Why Are We Against the Incinerator?
We cannot just keep throwing our garbage into a landfill, and transporting our garbage out of state has been costing us millions. However, being opposed to incineration does not mean support for a landfill. We need to support waste disposal alternatives that reduce or eliminate the need for a landfill and do not include incineration. Incineration still requires the need for a landfill for the non-processibles (discards which cannot be combusted) and the hazardous ash byproduct, which is 10% of the volume and 30% of the weight of the incoming waste. Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars when we can spend far les to achieve a better result?
Reasons to oppose the incinerator include:
Numerous other cities around the world, including Durham, Canada, and metro Vancouver, Canada, have fought and continue to fight against incineration. Several others—most recently, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania—are approaching bankruptcy or have already gone bankrupt.
If they are so great, why hasn't an incinerator been built in the United States since 1995 (the last of which was the Dickerson, Maryland, incinerator)?
Please also see this report, An Industry Blowing Smoke, released June 2009, which concluded that new incineration technologies, like older-style burners, are expensive, inefficient and contribute to both climate change and serious public health impacts. The report examines industry claims, health, track record of these facilities, expense, energy, impact on natural resources and the climate, and other issues.
