Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology - GAIA

haphazardly waste resources and then destroy the evidence. Some of the the most dramatic
successes in waste and toxics reduction have been brought about by reducing avenues for easy
disposal of hazardous wastes.
Municipal waste incineration
depends on a waste stream with high
calorific value; that is, one rich in plastics
and wood products (including paper). This
sort of waste stream is the hallmark of the
unsustainable lifestyle being championed
by multinational corporations; and
incinerators are being considered for Southern countries in precisely those pockets, such as
tourist facilities, where this lifestyle has made significant inroads. The Northern lifestyle and its
attendant consumer habits are neither economically achievable nor environmentally sustainable
for the majority of the inhabitants of the planet. By facilitating the destruction of plastic and
paper waste, incinerators encourage the push to produce disposable luxury goods for a small
percentage of the population at the expense of basic necessities for the majority.
Incinerators and Environmental Justice
Incinerators are a problem wherever they may be located, but those who live closest to the
burner are usually the ones who suffer the most. They suffer from the air emissions; from “fugitive”
ashes and emissions; from the increased truck traffic to and from the incinerator; from decreased
property values; and they run the greatest risks in the event of a fire or fly ash spill. Not
surprisingly, politically weak communities are the ones who usually pay this price. As with
other environmentally noxious facilities, incinerators are disproportionately sited in
communities that are poor and belong to racial or ethnic minorities. In 1997, 15 percent of the
United States’ non-white population lived within 2 miles of a permitted medical waste incinerator,
while only 9 percent of the white population did. 110
It is no mere coincidence, nor the “invisible hand” of the marketplace, that places
incinerators in minority and low-income neighborhoods. The pattern of discriminatory facility
siting was originally documented in a 1987 report, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States. 111
In that same year, a consultants’ report prepared for the state of California came to public
attention. That report (written in 1984), “Political Difficulties Facing Waste-to-Energy Conversion
Plant Siting,” 112 was a how-to guide for state officials looking for politically vulnerable
communities in which to place incinerators. “All socioeconomic groupings tend to resent the
nearby siting of major (waste disposal) facilities, but the middle and upper socioeconomic
strata possess better resources to effectuate their opposition,” the report says. “Middle and
higher socioeconomic strata neighborhoods should not fall at least within (five miles) of the
proposed site.” The report recommended that incinerators be sited in communities that were
rural, conservative, above middle age, Catholic, and poorly educated. The US$183,000 report
indicated that such populations would be least likely to effectively resist an incinerator. 113
34 Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology
“Waste is the visible face of
inefficiency. Landfills bury the
evidence and incinerators burn it.”
— Dr. Paul Connett
“If everyone lived like the average American, we would need 5.3 planets
to support us,”
--Michel Gelobter, Executive Director of Redefining Progress. 109