Forum topic: New Edmonton incinerator: Busting six myths

Two environmental specialists presented to Camden council’s environment based scrutiny committee last evening (16th November 2020) regarding the planned Edmonton incinerator. In their allotted five minutes they hit home big points, not least that looking ahead into a circular economy world (recycling based) the direction of travel of this huge investment simply looks wrong. On air pollution they highlighted the nano particles (PM1.0 and smaller) which will be emitted (and can’t be filtered) with their ability to seep into our very organs and across the placenta into unborn children.
Having spent many an hour on waste data I found the NLWA script read back by one councillor making mention to “robust forecasting” and that the plans will meet the mayors recycling targets for C&I and Municipal waste streams rather at odds with hard reality. Last November’s public hearing on the NLWP and a submission to the current consultation on that same plan both highlight rather different (evidenced) conclusions.
Proceedings start about 13 minutes in and run through until 42 minutes. The deputation covers the first 5 minutes. The reception from Camden councillors is warm and ultimately they want to look at NLWA in greater depth within a year given the major issues revealed. About time that public body was subject to scrutiny some people firmly believe.
https://www.youtube.com/user/CamdenCouncil (window Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee)

Because it is one of the favourite nonsenses of my local waste industry immersion I thought I would post detail so others could share. The NLWA’s scripted comment to Camden (see previous post) about the “robustness” of their forecasts matches their robustness of the forecast theme used in the incinerator’s 2015 phase 1 consultation. In my input I contrasted this “robustness” with the position taken by the actual authors of the forecast.


Switching to the present, an input on this theme to the current NLWP consultation will be along the following lines:
The assumed 2020 LACW start point in Table 3.1 at 987,041t is a full 168,756t (21%) above the latest actual figure (being for the previous year). We do not believe that is a remotely credible position to hold.

Robust? I wouldn’t suggest putting any money or credibility on it.