Stop Wales Subsidising Incineration

A group of concerned environmentalists and scientists from FOE Cymru met with Jane Davidsons Phoney consumer group promoting incineration that is Waste Awareness Misinformation Wales yesterday.

• they pointed out in detail that the opinion poll had a strong pro-incineration slant.
• the previous opinion poll found that in one area of Wales, the public favoured MBT(Mech & Biol-Treatments) over incineration, but they excluded MBT from their poll.
• they pointed out the claims that significant energy could ge generated from waste are wrong - even Covanta's huge Merthyr proposal would generate a tiny 60MW compared with Aberthaw's 1450 MW.

The deputation established that WAW is wholly funded and steered by WAG and sees
its role as delivering WAG's plans - which are

 a) to delay the 70% recycling till 2025 even though many countries and regions are already achieving or approaching this level,  

b) to burn waste rather than produce biogas for domestic use, and
c) to subsidise incineration instead of allowing MBT at half the cost, with use of products
in land reclamation and enhancing forestry/coppicing.

The deputation outlined FoE Cymru's critique of WAG's change in waste policy from minimising incineration and landfill to the present one of promoting and subsiding incineration over landfill. This critique and the real 'zero waste' policy were commissioned from PIC consultants. They pointed out that such an alternative that maximises recyclables and  reclaims compostables through MBT (mechanical and bio-techniques) has been
adopted in Ireland, where an international, team showed it to be sound. In comparison, WAG's policy is unsound, using poor computer software to get very questionble pro-incinerator results. WAG's officials (Andy Rees & co) must know that as they have failed to defend their results against FOE's thorough and convincing critique.

Waste Awareness Misinformation Wales said that they are an arm of WAG and that their 'survey' (Wales would like to burn not bury waste) was at the behest of Andy Rees, Jasper Roberts and co of WAG. We told them that not only was the survey loaded but the results falsified since, in fact people in the focus groups they had expressed strong worries about pollution of the air from burning!
Why is the Welsh Assembly Government giving incineration and Prosiect Gwyrdd a subsidy of £9 million/yr which they propose to extend through out Wales.
In the meantime, WAG's waste £1 million/yr on the propaganda outfit Welsh Awareness Wales - WAW
Meanwhile the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA refuse to go for 'high recycling' pre-2020and are trying to lock us into expensive incinerator

project green means incinerator or incinerator or incinerator or incinerator

Dear Prosiect Gwyrdd  Incinerator Management Team. So much for "technology neutral" with your four chosen ones. Incinerator or incinerator or incinerator or incinerator.
As we have said all along Prosiect 'Gwyrdd' = Project Incinerator 1. Covanta, Merthyr - 2.Veolia Newport 3.Viridor Cardiff  4.'Waste Recycling Group Ltd' Newport
Cllr Mark Stephens chair of joint committee "We acknowledge and are grateful for the financial assistance provided by WAG which allows us to develop the infrastructure and capacity to meet these challenging targets.” Jane Daivdson Lab minister for the destruction of the environemtn is supporting this and Funding has been secured from WAG through the Outline Business Case (OBC) and will
contribute 25% of the future gate fee.

Ignore recycling targets says WAG spokesperson

Welsh Assembly misinformation spokesperson is telling Councillors ...increasing recycling would cost more....than incineration??? But Incineration IS the most expensive option. And the 70% target is not ambitious and saying the target is not urgent ...actually implying don't bother. "70% target was only due to come into force by 2025...WLGA members aware... that the implication that 70% is an immediate target is incorrect."

Came across this in the story.below .More incineration lobby news...attacking recycling ...a disgrace that Jane Davidson boasts of better recycling targets yet the WAG spokesperson is saying they don't really matter and giving green light to LAs to ignore them. Recycling is cheaper and creates more badly needed jobs.. ..needs a little more creative thinking... but it seems the Welsh Government Association are too cosy with the lobbyists and incinerator builders..See the buddies here http://www.wasteawareness.org/pm/162

That story.. Recycling ‘too expensive’ for Welsh authorities 8th November 2010

The Welsh Assembly Government has ambitious plans to increase recycling targets to 70 per cent.
However, the Welsh Government Association (WLGA) has voiced concerns that reaching such an ambitious target would cost councils an extra £30m a year. (Wrong see pfi costs) This has led to fears that other public services could suffer.
(Prof Connett A rational policy would give rebates for waste reduction and recycling while surcharging incineration and particularly its ash. Incinerator ash is toxic so the professor criticised the UK for charging only £3 per tonne for landfilling ash, instead of £40 per tonne on normal landfilling of waste.Professor Dr Paul Connett http://cardiffagainsttheincinerator.blogspot.com/ )

A 40 per cent recycling target has already been met, and EU regulations only require 50 per cent.
Aled Roberts, the leader of Wrexham council, said: “Local authorities are committed to increasing the recycling of waste. “On average we are currently recycling around 40 per cent, which is a great improvement on 7 per cent which was achieved in 2000-01.

“As local authorities we recognise our responsibility to the future of the planet and are committed to increasing the rate of recycling as far as possible, in light of all our other responsibilities.” A spokeswoman for the Assembly Government said the 70% target was only due to come into force by 2025. She said: “We worked closely with WLGA members to set this target, so they will be aware that the implication that 70% is an immediate target is incorrect. “There are good reasons behind this figure. Seventy percent recycling is cost-effective, because recycling is cheaper than land-filling and because it means we will avoid landfill taxes.”

Prof Connett sees 'zero-waste' as largely achieved by 2020.

He reported not only Flanders' 75% recycling but also progress in Italy with 2000 communities signed up and 200 of them already reaching 70%. The Welsh Minister's claim to be leading in sustainability is rendered nonsensical by deferring 70% recycling to the long-term – not even by 2015 or 2020, but only by 2025 do they aim to reach 70%.

See also WAG offering bribes to councils

 Nova Scotia (Canada) they diverted 50% of waste from landfill in 5 years (Halifax diverted 60%), created1000 jobs in collection and treatment of recyclables and compostables, and a further 2000 jobs created in the industries handling the recovered materials.

Welsh Assembly phoney consumer website

Greenwash and spin? In Wales the Welsh Assembly Government have set up at great cost a Phoney 'consumer' web site Waste Awarenss Lies Wales to promote incineration. "Wales says burn don’t bury our rubbish" Why is Jane Davidson pretending to be 'green'?
Burning is not an option. Burning is not a sustainable or environmental friendly option For a  a just, toxic-free world without incineration click here 

WAG offering bribes to councils

Cllr Mrs Anne Blackman "WAG is just offering bribes to councils to do what WAG in its blinkered vision wants them to do, such as in the case of Project Gwyrdd. (project incinerator) Offering the councils in the scheme a hefty £9.25mln each year over the 25 year Contract. Totalling approx £230mln. WAG must think money grows on trees.
I would like to get in touch with more people who think like me, but I regret to say WAG is not allowing such debate and investigation to take place. " anneblackman@caerphilly.gov.uk
Anne Blackman, who represents part of the Nelson ward, recently resigned from the Liberal Democrat Party

Jane Davidson Lies and Greenwash

Wales says burn don’t bury our rubbish - No it MUSTN'T

Bury or burn is a false debate - Real recycling is the only true way forward.
Why do have we a whole organisation with website funded by WAG to promote  misinformation?

Burning/Incineration is not 'sustainable'
 
The European Union has a waste hierarchy which goes like this.
First reduce. Then re-use. Recycle next. And if you absolutely have to, then incinerate or dump. Wales now has one too and it is legally binding not a 'guide' as Waste Awarenss Lies Wales  tells you.
Most countries heed it well - with Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands recycling 60% of their waste. The UK has a plastics recycling rate of only 3%. In Germany the recycling rate for plastic is 70%.

Wales this week agreed a statutory recycling target of 70% by 2024/25 (see letsrecycle.com story) but councils are using phoney figures  to up their recycling rates. Cardiff has a comingled collection for recycling and quotes those  figures claiming that is the amount recycled. However it omits to mention the high volume of the 'recycling' collection that is of poor quality.  Recycling collection must result in materials of sufficiently high quality to be recycled.  And shamefully Cardiff Council collects 'bulk' rubbish  from homes and sends it all to landfill. Jane Davidson lab AM minister for rubbish does not unfortunately 'intend to issue any guidance on the type or methodology of collection in the future' (more here)

More jobs less  waste Number of potential new recycling jobs Wales 2617 says

FOE report on Recycling and Reuse versus Landfill and Incineration Jobs

The economic and employment benefits associated with sorting, reprocessing and recycling, in comparison to incineration or disposal to landfill, have been highlighted by a number of studies from the US (CASCADIA, 2009) and in the UK (Gray,2002; WRAP, 2006; WRAP, 2009).

Although landfilling and incineration still involve larger volumes, recycling now

generates more than twice the revenue of the waste management industry because recycling recovers greater economic value bound up in discarded products and equipment.

Per tonne of material processed, recycling provides approximately ten times more jobs than landfilling and incineration.

Incinerators only actually burn about 70% of what is put in.

The remaining 30% - some of which is highly toxic ash - has to be, you guessed it... buried

Up in smoke: why Friends of the Earth opposes incineration,

more info here in Friends of the Earth 2007,

None of this information is on the phoney 'consumer' web site  Waste Awarenss Lies Wales 

funded by WAG. Partners are Environment Agency Wales..

Questions to WAG over INCINERATOR funding

Dear Mr Roberts,
Under the Capital Access Fund, you awarded Prosiect Gwyrdd Incinerator 70% of costs up to £200k for each of 2007 and 2008 (there was presumably slippage to 2008-09). In the Accounts it says
“2.3 In addition, it should be noted that the expenditure incurred during the initial accounting period (prior to the Joint Committee being established) was funded fully from WAG Grant. "
Could you therefore explain whether the 70% fraction was waived at any stage?
Secondly, the accounts show a big jump in WAG grant in 2009, with £482 772 attributed to the year, which contributed to a big surplus. Would you please disclose an audit trail relating to the awarding of this new or additional grant, including documents on the terms/application for it plus papers in the approval process?
Note
Bid info from bid-information when they first announced Regional Capital Access Funding for waste projects, which required Councils join the consortia and couldn't cover MBT that was deemed to be a part
solution. As they pretended incinerators don't produce toxic ash needing landfill, they were defined
as acceptable for RCAF.
UKWIN on Wales Waste Strategy 2009-2050.

Cardiff Council payment to consultants for P Gwyrdd/project incinerator

According to PGwyrdd's accounts for 2009/10, at http://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/prosiectgwyrdd/english/news.html,

the Project Manager (Tara King) had a salary in the range £70-75 000.

Is this high?  Nick Robinson's programme on BBC radio 4 reported that only 10% of public sector workers get over £50 000.  A salary of over £60 000 is exceptional in public service.  A nice earner for exceptional 'Rubbish' Tara!

Of course, she had to manage contracts for highly paid consultants, which totalled far over budget at almost £230 000 (below). She did this from the budget for "supplies and services" of £161 000, adjusted to £191 000, but was still £96 000 overspent. And a further £82 000 payments owing were deferred to the current year.  Evidently Tara was very successful as Project Manager.

The payments to consultants in the year were (with payments deferred to the current year shown in [...])

1. Parson Brinkerhoff – Technical Advisors = £86,488 [£56 847]
2. Pinsent Masons – Legal Advisors = £83,788 [£13 497]
3. Grant Thornton – Financial Advisors = £59,705   [£11 976] 
   Total Advisors = £229,981

Has any Cardiff Cllr anked why should Cdf increase contribution to P Gwyrdd

Has any Cllr anked why should Cdf increase contribution to P Gwyrdd 
(LAs increased by 50% below) when they didn't need it and made a surplus of £600k instead of budget of zero?

Prosiect Gwyrdd
Table 2a: Income & Expenditure Account (31st July to 31st March 2010)
Original Revised Actual Variance
Budget £ Budget £ £ 
Expenditure
374,564 Employees 292,229 197,449 (94,780)
27,500 Premises 27,500 7,683 (19,817)
7,491 Transport 6,941 2,460 (4,481)
161,267 Supplies & Services 191,056 287,323 96,267
0 Support Services 0 6,265 6,265
570,822 517,726 501,180 (16,546)
Income
(139,655) WAG Grant (106,827) (482,772) (375,945)
(431,167) LA Contributions (410,899) (626,963) (216,064)
(570,822) (517,726) (1,109,735) (592,009)
0 Total 0 (608,555) 608,555

How many more incinerators can they fit in Wales?

The WAG Sustainability Committee meets today 
The Environment Agency says "Our view: there should be a clearer process in place for the siting of major infrastructure such as energy, so that environmental and climate change outcomes are maximised. For example, we are aware that the Regional Waste Groups have tried to facilitate a more strategic approach through developing the Regional Waste Plans but this was carried out in isolation of other critical infrastructure needs. This means that opportunities for energy from waste and combined heat and power have potentially been missed."

How many more incinerators can they fit in Wales?
Viridor type incinerators are NOT energy from waste 

It starves recycling industries of raw materials and prevents a cheaper, greener business model from succeeding.

The welsh assembly gov and local councils under pressure to reduce landfill are
opting for incineration of waste under the pretext that they can make electricity from the process! 

This is Waste incineration disguised as 'renewable energy'!!

We know the electricity from one of these large incinerators is pretty small, 20 or 30MW, compared with normal power stations (several 100MW up to Aberthaw’s 1450MW) and produces toxic ash and air pollution.They set no requirement on energy efficiency, despite Welsh strategy on 60% minimum. 

Can WAG justify, a guarantee of £9 million per year to this waste incineration project while 

telling us they are GREEN? 
Can  Jane Davidson justify an INCREASE incineration to 30%!!!  

Various mechanical and bio-treatments (MBT) are roughly half the cost of incinerators, but WAG’s officials were so set on incineration that they approved the £9 million/year despite adopted policy to minimise waste disposal by landfill and incineration.

Prosiect Gwyrdd is NOT  Green! The partnership is not to "recycle and compost" but to dispose of the "residuals" by unwanted incinerators at huge cost.  

Shift away from EfW incinerators

Four planned energy from waste (EfW) incinerators are to be reviewed pending decisions on whether they will go ahead at all, pointing towards a shift away from incineration as a method of waste treatment. Spiralling costs and a dramatic reduction in residual waste arisings have put a question mark over the plans to build EfW facilities in Hull, Coventry and Leeds.

The planning committee of Bristol City Council has made a decision to block an application for a 350,000 tonne a year energy-from-waste (EfW) facility proposed by Viridor.

Targets 

False to say no policy change from Wise About Waste, which said minimise disposal to landfill and incineration. This plan says reduce landfill to 5% and expand incineration up to a level of 30% - it's dishonest of WAG to pretend no policy change. 

Targets set by the Welsh Assembly Government which is to recycle 52% of our waste by 2012-2013 - just not ambitious enough to claim they are pursuing a carbon lite sustainable policy!

Putting off 70% recycling till 2025 means going slow on recycling, when some countries (Falmand/Berlgium) and municipalities have already reached this level

FOE Cymru proposed 70% by 2015 and 80% by 2020 are very feasible.

WAG claims that "a minimum level of 70 per cent recycling would be the most cost effective and deliverable level", but 'deliverable' means the dodgy deal with fractious Local Authorities in December 2008.  Over 80% recycling would be cost effective and the best way of reducing greenhouse gases

Cardiff Against the Incinerator action today in Cardiff and Newport

Join the action today....

On Tuesday Cardiff Against the Incinerator is taking action in two locations - we will lobby the Environment Agency again at the National Museum Park Place Cardiff on Tuesday 7th Sept from 12:30-1:30

Cardiff Against the Incinerator will also have a presence in Newport from 11am to 2pm in John Frost Square, in support of the Newport campaign against incineration & combustion plants which are being planned in the city.

The planned BioGen incinerator in Newport and the planned Viridor incinerator in Cardiff are both part of the same scheme, Prosiect Gwyrdd, which is pursuing hazardous and environmentally-unsound solutions to South Wales' waste problem while ignoring the wishes of the general public. Similar schemes are being pursued in Merthyr Tydfil, Barry and Flintshire.

Scientific evidence shows an association between living within 3km of an incinerator and an increased risk of cancers, particularly liver cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft-tissue sarcoma. Prosiect Gwyrdd, a consortium of Newport, Cardiff, Vale of Glamorgan, Caerphilly and Monmouthshire councils, meanwhile, is ignoring science in favour of industry propaganda and documents which the Royal Society describe as "misleading".

Cardiff Against the Incinerator offers solidarity to other local campaigns against environmentally unsound waste solutions in support of a united, working-class movement across Wales and Britain. It is a member of the UK Without Incineration Network.
Contact:Edmund Schluessel, campaign secretary 07947 214169cardiffagainsttheincinerator@ gmail.com twitter: @nocardiffburner

some of our recent campaign coverage ...

Protest over incinerator plans

‎
WalesOnline - 25 Aug 2010

They claim the people of Cardiff should have been consulted about the plans to buildincinerators. Catherine Pleace, a teacher from Splott said: “There is ...

Incinerator plan comes under fire

‎
Morning Star Online - 26 Aug 2010

Cardiff Against the Incinerator activists staged a protest in nearby Penarth, where there was a travelling display van run by the council to promote the ...

New deadline on incinerator views

BBC News - ‎Aug 31, 2010‎

The deadline has been extended for people to give their views about the granting of an environmental permit for a £150m waste incinerator. ...

Splott incinerator consultation period extended

WalesOnline - ‎Aug 31, 2010‎

The Environment Agency has extended the time for people to give their comments about the Viridor incinerator. The consultation period was due to end on ...

Environment Agency extend consultation on Viridor draft permit

The Guardian - ‎Aug 31, 2010‎

Environment Agency Wales has agreed to extend the consultation time limit on their draft decision for the Viridor waste incinerator plant following pressure ...

Paul Connett Merythr Meeting

Merthyr next Thursday evening should be inspiring for anyone involved in the anti-incinerator campaign. It’s being organised by campaigners against Covanta's proposal, for a mega-incinerator.

Thge speaker Prof Paul Connett’s is famous for his experience and deep knowledge. See his profile here  I hope Councillors in P Gwyrdd authorities will attend. Jane Davidson should be there too to hear the facts. 

Public meeting with Professor Paul Connett on

The impact of incineration on health, 

the alternatives to incineration and zero waste

Thursday September 9^th, 7pm at the Orbit Centre, Merthyr Tydfil

The Orbit Centre is walkable from Merthyr train station

http://www.orbitbusinesscentre.co.uk/contact.aspx

Viridor lorry crushes pram Boy 2 fighting for life

Councillors on the planning committee aren't worried about Viridor lorries on Cardiff Roads but the parents of babies in Cardiff are especially after news of a 2year old boy who is lucky to be alive after a Viridor lorry collided with his pram as his mother pushed it along a street in Oldham. This brings home the real danger of hundreds of huge lorries driving through Cardiff's residential areas past schools and local shops to an incinerator. This is one of the greatest fears of the opponents of the incinerator. Cardiff agaisnt the incinerator say NO incinerator in a residential area.  

The two-year-old boy fighting for life after being hit by a lorry ‎Daily Mail -'An incident involving a Viridor truck occurred in Oldham this ... Video: Toddler hurt as pram is crushed by lorry   ITN NEWS Two-year-old boy struck by lorry‎ - BBC News Toddler in hospital after surviving being hit by truck‎ - Metro all 34 news articles » A taste of the future for Splott if Jane Davidson AM from the Welsh Assembly Government doesn't stop Viridor.

Prosiect Gwyrdd - the truth rigged for incineration

Prosiect Gwyrdd is a joint project between 5 Councils who chose incineration for dealing with domestic waste. They dressed it up with the name “Gwyrdd – Green” and began asserting “technology neutral”.  WAG made a ‘freudian slip’ when they welcomed the “energy-from-waste” project in January 2009 *.

Background to the choice was the pro-incineration drive in WAG (contrary to declared policy of minimising landfill and incineration) that promised financial support only if Councils would form partnerships – so that their waste totalled enough to fuel an incinerator. Cardiff was pursuing a 300-400 000 t/yr incinerator to meet “requirements of the wider region”.  Viridor then weighed in with 500 000 t/yr

www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2872,3250&parent_directory_id=2865&id=1509

Battle lines drawn over £150m Cardiff incinerator    LetsRecycle  15-06-2007

www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=8850

WAG helped fund P Gwyrdd’s office and staff under the “Capital Access Fund” (70% of costs up to £200k for each of 2007 and 2008), but also set recycling targets and talked of limiting incineration to 25% (as Scotland , then WAG increased ours to 30% and now effectively 35% with no justification).

Under this pressure, P Gwyrdd decided their ‘residual’ waste will be 220 000t/yr and used the WRATE computer programme to show that an incinerator was ‘best’. Getting the result they wanted, they didn’t ask if it’s sound and ‘robust’

* others use WRATE and find MBT scores better - it depends on assumptions, eg. all incinerator ash is used for construction and no MBT outputs used for land reclamation (both invalid in English projects)  MBT covers various Mechanical and Bio treatments, including composting.

* a leading consultant using ATROPOS instead of WRATE finds incineration scores poorly compared with gasification and MBT options.

P Gwyrdd dismissed all criticisms, with the promise from WAG for subsidy to make incineration “affordable”.  WAG-sponsored consultants, including the PFI-promoting group “PartnershipsUK” were used to push it through.

KEY POINTS in PG PLAN● the only Reference Project in PG's plan is a single mega-incinerator.  They have designed financing and a 25-year contract for such a incinerator at an incredible £1100 million. 

● Cardiff and other local authorities in P Gwyrdd are aiming for only 65-70% recycling and composting. They are putting this off till 2025, evidently in order to have enough waste to feed their incinerator.

● They say PG is for 'residual' waste after "maximum recycling and composting";  this is false for the Welsh Local Authorities' consultants' report** says they can get 80-90% recycling and composting.

HOW DID THEY FUDGE CHOICE OF INCINERATION

1. used the WRATE assessment tool, which is systematically biased against low-tech mechanical and bio processes (FOE Cymru report,www.assemblywales.org/wm_24_-_friends_of_the_earth_cymru.pdf)

2. set no requirement for use of the heat output – the majority of energy from an incinerator.  Thus Viridor propose to generate 20MW (megawatts) electricity and waste 50MW heat.  As no incinerators in the UK use much heat (except the Sheffield, Nottingham and Lerwick district heating schemes), a requirement for high energy efficiency as under European law would scupper their incinerator.

3. pretend that the grate ash – which is toxic and often hazardous waste – can all be used in building, instead of  having to go to landfill as happens in England;  ignoring the proximity principle requirement for the hazardous flyash to be disposed of in SE Wales, where no disposal ‘facility’ exists.

4. refused to update their assessment for shrinking waste tonnages - PG assumed growth in waste up to 3% /yr, ignoring the last few years when municipal waste has reduced by around 1% /yr. 

--------------

IRRESPONSIBLE REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE MEGA-PROJECT

● Newport ’s chief officer said in discussion they couldn’t reduce the 220 000 tonnes/yr target (35% of the waste stream with 17.5% increase over 2006), as the incinerator would not be viable.  Their prospectus (Nov.2009) instead took 160 000 t/yr and PG talk of increasing population to cancel out decreases in waste.

FOE demanded a reassessment on the reduced figures before going to procurement, but they refused – it was evident from simple scaling of their figures that the financial case for the incinerator would vanish if recalculated, just as chief officer Stephen Davison said.

● PG has no fall-back plan for if the mega-project collapses – all the smaller-scale companies and not-for-profit businesses (eg. Newport Wastesavers) with innovative projects have been scared off and Councils will be left to catch up on their own.

PRETENCE THAT PG WILL SURVIVE THE CREDIT CRUNCH

●  banking costs have jumped up since the Credit Crunch, so PG hope to get Euro Investment Bank or Prudential Borrowing support, both of which are restricted to ‘sustainable’ developments.  As they will probably fail, we’ll be landed with high bank charges typical of PFI.

●  £9 million/yr subsidy. The PartnershipsUK group that promotes PFIs arranged WAG funding of £9.124 million/yr (27 Apr 2009 e-mail to Tara King of PG).  They say it’s not ‘PBFOM’ not PFI, but is likely to fall back to PFI as pointed out above.

* WAG Press Release

**  Eunomia Report