Current Perceived Policies in the UK:
It does seem that the current administration saw the development of existing incinerators and the creation of many new ones, around the UK as a strategy to reduce the need for landfill sites. Landfill sites are expensive and have a short life-cycle (eg 15 years), they do have a potential for energy reclamation but not on a large scale with current technologies. In some areas there is no space left and presumably this state of affairs will get worse as existing ones become full. An estimate of the size of of the problem can be seen from predictions by Friends of the Earth as to how many new or expansions of existing incinerators will be needed in England alone [see link to UK Environment News]. We stopped counting at 70 sites and no doubt this is not an accurate figure but it gives us some feel about the scale.
Now, however, the official view may have to change in the face of research by the US Environmental Protection Agency. The Agency reported dioxins, produced by waste incineration have been identified as the cause of many cancers, the worst component being TCDD (aka Agent Orange). It did appear at that stage that John Prescott and therefore Michael Meacher were somewhat ruffled by the news.

Some Arguments For Incineration:
Claimed advantages of incineration include the reduction of landfill space needed, length of useful life, cost effectiveness, safe disposal of some toxic pollutants, production of energy from the burning waste (and CHP has been used in European cities [see link to NSCA]), ability to reclaim metals such as aluminium, and the usefulness of the residue eg for road building [see the link to Technical Aspects of Incineration]. The arguments are largely defensive because incineration in the past has been justifiably criticised. However, these criticisms have led to an undeniable improvement in the technology, regulation and processes used, making incineration safer and more environmentally friendly. It also seems to be true that a waste incinerator designed, built and operated to the new standards (which could also produce energy) would be much better at controlling pollution than a site built primarily to produce energy.
Sheffield University Waste Incineration Centre (SUWIC) [see link] is central to the Engineering Research Network funded by the UK Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). They say that although it is increasingly agreed in the clean technology community that the thermal treatment of the waste materials represents one of the best overall environmental options, this view is not generally accepted by the public because of the fear of the unknown effects of dioxins/furans. The network aims to place industrial expertise in this field on a firm and rigorously based foundation.

Some Arguments Against Incineration:
Antagonists of incineration counter the arguments strongly and those people living near to an incinerator plant or a proposed site are particularly concerned. That is not surprising and even those who do not feel threatened by proximity might heed the Camelot slogan 'it could be you'. For sure in the future, if expansion occurs as predicted, you are more likely to be in the vicinity of an incinerator than to win a major prize in the lottery.
The opponents argue that toxic gases will escape, especially when temperatures are not exactly maintained, and very fine particulates will be discharged despite the promised filtering and scrubbing which ideally should take place. These are extremely pernicious contaminates which pass from the atmosphere into animal systems, including humans (bioconcentration). The toxic gases include dioxins which are regarded as carcinogenic and also oestrogenic (leading to lowered fertility in males) [see link to Birmingham FoE]. There will also be large quantities of greenhouse gases, not normally classed as toxic, such as carbon dioxide emitted.
Further, it is argued, the ash (and fly-ash from the filters) will contain poisonous compounds containing heavy metals and this has to be disposed of some way. These residues may account for about 25% of the original waste. If it is used for road and path construction it poses a definite risk especially where water allows the compounds to be leached into the the ground. Even if deposited in landfill sites similar dangers exist.

What Should be Done?
Such a stand-off, when both methods appear to be unacceptable, requires some lateral thinking. Not that the imagination needs to be stretched very far. Way back in 1993 a Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution issued a four stage decision procedure [see the Birmingham Link] of which the first two stages state: 1 Wherever possible, avoid creating wastes, 2 Where wastes are unavoidable, recycle them if possible. We cannot find any fault with these strategic recommendations but would you know about them? It is interesting to look at how the UK has compared with other countries in the recycling stakes [see link to Friends of the Earth]. In 1998, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Sweden, the USA, Germany, Finland, Canada and Denmark had household recycling rates ranging from 28% to 52% (some figures predate 1998) and by comparison the England/Wales figure was 8%. Statistics for glass and steel recycling also put the UK at or near the bottom of similar lists (Canada and US not quoted).

Summary:
Never have we seen a better argument for national leadership to provide a strategy, backed with the resources, to foster a culture which reduces waste and provides facilities for recycling. The cost of building and operating incinerators or providing landfill sites is very significant. If substantial parts of these funds were to be diverted towards waste minimisation and encouraging recycling, the need for waste disposal could be enormously reduced, apart from reducing the dangers which arise from both incineration and landfill.

Postscript: In Newcastle upon Tyne grassroots groups and trade unions were celebrating a success in 'community democracy', writes Hilary Wainwright (Guardian, Environment, 26 Nov 2003). A coalition of individuals and groups known as the 'Ban Waste' partnership was formed after the 1999 Byker incinerator scandal (high levels of toxicity in the city's allotments) and it appears that in Nov 2003 they convinced the city council that incineration should not form part of its waste strategy but it should commit to expanding recycling. The strategy included winning householders over and also proposing that the ubiquitous SITA should be replaced by the local firm Holystones. Some of the material on the Ban Waste site makes scary reading, why not go and look at www.banwaste.org.uk/.