Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of MRW, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

UKWIN incineration report ‘deeply flawed’

2000 cory riverside

Energy-from-waste (EfW) business Cory Riverside has said claims by a campaign group on the environmental impact of incineration are inaccurate and risk “distorting waste management policy”.

A report by United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN), based on emissions reports from 42 EfW facilities, said burning plastics waste will cause nearly £25bn of environmental harm during the next 30 years.

But Cory Riverside refuted UKWIN’s key findings, and warned the claims could lead to politicians and other policy-makers rejecting EfW as an essential method of dealing with residual waste instead of landfill.

The company said UKWIN’s report was a “gross distortion of fact” in assuming that landfill had net negative carbon emissions, and that the report had severely underestimated the impact of methane emissions from landfill.

Cory’s report concludes: “We abhor the fact that UKWIN has published yet another report based on bias rather than fact, which recommends a harmful method of waste disposal and serves to potentially distort waste management policy.”

Chief executive Nicholas Pollard said UKWIN’s report was “deeply flawed”.

“This is both frustrating and highly concerning because it risks diverting the attention of policy-makers away from the clear and present need to provide a means of processing the UK’s residual waste.

“The issue is not whether burning refuse to generate electricity is more carbon intensive than solar or wind power – it clearly is – but whether creating energy from waste is better than landfill operations, with their associated issues of leachate, unconstrained corrosive gas emissions to atmosphere, water course pollution and the like – none of which are mentioned in UKWIN’s report.

“We completely agree that waste must be minimised and recycled as much as possible. After that it must be disposed of as cleanly, usefully and efficiently as possible.

“For UKWIN to imply that landfill is carbon-negative and therefore a preferable solution to EfW is incredibly irresponsible, and in direct contradiction to the Government’s own legally established waste hierarchy.

“Handling the UK’s residual, non-recyclable waste in an environmentally responsible manner cannot be taken lightly and requires a productive, unbiased conversation based on objective fact. Unfortunately, UKWIN’s report does not support this in any way.”

Readers' comments (2)

  • FYI carbon dioxide emissions from waste-of-energy plants. Hugh found that, on mass balance terms, more energy is wasted than actually produced. PLus recycling has to end, so that more 'organics' and 'calorifics' are destroyed, instead of being reduced, reused and recycled. Incineration companies need more than just 'residual' waste, which, in any case, can be designed out. Derby had nearly 50% recycling rates until the incineration contract was signed, when it dropped to 35%, as reducible, recyclables and compostables are needed for destruction.In the case of the latter, soils around the world are becoming unworkable as we mass-use artificial fertilisers instead of carbon-sequestering, nutrient-providing, floodrisk-alleviating compost

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Obviously the incinerator industry want Incinerators everywhere . They are a licence to print money and destroy the planet at the same time

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.