Being the only technology...
...with evidence that it adds to health risks
...to create toxic ash
...to run 24/7 and compete with sustainable methods such as recycling
...which has such huge impact on landscape
...with such high CO2 emissions
Mass Burn Incineration requires a large plant and a long term contract in order to make the investment viable, and cannot be scaled down as recycling increases. Existing UK incinerators already import waste and/or use fossil fuels to deal with the need to maintain constant high combustion temperatures within the furnaces.
For a comprehensive account of why incineration is the wrong option and how we should approach waste, check out the presentations made by Professor Paul Connett on GlosVAIN's YouTube Channel.
No, absolutely right. We all agree that we must bring an end to burying our waste in the ground. However there are other ways in which landfill can be avoided that are much better than mass burn incineration: greener, cheaper, smaller and safer. Check out Alternative Solutions for more information.
It isn't a choice between landfill or incineration. It's a choice between incineration or better alternatives that also avoid landfill.
A key reason why we say "no" is that a high proportion of the "waste" in our black bags in Gloucestershire is actually recyclable. Why would we want to burn resources, and lose them forever, when they can be recycled?
A confidential report produced for Gloucestershire County Council showed that a staggering 77.6% of the residual waste collected by Gloucester City Council which would be earmarked for the £500 million incinerator is recyclable, biodegradable or reusable. The figure was 65.8% for Cotswold District and 57.8% for Tewkesbury. This would all be burned and lost with the incinerator. Read the SNJ article from 6 Mar 2013 for more information.