文章 Articles

Solving the incinerator uproar

China faces difficult decisions over waste disposal, as local residents vent their opposition to garbage-burning plants. Ma Jun suggests a way forward.

Article image

China has seen fierce debate over the building of garbage incinerators in recent months. City authorities believe increasing quantities of urban waste make these facilities essential. Developers see them as a source of ongoing income. But nearby residents fear reduced property values and health problems, perhaps even fatal ones.

Expert responses to the dilemma have been unclear and even contradictory, leaving members of the public unsure as to whom they should listen. And with many cities gearing up for faster plant construction, they need to understand what is happening behind the scenes.

Many Chinese cities are already surrounded by landfill sites and can no longer ignore the issue of waste management, so how can this problem be tackled? In fact, the answer should simply be to decrease the quantity of waste produced at one end, and to increase disposal capacity at the other. Currently, however, the government is focused more on disposal capacity. Landfill is the most commonly used method; incineration and use as fertiliser are also options.

As China’s urban population explodes, so does the quantity of waste it produces – by about 10% a year. Landfill sites are overflowing; land itself is an ever scarcer resource. Cities are therefore keen to build incinerators to reduce landfill, which seems logical enough.

However, both landfill and incineration produce secondary pollution. Landfill releases foul odours, toxic fumes and greenhouse gases, while water filtering through the landfill causes hard-to-repair damage to groundwater. Incinerators release foul odours, ash and carcinogens, including dioxins. But still these methods have been used widely for years.

Densely-populated cities always produce waste that will need to be removed and disposed of. Neither landfill nor incineration is ideal, but they are far better than doing nothing – and thus waste disposal is seen as generally seen as beneficial public infrastructure. However, neighbours often find it hard to agree with this assessment. They suffer from the stench, the waste-water runoff, the ash and the carcinogens, not to mention the constant stream of garbage trucks.

The centralised disposal of waste has its benefits for urban residents, but the harm is then unfairly concentrated around those who live near the facility. Incinerators often meet fierce opposition. A resident may see a faraway incinerator as beneficial, when it is but built nearby it becomes a source of toxic gases to be opposed.

In the 1980s, this phenomenon became known as “nimbyism” (from NIMBY: Not In My Backyard). Nimbyism is not limited to incinerators: motorways, airports, communications masts and nuclear power plants are all frequent targets.

The word has a more pejorative connotation when it is used in connection with opposition movements to beneficial infrastructure. Municipal authorities complain that nimby attitudes hinder the efficient organisation of the city; developers view local opposition as unreasonable. Some experts blame nimbyism on a lack of scientific understanding; residents elsewhere in the city lack concern or complain that it prevents improvements to their quality of life.

But nimbyism that starts as the protection of personal interests also acts in the protection of public environmental interests.

Waste incineration has faced public opposition ever since the first plant went into operation in England in 1874. In the 1970s, when the public first became involved in environmental decision-making, governments realised the public would need to be convinced of the need for incinerators. Emissions standards were raised sharply and developers started work on low-emissions incineration technology. Modern incinerators have pollution-reduction equipment installed, resulting in a significant drops in the release of harmful substances – all thanks to the nimbies.

However, while nimbyism sets out to oppose unfairness, in practice it creates its own forms of inequality.

Faced with the risk of local opposition, developers and even governments tend to choose less economically, legally and politically able regions when they select sites. They avoid the most developed cities and shift waste disposal to underdeveloped regions. Globalisation has even resulted in richer nations transporting large quantities of waste to poorer countries.

Research in the United States in the 1980s showed that dangerous infrastructure, including facilities for the disposal of hazardous waste, were more likely to be located near black neighbourhoods. Large-scale protests were organized, and the environmental justice movement began to focus on the protection of the environmental interests of vulnerable populations.

To avoid the transfer of pollution due to nimbyism and other factors, some countries rule that waste must be disposed of locally, or that waste from elsewhere cannot be imported. In 1989, the Basel Convention introduced strict controls on the cross-border movement of hazardous waste.

Environmental justice campaigns managed to rein in the trend of transporting waste to undeveloped regions, and increased the demand for waste disposal facilities in more developed, highly-populated cities, providing a powerful new motive for the construction of incinerators.

Around 20 years ago in Taiwan, many landfills were approaching capacity, so waste disposal was subcontracted out. These subcontractors transported the waste to poorer areas where it was buried, creating environmental and social issues. This spurred the implementation of a “one incinerator per county” policy – but this seemingly fair method ultimately gave rise to more nimbyism. Landfill sites could take no more and the waste could not be moved to rural areas. But incinerators were consistently opposed by locals and environmental groups.

Since waste could not be buried, removed or burned, attention shifted to waste reduction. With the involvement of environmental groups, this became Taiwan’s preferred solution. Research by civil society groups found that the levels of carcinogens released by incinerators in Taipei were far above Californian standards. This raised public awareness of the importance of waste sorting, reduction and recycling in cutting the health risks of incineration.

Quantities of waste fell after Taiwan implemented waste reduction and recycling measures. There were inadequate waste supplies to many incinerators; one-third of planned incinerators remained unbuilt or never went into operation. Taiwan found that a full waste sorting and recycling scheme, combined with the “polluter pays” principle, reduced the overall quantity of rubbish and made real cuts in the risks associated with incineration.

Waste sorting and reduction should be a precondition for the construction of incinerators. Many Chinese cities have made almost no efforts in waste reduction, yet continue to build numerous incinerators, both reducing the efficiency of incineration and increasing the harm they inflict. If waste quantities are reduced in future, there will be a surplus of incineration capacity and subsequent financial losses.

Current oversight in China tends to be weak. The government should increase transparency measures that allow the public to participate in the supervision of incinerator operations and emissions. It is worth studying Taiwan’s experience in this area: in Taipei, there are public supervision committees wherever incinerators are located. Every two months, data on the operation of the plants must be published online, with figures on the release of waste-water, gases and solids available at a glance, and the public entitled to request further explanation. Taiwan’s environmental authorities also publicise the agreements between the incinerators and private businesses. There are even online videos of the unloading platforms, so residents can see at any time what is being burned.

The problem of selecting sites for incinerators will only be solved when the public can participate in these issues, building trust in both government and the incinerator firms.


Ma Jun is director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs

Homepage image from China Digital Times

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

困境

垃圾焚烧还是垃圾填埋?无论哪种方式都会存在难以避免的困境,这都要依靠政府和民间的合作来解决

dilemma

Incineration or landfill? Therewould be a dilemma in either case. To solve this problem, it requires cooperation between government and the public.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

污染者买单

让污染者买单的原则应该作为全球的基本准则,而不仅仅局限在地区。

The polluter should pay

The "polluter pays" principal should be standard practice globally, not just locally.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

公开信息,重建社区结构

对垃圾减量的要求是必然的。根本不会有一种垃圾处理办法可以彻底避免污染。我可以想到5点:

1,垃圾处理过程及其污染状态公开化。普及垃圾减量的意识和行动规范。

2, 重建城市及社区结构,让垃圾分类,废弃物品的回收等等变得更容易做到。

3,限制污染企业并增加征税。

4,鼓励垃圾材料再利用。 把垃圾回收,分类,材料重整等工作承包给专业公司,给它们以及优先使用再利用材料的企业以减税等政策支持。可以减少垃圾产出和原材料浪费,又可以扩大就业。

5,以上行动有法制保证。因为中国,优惠政策常常只能被腐败工具而利用。

dy

Public information can build a new society

It is necessary to have requirements to reduce the amount of waste. One cannot have a solution that will completely avoid pollution. I can think of 5 main points:

1. Make the waste disposal process and the pollution situation public. Increase the awareness and active rules about common garbage to reduce its production.

2. When building new municipal community institutions, include garbage classification and waste product classification so that it is easier to recycle.

3. Restrict the pollution limits of companies and increase their taxes.

4. Encourage people to reuse materials instead of creating more garbage. Give tasks such as recycling, classification, and reintegration of materials to specialized companies. Give them as well as other companies that will reuse the materials a tax break and other forms of support. This will reduce the amount of garbage production and the waste of raw materials, as well as create new jobs.

5. Make laws to ensure that the above activities will happen. Otherwise, in China these preferential policies will be used to promote corruption.

dy

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

为什么垃圾焚烧仅仅归结为环保问题

从这个角度看,环保部被当枪使了。我们应该在垃圾产生的前端质问建设部的作为才正确。垃圾被分类集中是正途,单纯强调填埋和焚烧,论证谁都是错误的。
垃圾分类集中,作为资源利用,至少减量60%以上,从没人具体建议,并采取行动!!!
请帖主好好分析发改委和建设部发的垃圾处理“十一五”规划,谬误极多,这才是解决问题的根本。

Why do we merely attribute waste incineration to the problem of environment protection?

This way, the Ministry of Environment Protection is indeed a scapegoat. We should question the Ministry of Construction on what they are doing at the beginning of the chain – which is where the waste is generated. Ultimately the best way is to collect, classify and recycle waste (at the beginning of the chain) rather than simply debating whether to burn or dump it.

Collecting and classifying before it gets recycled will reduce 60% of waste. However no-one has ever come up with any specific proposal nor put this into practice!!

If you seriously analyze the National Development and Reform Commission's eleventh Five-Year Plan for waste treatment, you will find many fallacies. That is the root of the problem and the key to finding solutions.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

好文章

关于番禺垃圾焚化场的新闻已经有了大量的讨论和评论,但我们认为这是唯一一篇对垃圾处理和民众抗议进行理性分析的文章。它同时还指出,解决之道是尽可能减少垃圾的产出数量。不过似乎政府当局还未开始认真对待这个问题。加入番禺拿不下来,他们就会在花都或别的地方施工。 我们希望政府能读到这么经典的文章,抓住机会,尽快在广州开展“最小化垃圾数量”的活动。否则,我们将错过大好时机。

Great article

We had seen lots of discussions and comments on Pan Yu garbage incinerator, but we thought this is the only one which is rational, analyzing the the garbage genarationg and NIMBY, and indicating the solution on minimize the garbage amount. But It seemed current government didn't consider it carefully, if it doesn't work in Pan Yu, they just try to find another place to do it - may be somewhere in Huadu. We hope the government can read this great article and take the opportunity to start the campain of garbage minimization in Guangzhou ASAP, otherwise we just missed the good chance.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

读后感和意见

希望拍出一点关于台湾如何减量、分类、监督倾泻平台、焚烧、填埋、处理垃圾以及公众参与内容的片子,供大家学习,指导大陆不走弯路。

A piece of review and opinion

I hope to see films on reduction, classification and incineration of waste and on how to supervise dumping platforms and get the public involved so that we can learn from them and avoid wandering down the wrong path.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

综合废物管理是解决方案

中国需要寻求综合的方法来管理废物。只有当废物有高热量值的时候,燃烧才是一种可行的解决办法,因为通过燃烧产生的热量和电可以被用在社区。灰渣需要被用在建筑领域,金属被用来回收。唯一需要被送到垃圾填埋场的是飞灰(这个是有风险的,但是是可以管理的)。根据我在中国作为废物处理经理的经验来看(我现在在美国工作)很多目前对废物燃烧和其它废物管理设备的抱怨根源于设备的管理不善和规则的执行不严。如果对废物管理不善,就会产生难闻的气味和产生污染。可是如果管理的好,(比如在香港,新加坡,日本,韩国等国家)就根本闻不到任何气味,这也可以说是区域的财富。废物也需要在本地处理,把废物运到城市外很远的处理中心处理是没有意义的,处理中心需要建在靠近废物的地方。
Alex

(翻译 Ge Bo)

Integrated waste management is the solution

China needs to look at an integrated approach to waste management. Incineration is only a viable solution if the waste has a high calorific value and the facility generates heat and electricity that is used in the community. The bottom ash then needs to be used in construction while metals are recycled. The only material that needs to go to landfill is the fly ash (this is hazardous but manageable). From my experience as a waste manager in China (but now based in the USA) many of the existing complaints about incineration and other waste management facilities comes from the bad management of the facility and poor enforcement of the regulations. If a waste management facility is badly managed it will smell and create pollution. However, if it is well managed (as in Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Korea etc) then you should not small anything from it and it should be seen as a great asset to the area.
Waste also needs to be treated locally, it makes no sense to ship waste miles outside the city to treatment centres, these need to be close to the source.
Alex