Campaigners reject waste authority's incinerator claims

An artist's impression of the huge new incinerator at the heart of the North London Heat & Power Project

Environmental groups have renewed calls for the North London Waste Authority (NLWA) to review its plans to build a huge new waste incinerator in Edmonton. A document sent to councillors in seven boroughs contains detailed "rebuttals" of claims made recently by NLWA board members in defence of the project. Their objections relate both to serious environmental concerns and to the project's value for money, especially in the light of changing circumstances.

"700,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year"

In March seven local Extinction Rebellion (XR) groups wrote to all councillors in seven north London boroughs urging them to pause the North London Heat and Power Project (NLHPP). Their letter argued that the new incinerator would burn 150,000 tonnes of fossil fuels per year in the form of plastic and that it is likely to emit 700,000 tonnes of CO₂ per year, about half of which would be derived from fossil fuel sources. It argued that there are lower-carbon alternatives to incineration and district heating which would be much cheaper: reducing waste generation; boosting recycling of organics, metals, plastics and other material; and investing in real renewable energy sources.

The XR groups, along with other campaigners, also made the point that the new incinerator would be oversized for the volumes of "residual" waste which will need to be dealt with. Consequently, it risked becoming a "stranded asset" (ie a white elephant) or alternatively the need to "feed" it would be a disincentive to recycling and to progress towards a circular economy.

"Tell the truth"

In May two leading members of the NLWA board, Councillors Loakes from Waltham Forest and Burke from Hackney, responded in a letter and newspaper article, giving reasons for rejecting the call to review the project. In their Rebuttal document the XR groups challenge these responses, which they say include many questionable claims, and call on the NLWA to "tell the truth", setting out detailed rebuttals of each of the arguments made by the two councillors.

The points of contention include:

• the NLWA says that not building the incinerator risks sending up to 700,000 tonnes of waste to landfill. XR argues that this amount is based on an overestimate of future waste generation, proposes methods of recyling or composting a much higher proportion of waste, and suggests that it might be preferable to bury the small amount of genuinely residual waste because it stores materials for future reclamation rather than transforming them into atmospheric pollution.
• the NLWA claims that the incinerator would contribute towards reducing carbon emissions. The XR document includes a section setting out a step-by-step argument why the effect of burning 700,000 tonnes of waste would be to add 700,000 tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere and not 28,000 tonnes, as claimed.
• the NLWA claims that the project meets the requirement to safeguard communities from health and environmental risks. The campaigners say that, in addition to the environmental damage caused by carbon emissions, it is impossible to filter out ultra-fine particles that are particularly injurious to health.

A comprehensive value-for-money review needed "as a matter of urgency"

Another group opposed to the NLHPP is Stop the Edmonton Incinerator Now, many of whose supporters live in Chingford and Walthamstow, areas downwind from the incinerator when the prevailing westerly winds blow. The group has commissioned a report arguing for a value-for-money review of the project, written by the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network and paid for with help from the Frederick Mulder Foundation.

The report, published last month, concludes that

Given the scale of the Edmonton incinerator rebuild project and the many significant changes that have arisen since the project was first proposed, it would be prudent for a comprehensive Value for Money (VfM) review to be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

It discusses factors that could undermine the economics of the project and should be considered by a value-for-money review, including:

• the discrepancy between the forecast amounts of residual waste used as the basis for planning the incinerator and much lower actual amounts - despite the increasing population, waste volumes have fallen
• the risk of incineration overcapacity in and around London
• the risk of increases in construction costs caused by various factors, including Brexit, exchange rate changes and the coronavirus outbreak
• the risk that the government might bring in additional taxes on carbon emissions
• the risk of regulatory changes, eg changes to recycling rules and targets, tougher emission controls, a ban on incinerating recyclables.

"A wall of denial and rebuttals"

The cost of the NLHPP will be borne by the seven councils represented on the NLWA. In theory the NLWA is ultimately answerable to the electors in these boroughs, but campaigners who have contacted their councillors have complained about "vested interests" and say that they have come up against "a wall of denial and rebuttals, no matter who we write to". The same appears to be true for another issue concerning the NLWA - its insistence that Pinkham Wood, a protected nature conservancy site adjacent to the North Circular Road, must continue to be earmarked as a site suitable for a waste processing facility. The north London councils are united in maintaining this stance and resistant to any calls for common sense, even when they come from planning inspectors.