Incineration clearly not the answer

IN writing that a clean, efficient incinerator is a better solution than waste being disposed of in landfill, G J Cleaver (Letters, January 11) completely misses the point of much of the recent protest against the incinerator at Javelin Park.

It’s true that landfill is undesirable, and the way it has operated until now has resulted in the release of methane, as well as causing problems with vermin. Better solutions are necessary, but incineration is not one of them.

Unless we reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent by the end of the 2020s, catastrophic climate change is inevitable. People upset at protests by a bunch of “soap dodgers” are burying their heads in the sand.

Incineration causes far more greenhouse gas than landfill. The toxicity of incinerator fumes is a health hazard that has simply been glossed over. “Safe levels” of toxins in emissions are determined by what is thought to be achievable, rather than any properly researched measure. Even so, on the cusp of whatever happens with the Brexit fiasco, the UK has been lobbying to weaken EU rules on the reduction of nitrogen oxide levels in incinerator emissions. How barmy can one get?

The solution lies in far better recycling and biological treatment of organic waste, measures that would drastically reduce the amount of refuse that cannot be processed. These processes may be expensive in the short term, but the true cost to our children and grandchildren will be far, far worse if we follow our current destructive path.

And speaking of cost, with the

£600 million plus bill for the Javelin Park behemoth coming under ever closer scrutiny, I’m convinced we’ll see further evidence of just what a rotten piece of business it has been.

Paul Halas Stroud