By Jonathan L. Mayuga
Manila, Philippines - Environmental groups on Monday warned the government against the influx of waste-to-energy schemes masquerading as renewable-energy sources, saying it will undermine the ban on waste incineration, cause toxic pollution and reduce employment in the recycling sector.
The waste-and-pollution watchdog EcoWaste Coalition (EcoWaste) and the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Gaia) said incinerator pushers are using the climate issue as an additional platform to peddle their polluting technologies.
EcoWaste and Gaia are joined by Ang Nars, Bangon Kalikasan Movement, Cavite Green Coalition, Focus on the Global South, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, Health Care Without Harm, Krusada sa Kalikasan, Institute for the Development of Educational and Ecological Alternatives, Mother Earth Foundation, Sanib Lakas ng mga Aktibong Lingkod ng Inang Kalikasan and Zero Waste Philippines in opposing waste-to-energy schemes if it includes burning.
They said government agencies and officials are falling for the ruse at great expense to the health of communities and the environment.
Waste-to-energy schemes cover a broad range of technologies that directly generate energy from burning waste, including gasification, plasma, pyrolysis and mass burn incinerators, some of which have already been issued clearances and permits to operate.
“The Philippines does not need incinerators since there are safer and more practical waste management options available that can best serve the goals of the country in mitigating climate change, in protecting the environment, and in generating green jobs and enterprises,” said Roy Alvarez, president of EcoWaste.
According to the book False Solutions to Climate Change, the incineration industry has rebranded itself and is selling new types of expensive incinerators with fancy names, which often create more greenhouse gases and toxic byproducts than traditional incinerators.
From a climate standpoint, waste prevention is the most practical carbon emissions-reduction scheme complemented by reusing, recycling and composting, the groups said, while landfilling and incinerating waste are deemed the worse options.
From the perspective of resource conservation, phasing out residual waste or the waste that remains after reusing, recycling or composting, is the best means to ensure all discards are reusable, recyclable or compostable, the groups stated.
Waste separation, reusing, recycling and composting, the groups pointed out, generate far more jobs and safer working conditions than landfilling and incinerating waste.
The groups also scored the use of landfill gas-to-energy projects to justify and perpetuate the practice of mixed-waste landfilling to supposedly curb the production of methane, a greenhouse gas 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.
Keeping compostable organics out of landfills helps avoid methane releases far more successfully than burning landfill gas for energy, the groups asserted.
In lieu of the risky methods, the groups are calling for investments in waste prevention and reduction, source separation, extended producer responsibility, support for the informal recycling sector, and other initiatives that will lead to a progressive reduction of the volume and toxicity of waste sent for disposal.
The Clean Air Act of 1999 bans the incineration of municipal, biomedical and hazardous waste, which results in toxic and poisonous fumes, while the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 requires the adoption of best environmental practices in ecological waste management and excludes incineration.