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

central high scenario, the effects from SOx, NOx, VOCs and PM, even using the
relatively conservative damage costs, are around £3.19 per tonne for incineration
(319 times what is stated in the report) and £0.83 and £0.35 for the two landfill
scenarios.
By way of comparison, if the same emissions data is used, but one uses the high end
estimates from the CAFÉ work, the externalities associated with the same pollutants
are in excess of £15.00 per tonne for incineration, and around £6.00 per tonne for
landfill with flaring. The differential is particularly great for NOx. In the majority of
studies reviewed by the main author of this study, NOx-related externalities have been
significant contributors to the non-GHG externalities associated with incineration. The
Enviros and EFTEC report effectively reduces their significance by assigning what
appears to be an extremely low unit damage cost for NOx. The incorrect calculation in
the HM Customs & Excise work exacerbates this. 1172
61.3.3 Dijkgraaf & Vollebergh
As part of a larger report by the Copenhagen based Environmental Assessment
Institute, Dijkgraaf and Vollebergh ask whether available social cost-benefit
evaluations of waste disposal provide support for the strict application of the waste
hierarchy. 1173 Of studies reviewed, two found incineration to be preferable to landfill
from a social cost perspective, in support of the EU hierarchy. However, three other
studies find that landfilling is the best option.
The report also refers to an earlier study by the same authors. 1174 This detailed the
findings in terms of private, environmental and total social costs arising from
landfilling and incineration. This multiplied the net private and environmental costs
per tonne of each treatment option in each of the EU-15 countries by total municipal
waste arisings for that country. While total environmental costs for landfill are shown
to be higher, the private costs of incineration are much more significant, with the
overall result that the social costs of incineration are greater than those for landfill.
These results are shown in Table 61-4.
The authors quite rightly add a number of qualifications that must be borne in mind
when interpreting these results, notably, the extent to which methane is used as a
source of energy generation. This can have a great influence on the relative social
costs of landfilling versus incineration. 1175 This is due not only to savings in energy
1172 The Enviros and EFTEC report reviews ten secondary studies which provide valuation data for NOx.
Only one has used a figure for NOx which is lower than the ‘high’ value derived in the context of the
Enviros and EFTEC study. That study was carried out in 1995. All the others that were reviewed have
been conducted more recently.
1173 E. Dijkgraaf and H. Vollebergh (2005) Literature review of social costs and benefits of waste
disposal and recycling, in EAI (2005) Rethinking the Waste Hierachy, EAI: Copenhagen, pp. 80-98.
1174 E. Dijkgraaf and H. Vollebergh (2004) Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste
disposal methods, Ecological Economics, 50, pp.233-247.
1175 E. Dijkgraaf and H. Vollebergh (2004) Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste
disposal methods, Ecological Economics, 50, pp.233-247;
954
29/09/09