Last gasp for garbage incineration
By Neil Seldman

If the incineration industry does not tie up 20-year contracts for large supplies of municipal garbage soon, they will fade away as a threat to the economic and environmental sustainability of U.S. cities and counties.

The cost of incineration is escalating as the cost of recycling, composting and reuse decline. With the penetration of re¼cycling and composting infrastructure throughout the U.S., the window of opportunity for incineration irreversibly closes. It costs the same to pick up recyclables and organics as it does to pick up garbage. But in one case you have a resource; in the other you have garbage to dispose of.

The cost of incineration is far beyond the means of communities. The cost increases from initial proposals to final submissions are startling. In Frederick County, Md., the price tag for a 1,500-ton-per-day mass burn facility jumped from $235 million to $525 million in one year. When a community issues bonds for $500 million, the true cost is $1 billion over 20 years.

There is also the added financial risk of operational failures such as in Detroit and Harrisburg, Pa. New regulations will require costly air and ash emission controls.

The industry tries to sell itself as a "renewable energy" source. Yet, the U.S. can realize far more energy savings through increased recycling and composting than through spending billions to incinerate garbage. The U.S. currently recycles 33% of its municipal discards. This modest recycling rate conserves the equivalent of about 11.9 billion gallons of gasoline. This level of recycling also reduces greenhouse gases equivalent to taking 40 million cars off the road annually.

The cost of recycling and compost is falling due to innovation at the local level through citizen, government and private sector actions. There are lower costs for solid waste management as source-separated materials are diverted into cost-effective, sustainable, industrial and agricultural use. Innovations include new incentives, publicly supported industrial parks, commercial and household food collection, and SAFE Centers for drop-off of household hazardous materials.

Recycling and composting add more jobs and more value to materials for the local economy. Hence, the incineration industry is gasping for more waste in the economy.

Next steps

Cities and counties and their constituents can follow easy steps to a sustainable resource stream for local economic development:

ò Take an inventory of current programs and infrastructure.

ò Compare the results to leading cities and counties that have adopted zero waste goals and programs.

ò Fill out a voids analysis to identify the current service needs in your community.

ò Cost out the adaptation of best practices to your hometown, including the value of new jobs and businesses.

ò Compare with current costs of disposal in landfills or incinerators.

ò Develop an implementation plan to allow your community to liberate valuable materials for the local economy. Focus on organics, construction and demolition, electronic scrap and building deconstruction. These materials comprise over half the waste stream. The technology for processing these materials and the markets for the recovered parts and materials are all local. None of this material needs to be sent to China. Rather, it can be reserved for our own local economy.

For further reading, the following reports are fully documented and footnoted.

ò "Incinerators in Disguise," Greenaction for Health and the Environment, San Francisco, 2007

ò "Stop Trashing the Climate," Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Washington, D.C., 2008

ò "An Industry Blowing Smoke," Global Anti-Incineration Alliance, Berkeley, Calif., 2009 

Seldman is president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Washington.