International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

£173 in 1999 terms) per household per annum not unreasonable for houses within a
4 mile radius of a landfill (which they also suggest is more or less equivalent to 3%
depreciation on house values). 11621163
The results of the study are shown in Table 61-1. Note that the study sought to
measure the external costs associated with ‘typical tonnes’ of waste being landfilled
or incinerated in different types of plant, and then averaged externalities across types
of plant to arrive at a UK figure. It is clear from these results that the relative rates of
energy generation from the two types of facility are crucial determinants of their
external costs as reported here. This is due to the significance of the pollution
displacement assumed to occur as a consequence of the energy generation.
The study assumed recovery of 664 kWh/tonne MSW for incineration and 79
kWh/tonne MSW for landfills with energy recovery. Interestingly, the more recent
study suggested figures of 581kWh and 203kWh respectively. 1164 If these figures had
been used in the 1993 study, then examination of the ‘pollution displacement’ figures
in Table 61-1 suggests that as a result of increased ‘pollution displacement’, landfills
with energy recovery would have shown no negative externalities, and incinerators
would have been attributed a reduced positive externality. Both results would have
moved closer to zero.
The external costs covered were:
• for landfill, emissions of CO2 and CH4, casualties as well as CO2, NOx and
particulate matter (PM) from transport of waste to the landfill, and reductions in
CO2, NOx, SO2, PM and CH4 from displaced energy sources. A limited attempt was
made to estimate leachate externalities whilst acknowledging the limitations of
the exercise; and
• for incineration, emissions of CO2, NOx, SO2, PM, casualties as well as CO2, NOx
and TSP from transport to the incinerator, and reductions in CO2, NOx, SO2, PM
and CH4 from displaced energy sources.
The ‘omission’ of other air pollutants might be important in such a study. The report
noted that ‘This component of economic damage is therefore left unvalued in the
current exercise, with the balance of probability being that such a value would be
close to zero or zero’. The statement was based upon the views of the 1993 RCEP
report on incinerators that comply with HMIP standards. There is a respectable body
of science which casts doubt upon this perspective.
1162 The lack of consideration of disamenity is more comprehensible when one sets the study in its
policy context. In informing the level of a landfill tax being levied on waste, the fixed rather than
variable nature of the disamenity externality could be used to justify not including the disamenity
externality.
1163 Inger Brisson and David Pearce (1995) Benefits Transfer for Disamenity from Waste Disposal,
CSERGE Working Paper WM 95-06.
1164 HM Customs & Excise (2004) Combining the Government’s Two Heath and Environment Studies
to Calculate Estimates for the External Costs of Landfill and Incineration, December 2004.
946
29/09/09