Point-Counterpoint To Incinerate or Not to Incinerate Richard Gilbert and Mark Winfield debate the burning issue. Richard Gilbert opens WASTE IS WHAT we have used and have no further usefor. Incinerating waste, I believe, is a better environ- mental solution than landfilling. Only a limited amount of waste occurs in nature. Animals produce waste in the form of faeces, which, in turn, provide nutrients for other parts of the ecosystem. In contrast, we humans appropriate and discard major material flows beyond what is required for our metabolism and beyond what our local ecosystems can handle. The first objective of a waste management system should be to reduce material flows and thus potential waste. This reduc- tion, in turn, can lower the likelihood of risks to human health and environmental problems.When the cost of managing waste is high, which is often the case with incineration, it encourages a reduction in the flow of material. The second objective should be material reuse, which includes recycling. Because it is more costly, incineration can facilitate recycling. It also results in reuse when ferrous materi- als are readily extracted from ash. Data back up the compatibility of incineration and recy- cling. If you look at tbe wealth of information in "The State of Garbage in America," an article published in the January 2004 issue of Biocycle, you can readily figure out that the median recycling rate in US states where there was some incineration was much higher than in states with no incineration (29 versus 10 per cent). In many places, combustion of materials with energy recov- ery is regarded as reuse, leaving what is sent to landfill as the "High costs for incineration and landfill can be a good thing if they reduce material flows, and encourage or even subsidize recycling." - R.C. only true waste. European Union directives require the avoid- ance of landfill for all but non-combustible waste. Denmark is closest to this ideal. In 2003, according to the European linvi- ronment Agency, Danes incinerated 60 per cent of their house- hold waste, reused or recycled 31 per cent and landfiUed six per cent. Reasons to avoid landfilling include its high environmental cost and impact on human health. A 1999 Ontario government study suggested that the cancer risk from living near a landfill was about 100 times that of living near an incinerator. Differ- ences for other health risks were less dramatic, but were still higher for landfill than for incineration. A 2005 study in New York City had similar findings, noting that the longer trucking distances associated with landfill present additional health risks. Landfills also produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As a result, a landfill's contribution to global warming is between 45 and 115 times greater than incineration on a per-tonne-of- waste basis, depending on the extent of methane collection in the landfill. But the strongest criticisms levelled against incineration Altern.

1. Point-Counterpoint
To Incinerate or Not to Incinerate
Richard Gilbert and Mark Winfield debate the burning issue.
Richard Gilbert opens
WASTE IS WHAT we have used and have no further usefor.
Incinerating waste, I believe, is a better environ-
mental solution than landfilling.
Only a limited amount of waste occurs in nature. Animals
produce waste in the form of faeces, which, in turn, provide
nutrients for other parts of the ecosystem. In contrast, we
humans appropriate and discard major material flows beyond
what is required for our metabolism and beyond what our local
ecosystems can handle.
The first objective of a waste management system should be
to reduce material flows and thus potential waste. This reduc-
tion, in turn, can lower the likelihood of risks to human health
and environmental problems.When the cost of managing waste
is high, which is often the case with incineration, it encourages
a reduction in the flow of material.
The second objective should be material reuse, which
includes recycling. Because it is more costly, incineration can
facilitate recycling. It also results in reuse when ferrous materi-
als are readily extracted from ash.
Data back up the compatibility of incineration and recy-
cling. If you look at tbe wealth of information in "The State of

2. Garbage in America," an article published in the January 2004
issue of Biocycle, you can readily figure out that the median
recycling rate in US states where there was some incineration
was much higher than in states with no incineration (29 versus
10 per cent).
In many places, combustion of materials with energy recov-
ery is regarded as reuse, leaving what is sent to landfill as the
"High costs for incineration and landfill
can be a good thing if they reduce
material flows, and encourage or even
subsidize recycling."
- R.C.
only true waste. European Union directives require the avoid-
ance of landfill for all but non-combustible waste. Denmark is
closest to this ideal. In 2003, according to the European linvi-
ronment Agency, Danes incinerated 60 per cent of their house-
hold waste, reused or recycled 31 per cent and landfiUed six per
cent.
Reasons to avoid landfilling include its high environmental
cost and impact on human health. A 1999 Ontario government
study suggested that the cancer risk from living near a landfill
was about 100 times that of living near an incinerator. Differ-
ences for other health risks were less dramatic, but were still
higher for landfill than for incineration. A 2005 study in New
York City had similar findings, noting that the longer trucking
distances associated with landfill present additional health
risks.
Landfills also produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. As
a result, a landfill's contribution to global warming is between
45 and 115 times greater than incineration on a per-tonne-of-

3. waste basis, depending on the extent of methane collection in
the landfill.
But the strongest criticisms levelled against incineration
Alternatives Journal 33:2/3 2007 47
arise from its history of releasing dioxins and furans. In 1987,
incinerators produced 63 per cent of dioxin/furan releases in
the US, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
In 2002, they produced one per cent, a decline from 8877
grams to 12 grams. Technological improvements to waste
incineration with regard to the release of dioxins, furans and a
number of other pollutants are so advanced that concentra-
tions of these compounds sometimes fall below levels found in
ambient air. In tbis case, incinerators actually clean air rather
than pollute it.
Flaring or other combustion of landfill gases can also result
in dioxin emissions. However, trucking is the main source of
dioxins. My calculations suggest tbat dioxin emissions from tbe
trucks carrying Toronto's waste to a Michigan landfill site are
several times that of incinerating the same waste.
The politics of incineration are unusual. Opinion polls in
Toronto consistently show that support for incineration
exceeds 75 per cent. A 2006 survey suggested that "nine in 10
residents believe burning waste to produce electricity could be
a viable solution [to the garbage crisis]," Of these, 60 per cent
said they would support having an incinerator in their own
neighbourhood. Nevertheless, Toronto City Council has
consistently opposed incineration,
Toronto Mayor David Miller characterizes incineration as

4. "expensive, polluting and damaging to recycling efforts" in
comparison witb landfill. That incineration pollutes and
damages recycling efforts is not consistent with available data.
Furthermore, there is even doubt about its expense. We know
tbat in 2004, the tipping fee at the 850-tonne-per-day inciner-
ator in Syracuse, NY, was $62,50 per tonne, when Toronto was
paying $55 per tonne to landfill its waste in Michigan ($35 for
trucking and $20 for landfilling), Tbe Syracuse fee would likely
have been lower if the plant were larger and its bottom ash
could be sold as aggregate, as permitted in Europe and some
US states, perbaps even lower than what Toronto was paying.
I would argue, however, that high costs for incineration and
landfill can be a good tbing if they reduce material flows, and
encourage or even subsidize recycling.
-R.G.
Mark Winfield replies
Richard,
YOUR ARGXJMENT for incineration over landfill as awaste
disposal option seems premised on two proposi-
tions: that incineration has less environmental impact than
landfilling and that the high cost of incineration will drive
waste reduction.
At tbe same time, you assume that the primary argument
against incineration is its air pollution impacts. Most oppo-
nents of incineration as a waste disposal option, including me,
concede that tbe hazardous and criteria air pollutant emission
performance of newer incinerator designs may be better than
those of tbe past, Nonetbeless, tbese emissions continue to be
a serious concern, as do greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather, the core critique of incineration as a waste disposal

5. "Widespread incineration would not
eliminate the need for landfill."
-M.W.
practice is tbat it competes directly with diversion options for
high embedded-energy components of the waste stream such
as paper and paperboard, wood, organics and certain plastics.
Incinerators need the energy contained in these materials to be
economically viable. The lower the portion of these materials
in their feedstock, tbe more incinerators require expensive and
high-value supplemental fuels such as natural gas,
Tbis situation has resulted in incinerator operators requir-
ing municipalities to enter into "put-or-pay" contracts. Tbese
provide for financial penalties when minimum waste levels
(often with specified energy content) are not provided. Such
arrangements effectively cap the expansion of diversion
programs as they would undermine tbe ability of municipali-
ties to meet tbeir waste-tlow obligations.
Even more serious from a sustainability perspective, the
waste supply arrangements necessary to make incineration
viable encourage continued waste generation and the underly-
ing patterns of materials-use and consumption. In a global
context, developed societies such as Canada need to reduce the
intensity of their use of primary materials by a factor that
ranges between four and ten to bring tbem in line with what
the global biosphere can sustain.
The critical impacts from a global perspective are not those
of waste disposal, be it landfill or incineration. Ratber, it is the
upstream impacts of mining, intensive forestry and petro-
chemical production tbat feed the current material throughput

6. of our economy. Incineration perpetuates the resource-input
and waste-output flow.
Furthermore, presenting the debate as one of incineration
versus landfill is misleading. Widespread incineration would
not eliminate the need for landfill. At best, incineration reduces
the volume of material requiring disposal, but tbe resulting ash
may well contain combustion products tbat are far more toxic
than anything in the original waste. What really counts in envi-
ronmental terms is what you are landfilling, not bow much.
Your argument on the relative environmental merits of
incineration and landfill is premised on the assumption of
continued reliance on conventional mixed-waste landfills.
Research completed for Friends of the Earth in tbe UK indi-
cates that tbe combination of stabilized landfill and intensive
up-front sorting to remove recyclables, and hazardous and
other problematic wastes, for example, could lower greenhouse
gas emissions and reduce other impacts. Furthermore, this
combination doesn't compete with diversion.
Moreover, extended producer responsibility programs that
require manufacturers and distributors to assume responsibil-
ity for diverting post-consumer products from disposal could
drive changes in product design to reduce waste and facilitate
the reuse and recycling of product components and materials.
Richard, you also assume that communities are more likely
to accept incinerators in their midst than landfills. The public
48 Alternatives Journal 33:2/3 2007
opinion poll that you cite shows potential acceptance of incin-
eration - as long as the incinerator is to be in someone else's

7. (very distant) backyard. In the meantime, the public is voting
with its green bins. As Torontonians and others prove, when
given the opportunity, people will alter their behaviour in
significant ways to reduce tbe flow of waste requiring disposal,
I agree with your view that increasing the cost of waste
disposal will improve the economic viability of diversion.
However, tbere are many ways of achieving this outcome with-
out committing to incineration. Your proposal is a little like
suggesting we build expensive nuclear power plants to promote
energy efficiency. Many jurisdictions around the world apply
curbside disposal charges or landfilling taxes to improve the
economic viability of waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
More broadly, disposal costs alone, applied at the back-end of
tbe materials cycle, are unlikely to reduce material use and
consumption, A sustainable economy requires that we stop
subsidizing the extraction and production of primary
materials.
-M.W.
Gilbert responds
Mark,
You write as though I had not provided compelling evidence of
the following:
• Tbere is much more recycling in communities where
residual waste is incinerated than wbere it is not;
• Incineration has lower net greenhouse gas emissions than
landfill; and
• Communities appear to be accepting of incineration.
You add a few canards:
• "Incinerators require expensive and high-value supplemen-
tal fuels," when no incinerator used for municipal waste

8. requires supplemental fuel except for a few minutes during
start-up after annual maintenance; and
• "At best, incineration reduces the volume of material requir-
ing disposal," when most incinerator ash is suitable for reuse,
usually as aggregate, and is reused where permitted. The small
percentage of ash containing toxic compounds captured from
incinerator gases can be readily made inert. In Denmark,
useful materials are extracted from fly ash. Without inciner-
ation, toxic materials end up in landfills, where they remain
hazardous.
The "put-and-pay" requirement is a red herring. Landfill
operators seek put-and-pay provisions too, which is wby
Toronto will continue sending its waste to Michigan even
though it has purchased a landfill that is closer.
We don't disagree about the need to reduce material flows.
Indeed, I've been critical of some recycling in tbe past because
it may sustain flows. Nor do we disagree about the need to recy-
cle what cannot be reduced.
However, I find the idea of shipping waste a long distance
and putting it into a hole in the ground - however carefully
engineered tbe trucks and the hole may be - so abborrent I'll
support incineration of residual waste, at possible political cost,
if it is shown to be environmentally superior to trucking and
landfilling, Eitber you don't consider trucking and landfilling
to be abhorrent, or you find incineration to be less environ-
mentally sound.
Mark, I'm curious to know what it is you like about truck-
ing and landfilling, and whether tbere are any circumstances
under which you would support incineration over trucking and
landfilling.

9. -R.G.
Winfield closes
Richard,
The issue isn't one of abhorring the transport and landfilling
of waste. Ratber, it is a question of what precisely would be left
to
burn after we have reduced, reused and recycled ;is much ofthe
waste stream as possible, as you agree we should. If the paper
and paperboard, wood, organics and recyclable plastics are
removed, all that remain are materials such as construction and
demolition wastes that make very poor fuel, and non-recyclable
plastics that release unacceptable by-products when burned.
Tbe cboice is not between incineration and landfill, but
between incineration and diversion. Incinerators need the best
components of the waste stream for diversion as fuel. What
counts is what happens at the individual municipal level. We
know that municipalities that have committed to incineration
view their diversion efforts as capped. Tbe same certainly
cannot be said of the City of Toronto, wbicb, notwithstanding
the landfill arrangements you reference, is well on its way to a
70 per cent residential diversion target. Landfills do not need a
continuous flow of high-energy-content waste to operate.
Incinerators do.
What I do find abhorrent is the notion of squandering tbe
embedded energy and materials by reducing tbem to ash that,
at best, can only be used in low-grade applications. Indeed, the
normal destination of incinerator tly ash is a hazardous waste
landfill, I note that you wisely don't raise the idea of obtaining
"energy from waste." Even witb energy recovery, recent lifecy-
cle inventories completed for Environment Canada and
Natural Resources Canada make it clear that incineration is an
absolute loser relative to reuse and recycling in terms of energy

10. retention and greenhouse gas emissions.
Your argument is premised on an assumption tbat inciner-
ation is the only alternative to long-distance transport to a
conventional mixed-waste landfill when, in fact, we have more
sustainable options for the management of used materials, Tbe
problem witb incineration is that it can't co-exist witb tbose
paths. 4^
Mark Winfield is director ofthe Pemhina Institute's Environ-
mental Governance Program and is associate factilty with the
University of Toronto's Centre for the Environment. He will
join
York University's Faculty of Environmental Studies in Inly.
Richard Gilbert is a Toronto-based consultant. With Anthony
Perl, he is the author of the forthcoming Transport Revolutions:
Making the Movement of People and Freight work for the 21"
Century (Earthscan/James & ]ames, 2008).
Alternatives Journal 33:2/3 2007 49