Human  rights  cannot  be  secured in a degraded or polluted  environment," said  Mr  Toepfer.  "The  fundamental  right  to life is  threatened by soil degradation and  deforestation  and  by  exposures  to  toxic chemicals, hazardous wastes, and contaminated drinking water."

"For  this  reason,  we  believe  that  the  successful  implementation of   environmental treaties on biodiversity, climate change, desertification  and   chemicals  can  make  a  major  contribution to protecting human rights.  We would   welcome  the  Commission's  continued  work  on  the  environmental dimensions of human rights, including enforcement and   compliance," he said.

 The  results  of  the  seminar  will be considered at the Commission's  next session in  March  2002  and will feed into the review of progress  towards sustainable development  that  has  been achieved since the 1992  Rio Earth Summit.

 This  ten-year  review  will  form  the  basis  for  the  World  Summit on  Sustainable Development, to be convened in Johannesburg in September 2002.

Greenpeace welcomes jury's verdict and calls on Government to end waste incineration in UK

Five Greenpeace volunteers were today acquitted of charges of criminal damage by a jury at Wood Green Crown Court, London. The charges relate to the occupation of Edmonton incinerator in October last year when the five volunteers closed the plant for four days by camping on top of the chimney.
The defendants had argued that their occupation of the plant was lawful because the incinerator was breaking pollution laws and discharging hundreds of tonnes of toxic chemicals which threatened people, property and the environment.

Commenting on the verdict, Rob Gueterbock, a Greenpeace campaigner and one of the acquitted volunteers, said:

                "We are delighted with this verdict which totally vindicates our campaign to shut down waste incinerators in Britain and stop the Government's plans to build more than a hundred new rubbish burners across the country. The jury clearly agreed with us that the incinerator at Edmonton posed a toxic hazard to people, property and the environment and that we broke no laws in shutting it down."

The verdict marks the second time in two years that Greenpeace volunteers have been acquitted by a jury [1] and will be a blow to Government plans to hugely expand incineration capacity across Britain. The jury clearly accepted Greenpeace's arguments that incinerators represent an unacceptable source of toxic pollution which threatens people's health. Today's court
verdict will encourage organisations and community groups that are actively opposing waste incineration and send a powerful message to the Government about public concerns over burning rubbish.

Rob Gueterbock continued:

                "The public overwhelmingly reject incineration and this verdict is a clear signal to the Government about people's concerns on this issue. We need to see an end to waste incineration and a massive increase in recycling and composting along with an official commitment to making Britain a zero waste economy."

The Government's recycling target for the UK is 35% by 2015, even though many countries such as Germany and the Netherlands already exceed this target. Britain is currently near the bottom of the European league table for recycling and has the lowest glass recycling rate for any European country.

[1] In September 2000 at Norwich Crown Court, 28 Greenpeace volunteers were acquitted of a charge of criminal damage in connection with the decontamination of a field of GM maize at Lyng, Norfolk, in 1999.

7.30 am - A team of Greenpeace volunteers today shut-down and occupied  Britain's 'flagship' waste incinerator in south London to protect the  health of Britain's children. The SELCHP plant in Lewisham (1), which  burns rubbish from several London boroughs as well as the Houses of  Parliament and Downing Street, routinely releases significant quantities of chemicals called dioxins which the World Health Organisation classifies as causing cancer.

The Government has already admitted that one in three Britons are taking in the maximum amount of dioxin which is considered  'safe' and more than half of British babies and toddlers are exceeding this limit.

The Greenpeace volunteers have pledged to occupy the plant until Onyx - the French multi-national which runs the incinerator - shut operations for good. One team of volunteers have attached themselves to huge rubbish grabbing claws that feed the furnace, shutting off its supply of fuel. A second team of Greenpeace climbers have scaled the 100-metre chimney to stop the plant releasing poisonous gases into the air.

Even Government ministers have highlighted the dangers of incineration, Environment Minister Michael Meacher has said, "I repeat, the emissions from incinerator processes are extremely toxic. Some of the emissions are carcinogenic. We must use every reasonable instrument to eliminate them altogether."(2)

Mark Strutt from South London, one of the Greenpeace volunteers occupying the top of the chimney, said:

"The industry calls this incinerator a flagship but it is needlessly putting our children at risk. The government has warned us that one in three people already consume more dioxins than is safe and half of all babies and toddlers exceed that limit. Yet records show that this plant discharges large amounts of these dangerous chemicals and the Environment Agency do nothing about it."

"The government's environment minister has said that emissions from incinerators are extremely toxic, yet Tony Blair sends his rubbish to an incinerator without a second thought. What's worse, he wants to build more than a hundred incinerators all over Britain and increase the amount of pollution across the country. "

The Government's waste strategy encourages councils to build more incinerators. Currently there are only fifteen working incinerators in Britain but this figure could rise to well over a hundred in the next ten years. Such a building programme would increase overall dioxin pollution and represent a massive waste of valuable resources that could come from recycling. Lewisham Council, which plays host to SELCHP, has estimated that it could recycle 92% of its waste but in fact recycles only 4%. In contrast the city of Edmonton in Canada has cut its waste by 70%, Flanders in Belgium by 59% and Canberra in Australia by 56%.

People do not need to live near SELCHP incinerator to risk exposure to dioxins. These chemicals remain in the environment for years and can travel long distances through the air. Dioxins contaminate soil and plants and then enter the food chain and can become concentrated in people's bodies. Incinerators release many other toxic chemicals as well as dioxins. These chemicals include heavy metals and acid gases as well as fine particles, which can damage lungs.

In May 2001, Greenpeace published Incineration and Human Health, a comprehensive review of all available scientific data on the impacts of  incineration on human health and the effects of specific chemicals discharged from incinerators.  The report reveals a wide body of evidence demonstrating negative health impacts of waste incineration, including a study published in 2000 showing that children living near incinerators were twice as likely to die of cancers. In May 2001, new medical research in the Lancet showed that toxic fumes from incinerators could be having alarming effects on the sexual development of children.

SELCHP claims to be a "combined heat and power station", however the system for supplying heat to the local community has never been installed.
SELCHP does supply electricity to the national grid but generating energy from waste this way is extremely inefficient. It is a huge waste of energy to remanufacture materials that are burnt instead of recycling them.
Burning plastics, which are made from oil, also gives off global warming gases. Britain already has a massive resource of green energy such as wind, wave and solar power and investing taxpayer's money in so called 'energy from waste' schemes is depriving these genuine sources of money.

Mark Strutt added,

"This government is allowing councils across the UK to press ahead with new incinerators that will poison us. Instead of being reckless with our health the government should replace SELCHP and the rest of Britain's  incinerators with modern schemes to re-use, recycle and compost our rubbish."

Notes
On 13th June 2001, five Greenpeace volunteers were acquitted of charges of  criminal damage relating to the occupation of Edmonton incinerator in October 2000

Greenpeace has written twice to Onyx, the operators of SELCHP incinerator asking for a meeting but they have ignored these requests Greenpeace has also written to councils across the UK about both the health effects of incinerators and safe ways to deal with rubbish which avoid burning it

(1) SELCHP - (South London Combined Heat and Power Station) burns rubbish from Lewisham, Greenwich and City of Westminster. It is soon to start
                        receiving waste from Bromley

(2) Michael Meacher, Minister for Environment, evidence to the House of  Lords Select Committee on European Communities, 11th Report, HL Paper 71,
      15 June 1999, Par 40

9am - Nine Greenpeace volunteers continue to defy a crack squad of specialist bailiffs as their occupation of a London rubbish incinerator enters its third day. The volunteers have kept the SELCHP plant in Lewisham shut since early Monday morning to prevent the discharge  of cancer causing chemicals and have vowed to maintain the occupation for as long as possible.

At 8am today specialist bailiffs forced an entry through barricades and entered the main rubbish hall where refuse is fed into the furnace. The mechanical grabs which manoeuvre rubbish into the incinerators have been occupied by Greenpeace volunteers since Monday morning, shutting off its fuel supply. The bailiffs are expected to spend the rest of the day trying to remove the volunteers who are suspended on climbing ropes over the main rubbish pit.

At 8.30am today the three Greenpeace volunteers occupying the top of the 300ft incinerator chimney began the process of sealing the flues to prevent the plant from restarting operations while the incinerator is still occupied.

Speaking from the top of the chimney Greenpeace volunteer Mark Strutt from South London said: "We are 300 feet up and we intend to make it as difficult as we can for the bailiffs to get to us. We are sealing the chimney flues to keep this toxic plant closed for as long as possible. Every hour this incinerator remains shut we are protecting people from cancer causing chemicals and other poisonous gases."

The SELCHP incinerator, owned by French multinational ONYX, routinely releases significant quantities of chemicals called dioxins which the World Health Organisation classifies as causing cancer in humans. The government has already admitted that one in three Britons are taking in the maximum amount of dioxins that is considered 'safe' and more than half of Britain's babies and toddlers exceed this limit.

Toxic Pollution
Public Opposition
Futility of Controls and Regulations
The 'Green Energy' myth
Money to Burn
The Sustainable Solution
 

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%. [1]

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 recycling 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

info@ams.greenpeace.org

(1) Dioxin and Furan Inventories: National and Regional Emissions of PCDD/PCDF; UNEP Chemicals, May 1999.

Activists from anti-incineration groups across the country joined forces with Greenpeace today to halt construction of the new Basingstoke incinerator. At 6.30 am 100 activists invaded the Basingstoke plant, due to open in October. If allowed to start burning household rubbish the new incinerator will emit large quantities of dioxin chemicals that get into the food chain and cause cancer. The Government recently warned that a third of UK adults and half of Britain's babies and toddlers take in more dioxins than is safe.

Today (17th June) is global anti-incineration day with protests in fifty countries around the world. It looks set to be the biggest protest against incineration to date. Greenpeace is participating as a member of GAIA, the Global Anti- Incineration Alliance. Taking part in the Basingstoke occupation are representatives from incinerator action groups from Hull, Bradford, Essex, Derbyshire, Brighton, Kent, London, Milton Keynes, Guildford and Wales.

Despite recent Government claims that only a "handful" of new waste incinerators will be built in Britain, Greenpeace research published today, shows that by 2010 alone Britain will have 43 new incinerators, in addition to the 15 currently operating. (1).

The 100 activists from groups opposing new incinerators in their areas or trying to get existing plants shutdown have pledged to continue their occupation until construction is permanently halted on the plant. Some people have locked themselves onto machinery while others have occupied the roof of one of the buildings. A team of climbers has set up camp in helicopter cargo nets suspended from the framework of one unfinished building and another activist has occupied the top of a nearby crane.

Greenpeace incineration campaigner Mark Strutt said,

"People from across the country have come here to say enough is enough. We don't want more incinerators to poison our food with cancer causing chemicals. We must ban incinerators now. We are already at a stage where the government is warning that half of Britain's babies and toddlers take in more dioxins than is safe.

"The Government is trying to mislead the public by claiming only a handful of new rubbish burners will be built when in fact 43 are in the pipeline. Politicians are clearly trying to downplay the role they want these poisonous plants to play in dealing with our waste because they are worried about massive public outcry. We hope today sends a clear message that people don't want or need incinerators."

People don't need to live near an incinerator to risk exposure to cancerous dioxins. Over 95% of human exposure comes through our food especially fat in milk, meat, eggs and fish. Dioxins can travel for miles on air currents and contaminate farmland. Animals and fish take up dioxins from the food they eat and also from any soil or sediment they also consume while eating, for example cows consume significant amount of soil when grazing. According to the Food Standard Agency, the Basingstoke incinerator, which is in an agricultural area, will add to dioxin levels in the human food chain. (2)

Incinerators release many other toxic chemicals as well as dioxins. These chemicals include heavy metals and acid gases as well as fine particles, which can damage lungs.

The Basingstoke plant claims it will be a "combined heat and power station", however generating energy from waste this way is extremely inefficient. It is a huge  waste of energy to remanufacture new materials instead of recycling them. Burning plastics gives off the most energy but plastics are made from oil so burning them not only emits highly toxic chemicals but also gives off global warming gases. Britain already has a massive resource of green energy such as wind, wave and solar power and investing taxpayer's money in so called 'energy from waste' schemes is depriving these genuine sources of money.

Hampshire has a recycling rate of 25% which is currently better than much of the UK but is put to shame by other towns and cities around the world. Recycling and composting has enabled the city of Edmonton in Canada to cut municipal waste by 70%, Canberra in Australia and Flanders in Belgium by 59%. In the UK, Wye in Kent recycles 75%. Many more regions in the UK could reach 60% recycling in the next few years but this will not be an option for Hampshire. Three new
incinerators will mean they are committed to burning nearly 400,000 tonnes of rubbish every year for the next 20 years
 

For more information please contact Greenpeace Press Office on 0207 865 8255 or 07801 212968 or Mark Strutt on 07801 681242.

Notes
Short media briefing on the potential risks to human health from Basingstoke incinerator and factsheet on dioxins available from the Greenpeace press
Office or at www.greenpeace.org.uk

(1)Greenpeace research along with interactive map showing the sites of the 43 proposed incinerators and 15 existing ones at www.greenpeace.org.uk

(2) Food Standards Agency (14 November 2001) response to Environment Agency consultation on application for a permit for the Basingstoke incinerator. No
bj7786. According to the Food Standards Agency the Basingstoke incinerator "is in an area that is predominantly agricultural. The main risk to safety of the human food chain will be through deposition of persistent contaminants in areas of food cultivation...Even a well-operated modern incinerator that meets the emission limits defined in the Waste Incineration Directive will add to the overall burden of persistent pollutants such as dioxins in the environment."
 

Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London N1 2PN
Tel: 020 7865 8181 Fax: 020 7865 8200