Forum topic: New analysis further undermines case for incinerator rebuild
New analysis further undermines case for incinerator rebuild
Basil Clarke
27 Apr 2022 22:38 6436
Share
Share by email
Press release issued by the Stop the Edmonton Incinerator Campaign on 19th April
EDMONTON INCINERATOR DATA ‘GROSSLY MISLEADING’ OR SIGN OF IGNORANCE
- New analysis demonstrates CO2 from waste incinerator at least twice as bad for climate as landfill
- ‘Devastating takedown’ of North London Waste Authority (NLWA) as deceptive or inept
- NLWA ‘should have’ installed ‘pre-sorting’ facility to cut climate impact, extract plastics, boost recycling
- Investors warned to ‘steer clear’ of Edmonton incinerator ‘green bonds’, which are ‘simply not green’
- UK Treasury, UK Municipal Bonds Agency advised not to issue any bonds for waste incinerators
London, 19 April 2022—A new report demonstrates that the North London Waste Authority has been using inaccurate carbon emission figures to misrepresent the planned waste incinerator in Edmonton as ‘part of the climate solution’ and capable of ‘saving’ more than 200,000 tonnes of CO2 per year compared to landfill.
The report, authored by established waste sector expert Dr Dominic Hogg, was released just two weeks after the UN’s climate scientists warned that ‘it’s now or never’ in that CO2 emissions must decline by 2025 to avoid dangerous climate change. Dr Hogg’s analysis debunks NLWA claims by revealing that sending waste to the planned incinerator would actually be far worse for the climate than landfilling it.
‘The net emissions from incineration are double those of landfill,’ finds Dr Hogg. He also shows that the Edmonton incinerator’s climate impact would increase over the years: ‘by the time the facility nears the end of its life, its net emissions may be 3.7 times the emissions that would be generated by landfilling the same waste’.
NLWA’s attempts to present landfill as the only alternative to burning waste is similarly greenwash. In one of its own 2021 assessments, NLWA shows that north London’s non-recyclable waste would be sent for incineration elsewhere in London if the Edmonton plant remained unbuilt. Indeed, the Mayor’s forecast indicates that London will have 250,000 tonnes of surplus incineration capacity if recycling targets are met and the Edmonton plant is not built (overcapacity would swell to 950,000 tonnes if it is built).
In analysing the data used by NLWA, which is based on calculations undertaken by the consultancy Ramboll, Dr Hogg identified a methodological flaw in the way the landfill was assessed, and a failure to update a 2013 figure for the avoided carbon intensity associated with power generation. He concludes that the use of a 2013 figure for an incinerator that is not expected to be operational until 2026 or later ‘is either grossly misleading or reflects a failure to understand what is happening to the UK power generation system’, since the grid alternative is decarbonising rapidly.
Dr Hogg also slams the UK Municipal Bonds Agency (UKMBA) for planning to issue ‘green bonds’ to finance the Edmonton plant. He advises green investors to ‘steer clear of the UKMBA’s debut green bond’ as it is ‘simply not green’ and ‘should not have passed scrutiny by UKMBA’. He adds: ‘The issuance’s inclusion of the Edmonton facility undermines the credibility of the UKMBA’s green bonds, and is particularly damaging since this is the UKMBA’s debut green issue.’
The critique extends beyond the Edmonton plant. Dr Hogg writes: ‘The HM Treasury and UK Government Debt Management Office and the UKMBA should cease any bond issues in support of energy from waste incineration. They should then align their approaches with the view developed under the aegis of the official UK taxonomy’ of sustainable finance activities.
Dr Hogg’s analysis of NLWA data comes after years of campaigning against the planned incinerator, and multiple attemps by Extinction Rebellion and others to prove that the NLWA CO2 figures are invalid. Given that he has more than 30 years of experience campaigning and consulting on environmental issues, his intervention will be difficult to dismiss.
On Twitter, one campaigner called Dr Hogg’s report a ‘devastating takedown of the NLWA incinerator plan’, noting that the £800 million ‘environmentally disastrous’ incinerator project was ‘massively worse’ than councillors who supported it had been told.
This news comes on the heels of the Government’s proposal to halve non-recyclable waste by 2042 (compared to 2019 levels), which corresponds to a recycling rate of 70%–75%. The proposal has already led to calls for two waste incineration projects to be halted – in Dorset and Wiltshire – amid predictions that considerably less waste will be available for incineration. The target is expected to become law by the autumn and will further weaken the basis on which NLWA is building the Edmonton incinerator.
Links
- Dr Dominic Hogg’s blog and report: www.dominichogg.com/hoggblog/should-incineration-attract-finance-from-green-bonds
- Dr Dominic Hogg and Prashant Vaze’s Environmental Finance article about the ‘green bonds’ (registration required): https://www.environmental-finance.com/content/analysis/a-burning-issue.html
- Public Finance article on pausing of ‘green bonds’ (registration required): www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2022/04/waste-body-pauses-plans-uk-municipal-bonds-agency-issuance
- Call on UK Municipal Bonds Agency to withdraw ‘green bonds’ for Edmonton incinerator: stop-edmonton-incinerator.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Call-on-UKMBA-to-withdraw-green-bonds-for-Edmonton-incinerator-as-incompatible-with-UK-taxonomy-for-sustainable-finance.pdf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
New analysis further undermines case for incinerator rebuild
Karl Brown
28 Apr 2022 22:02 6437
Share
Share by email
The statement that there is sufficient incineration capacity within London to meet London’s need is interesting: under London’s net self-sufficiency (NSS) strategy, logic would say if there is enough capacity somewhere then use it / don’t build more. London’s NSS is based on aggregate waste so that a surplus in one waste management type can effectively “offset” a deficit in another. So, someone burns our waste, we process their scrap cars, sort of thing. (Waste miles and actual transport viability of the waste ignored.) If followed across the UK this approach would minimize unnecessary waste management sites / capacity.
North London also has a NSS strategy but here it is not aggregated across all waste types, instead it applies to individual waste types; it is effectively self-sufficiency in intent for each waste type rather than NSS. NLWA have always had a concern that they will not have sufficient capacity to deal with residual waste, hence build your own, and build it very big to remove any risk of going short. It’s not representative of strong management and should fail under a Duty to Cooperate requirement.
But if incinerating our waste elsewhere in London is not practicable neither is landfill likely to be a solution. Non-London counties have been clear they neither want it nor have space for London’s residual waste. No surprises there. So where would we have our landfill site(s)? With the push back we have seen on housing plans on the green belt I imagine plans to bury old mattresses, kids toys, broken plates, used nappies and such in the north of the borough will be less than welcome. I may be wrong.
Yet, “increased recycling is the way forward” isn’t something I would support. Recycling, with its costs of transport, processing and rebuilding into something else is better than landfill or incineration but there are higher levels of the waste hierarchy which are even better, such as reuse, but best of all is not to generate stuff in the first place – fast fashion and equivalent themes spring to mind. Then the embedded carbon doesn’t happen and there is no end waste to get rid of. But that’s a fundamental change in our society, including the inevitable end of neoliberalism and its market driven everything. We shouldn’t be deceived, recycling isn’t the answer and its not up to “us” to provide the solution, this is a government / Big Co issue to address.
In the meantime I’ve yet to see a solution better than accepting what we have placed on a clear reducing trajectory for a decade or so while the big picture gets sorted.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
