MEMORANDUM BY MARGARET A. OLDMAN (DSW
80)
I enclose information which I feel is pertinent
to the forthcoming deliberations on progress made since the report
on Sustainable Waste Management, June 1998.
I am chairman of the Crewe and Nantwich Sustainability
Alliance's Waste, Resources and Energy Group. We are working to
promote and enable local people to work towards the creation of
more sustainable ways of working and living in the Borough. One
of our objectives is to reduce the amount of waste we produce
and to deal with the remainder in more environmentally sustainable
ways than we do at present.
In order to achieve this we need to help from
both national and local government. The enclosed information illustrates
some of the ways in which the Government, directly and indirectly
could help in the future.
I enclose information passed on to me by Jonathan
Kirby, a resident in the adjacent borough of Chester City where
they already have kerbside collection of household waste recyclables
and where the recycling rate is approximately double that of our
own borough, who only have kerbside collection of waste paper
in urban areas—the rest being dependent upon "bring"
systems.
What is needed in order to make progress on
sustainable waste management is a combination of public awareness,
personal and household action, community collections and increased
demand for recyclates/recycled products. This all hinges on waste
awareness and waste education-people need to be responsible for
wastes generated in the home and workplace. This takes time, money
and the will to make the necessary efforts at all levels from
the Government downwards.
Margaret A. Oldman
These are the major points which I would like
to make to the Committee:
1. The aim of current waste strategy policies
is claimed to be sustainable waste management. However in the
Government's current Waste Strategy 2000 document it clearly states
(Table C8) that between 21 and 166 incinerators would be needed
for diversion of waste from landfill, depending on which proposed
scenario is adopted.
This could mean the construction of at least
112 new EFW incinerators to deal with municipal waste. Incinerators,
even using the latest technology as claimed by their would-be
builders are now known to be a major source of dioxin contamination.
This year the United States Environmental Protection Agency produced
a report which shows the risks to be 10 times as high as previously
projected for the development of human cancers as a result of
exposure to dioxins. Other effects of dioxin exposure are now
well documented with problems showing up on a world-wide scale,
in both human and wildlife populations. For this reason alone
incineration should not be considered as a possible way of dealing
with our waste problems. (For further information please see the
enclosed publication by Dr Paul Connett and the copy of a letter
drawn up by Jonathon Kirby in response to a local request, for
information in March '98.) "Waste" should be regarded
as a resource, not just a disposal problem.
2. It is also well-documented that landfill
sites are also hazardous to human health and that a significant
rise in birth defects is found amongst babies and children born
close to landfill sites. There are many other problems associated
with them, including the generation of greenhouse gases. Both
incineration and landfill generate thousands of "waste-miles",
together with air pollution, greenhouse gases and extra traffic
on our roads. This is not "sustainable waste management."
3. I would like the committee to consider
the following equation:
Given that glass and metals, which are non-combustible
and therefore not wanted in incinerators, make up approximately
16 per cent of household waste and would be extracted from the
waste stream—this would leave 84 per cent for incineration.
One third of the waste remains after incineration ie. 28 per cent.
This is now considered (by the EU) as hazardous waste as the ash
contains both heavy metals and dioxins etc which has to be disposed
of somewhere. Special landfills are required as this waste cannot
be mixed with non-hazardous waste in future.
Given that at least 80 per cent of household
waste can be recovered by recycling and composting, (in the case
of Redhouse Farm this now amounts to 87 per cent—this would
leave 20 per cent residues (13 per cent in the Redhouse Farm example)
to be disposed of to landfill.
Which would be preferable? ie. 28 per cent as
toxic residues (ash from incineration) or the 20 per cent (or
possible 13 per cent) remaining after recycling and composting?
4. Landfill Tax Credits should be
made more readily available for waste education and re-use and
recycling projects at all levels. In my experience here in Cheshire
they are currently only available on the "whim" of local
landfill site operators. Our landfill sites are now operated by
large, international companies whose interests may lay in selling
landfill space rather than in waste reduction. I have been told
by my local En-trust that projects requiring funding for "officers"
are not well-regarded by the funders. Projects are likely to succeed
without paid leadership, however many willing volunteers can be
found to do the work, and these are few and far between these
days.
Funding should be more readily available for
small projects which would "mop-up" locally generated
wastes to prevent them becoming part of the larger waste stream.
Community-based projects, providing employment for local
people are the best way forward. They are able to deal with local
"bring" systems, doorstep collections of separated household
wastes, community composting schemes for garden and kitchen wastes
etc. and to act as providers for local waste reduction information.
The community sector could create thousands of jobs through re-use
and recycling projects and so deliver a more sustainable approach
to waste management.
5. Documents issued by the Government seem
to be concentrating on the 3-Rs of Reduction, Re-use and Recycling,
in theory, but much greater provision of financial resources will
be required to put this into practice. Local authorities will
need Government assistance or be enabled to access Landfill Tax
Credits themselves. The National Waste Awareness Initiative
should provide the impetus for people to incorporate the 3Rs
into home, work and leisure activities but public willingness
is not enough—the availability of recycling collection facilities
is of paramount importance if targets are to be achieved.
Local authorities should be obliged to employ
education and awareness-raising officers on their staff, with
eg a minimum of one per 30,000 population. Funding should be made
specifically for this purpose, directly from Government or through
access to the Landfill Tax Scheme. A few (desperately-short-of-landfill)
councils already have waste-awareness projects (eg Hertfordshire)
with full-time officers. With Government support this should become
the norm, not the exception.
Every community should have their local version
of our "Dustbin Directory" which tells people
how they can Reduce, Re-use and Recycle.
Ours was collated by South Cheshire Friends
of the Earth and edited by me. It is now in need of updating,
with "professional" input into publication and distribution.
Such projects require funding to improve both quality and availability,
with Landfill Tax being a potential source of revenue, if it were
made more generally accessible.
6. I believe that the targets set out in
the Government's waste strategy should be high enough for reduction
and recycling so as to obviate the necessity to build incineration
plants, or take up more land with landfill/landraising sites.
The enclosed information[253]
from Redhouse Farm illustrates what can be done when members of
the public are convinced of the need for personal action and when
adequate kerbside collection facilities are provided. Chester
City's pink and green fortnightly collection scheme for recyclables
costs approximately £8 per year (per household)—a small
price for taxpayers to pay for a more sustainable way of dealing
with household waste. It has been estimated by Crewe and Nantwich's
Recycling Officer that a doorstep collection scheme in this borough
would mean an additional cost of £10 per household per year
(one third of households are in the rural area).
"Zero Waste" is the target now in
40 council areas in New Zealand. Canberra's target is zero waste
by 2010. In comparison with these and targets already achieved
in Europe and N America I believe the Government's recycling targets
to be pathetic.
253 Ev. not printed. Back
| 
