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

61.3.2.1 Restricted Range of Pollutants Attributed Values
First, like the CSERGE et al study in 1993, the valuation of externalities was confined
to a relatively narrow range of pollutants. The focus was on PM, SOx, NOx and VOCs,
as well as CO2 and CH4. Given that the study identified estimates from the literature
associated with a wide range of pollutants, this is quite surprising. At one point in the
study. The authors note:
950
29/09/09
The remaining air pollutants are: HCl/HF, 1,1-Dichloroethane, Chloroethane,
Chlorothene, Chlorobenzene, Tertrachloroethene, Arsenic, Benzene,
Cadmium, Nickel, Mercury, Dioxins and Furans, Polychlorinated Biphenyls.
Valuation studies for these air pollutants are limited to their health impacts,
i.e. cancer and deaths brought forward, as identified in the scientific study
and covered in Section 4.1. Thus, to determine per kg estimates per
pollutant, these health impacts need to be multiplied by the number of cancer
cases and deaths brought forward per kg of pollutant. 1167
The statement is never really followed up, either in the externalities report, or the
‘combining’ report of HM C&E. Evidently, to the extent that many emissions which
may be of significance are effectively attributed a zero damage cost, then other things
being equal, the externalities from both landfill and incineration are likely to be
different from their actual value. Whether they should be higher or lower depends
upon the balance of direct impacts and the offsets associated with avoided pollution.
It is, perhaps, worth commenting in this context that a more recent Norwegian study
suggested that pollutants such as chromium, manganese (two pollutants not
mentioned in the italicized paragraph above) and dioxins account for up to 85-95% of
the total socioeconomic costs of waste incineration. 1168
61.3.2.2 Conservative Estimation of Damages of Pollutants Assessed
Second, the valuation of the damages associated with the individual pollutants is at
variance with the estimates being derived from other sources. In itself, this is not
surprising, and indeed, it is positive to the extent that the study seeks to derive
project-relevant estimates. Rather, it is difficult to find two studies that give identical
results.
In Europe, successive attempts have been made in the context of the ExternE
programme, the development of the Benefits Table (BeTa) database, and most
recently, damage cost estimates from the Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ) programme, to
1167 Enviros and EFTEC (2004) Valuation Of The External Costs And Benefits To Health And
Environment Of Waste Management Options Final Report for Defra, December 2004.
1168 ECON, Senter for økonomisk analyse (Centre for Economic Analysis) (2000) Miljøkostnader ved
avfallsbehandling, ECON-report 85/00. The study is one of a number which were not considered in the
review of external costs of waste management undertaken in the context of the health Effects work,
including a number undertaken for the European Commission.