| News
Events
Campaigns
Contacts
Join
us
Link
|
County Council debates waste treatment
Debate at County Hall, Oxford, 8 January
2008: 'Council is requested to
discuss the issue of the procurement of residual
waste treatment facilities in order to assist the general
understanding
of this issue'
 There were about about twenty
people
outside County Hall, Oxford on Tuesday 8 January, opposing the
shortlisting of
only companies proposing to burn Oxfordshire's rubbish in an
incinerator. We
held banners for a 'low carbon Oxfordshire', and propounding our
alternative -
Mechanical Biological Treatment. The County Council was finally holding
a
debate on the issue, about ten months into the procurement of its
residual
waste treatment – for the household waste which is not recycled.
Three local
organisations provided speakers
opposing incineration: Sam Clarke
for Oxford Friends of the Earth, Jill
Haas of
Oxford Campaign Against Climate Change, and David Cullen of Oxford
Brookes University
People
& Planet, who presented a 500 signature petition. They described
how MBT produced less greenhouse gas
pollution,
how recycling was threatened by needing to supply large quantities of
waste to
an incinerator, and the possibility of carbon taxes which, using
central
Government figures, could lead to bills of £5.1 million a
year, and
rising (for a 200,000 tonne per annum incinerator).
The debate was
delayed while an amendment
to the original motion – that there should be a debate – was discussed.
The
amendment, bemoaning that there was only incineration, and that carbon
trading
should be considered, was defeated; the debate allowed Councillors an
opportunity to express their views, but no vote.
Roger Belson, Cabinet member for
Sustainability, opened the debate by summing up the procurement process
to
date: technologically neutral, favouring no technology but allowing the
market
to choose. Background papers for the debate showed that during the
procurement
process companies were told that 'to be viewed favourably at the next
stage
solutions are expected to cost less than the cost of continuing to
dispose of
waste to landfill. All participants agreed to this approach.'
 However the Council's approach was arguably
never unbiased. The specification of the contract, which was set at 25
years
duration, would mean that more capital intensive solutions would be
favoured.
Clearly, two shorter contracts, of say 12 and a half years, would not
only be
more flexible but mean technologies with lower capital investment would
be more
represented – especially MBT. Bournemouth's
50,000 tonne per annum MBT facility is an
example: it has
a contract length of just five years, with two year options thereafter.
There were differing views for and against
incineration from speakers in almost all parties, although there was
only one
voice in the Conservatives which raised a concern about incineration: a
Councillor representing an area near Ardley, a site of a landfill site,
which
could be the potential location of an incinerator. Many of the views
expressed
showed a cursory understanding for the issues. Repeatedly, the
statement was
made that the EU Landfill Directive meant that the amount of material
for
landfilling must be reduced, when in fact the directive is intended to
ensure
that the waste is treated and made biologically stable, rather than
necessarily
reducing the amount being landfilled.
Councillor Harris described an incinerator
option as 'leading to disaster'. Councillor Roz Smith, and others,
expressed
concern about 'feeding the incinerator' and undermining public
confidence in
recycling. Councillor Patrick noted health concerns about toxic
emissions.
Councillor Joslin, a keen advocate of incineration, and Councillor
Greene who had
both produced a report supporting incineration, spoke in its favour.
Councillor Greene pointed out that three per cent, by weight, of the
incinerator ash would need to be landfilled in a toxic waste dump.
Councillor
Val Smith, who had proposed that there be a debate, riled against
incineration
saying that the pollution would take us backwards.
There were repeated concerns about the
length of the 25 year contract; that new technology would emerge; and
that
there should be a break clause to allow the Council to abandon the
contract
early, if it wished. Perhaps the most insightful comments came from
Councillor
Simmons, who runs an environmental consultancy. He noted that 'the
Council has ... requested that the proposed
solution reduces the Council’s Landfill Tax liability. Not an
unreasonable
request – but one which also exposes the Council financially. Why?
Because the
bottom ash from incinerators currently attracts a much lower Landfill
Tax rates
(£2.50 rather than £32) than for waste from an MBT plants.'
He continued 'But
none of these subsidies are guaranteed into the future. EfW ['Energy
from Waste' incinerator] may not
only become
more expensive but MUCH [his emphasis] more expensive than MBT.'
 Summing up the debate
Roger Belson undertook to provide a summary of the debate and to
present it to
the next Cabinet meeting. He was dismissive of the prospect for a
contract of
less than 25 years; the Council would be the authority to give planning
permission
to the waste treatment plant; MBT meant that its output would have to
be burnt
anyway – probably a reference to the one MBT proposal which the Council
initially shortlisted but which then withdrew (note: the compost-like
output of
a MBT facility does not need to be burnt); and that the procurement
process
would not be restarted as this would put the Council back two or three
years.
Andrew Wood, 8 January 2008
|
