Industrial lobby groups, multinational companies and financial institutions, like the World Bank and the ADB, have promoted WtE as a sustainable alternative to landfill and as a solution for the overwhelming need for waste management in many parts of the world. However, as this essay demonstrates WtE is, in fact, not so environmentally friendly. The first aspect that policy-makers and activists need to be aware of is that WtE, contrary to what the name suggests, does not produce much energy (and the energy it produces is heating rather than electricity so it is a less useful energy source for hot countries). Due to the high emissions of WtE incineration – higher than from other fossil fuelled energy production – it is certainly not a source of green or renewable energy.
The second aspect of which activists and policy-makers need to be aware is that it creates the need for increasing volumes of waste, because WtE plants need a certain volume of waste in order to operate. Many of the countries with an established WtE industry are already heavily dependent on importing waste, leading for a scramble for waste. This is especially severe as it is often recyclable waste that gets burned in WtE energy plants (the plants need a certain calorific value in order to operate and plastic and paper, for example, are high in calorific value). Hence, even the UN and the EU have advised countries to reduce their WtE capacity.
Thirdly, WtE plants create environmental and health risks. They release not only emissions but also toxins that cause health risks for the people living nearby.
Fourthly, policy-makers need to recognise that many places where WtE was introduced it deprived many informal recycling workers of their livelihood. While informal recycling work should not be glorified as it is both unpleasant and hazardous, it is securing the livelihood of millions of people. These informal workers are making a tremendous contribution to recycling in many countries.
Currently, most WtE plants across the world are privatised (either fully or via a PPP contract). This means that the municipalities have contractual obligations with the private providers to deliver a certain volume of waste or pay compensation. This directly goes against any waste-reduction efforts. Denmark, on the other hand, where WtE is mostly in public ownership, was able to shut down some of its WtE plants in order to incentivise waste prevention and recycling while reducing its dependence on imported waste.
The case of Slovenia provides an example of a holistic waste management system that strictly follows the waste hierarchy (waste prevention, recycling and composting, waste to energy, landfilling) when waste management is in public ownership and control.
This essay thus suggests that WtE needs to be in public ownership so that it can be part of a comprehensive approach to waste management that addresses the need of the environment and citizens: local residents, the public that needs a functioning waste management system and the workers (formal and informal) who deal with the waste.