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

981
includes a dose-response model of the relationship between dioxin and
cancer mortality. This model and Danish emission and intake data are used in
the present report to estimate the socioeconomic costs of dioxin emission
from waste incineration in Denmark and it is estimated that these costs are
about 13 DKK pr. ton of waste (the uncertainty range is 1-128 DKK/ton). This
indicates that dioxin may not be one of the most important kinds of emission
from a socioeconomic point of view. Even though dioxins can cause major
health problems, the emissions are so limited (6,4-28,9 g pr. year) that the
economic damages are probably relatively small.
Considering the large number of uncertainties, the estimate of 13 DKK pr. ton
has to be looked upon as an example of calculation rather than an exact price
that can be used directly in economic valuation studies or cost/benefit
analyses. One of the major problems of this estimate is that the doseresponse
model ascribes a very high risk to dioxins. On the other hand, the
estimate excludes all morbidity effects and potential damages on the
environment. Consequently, it is not possible to assess whether 13 DKK pr.
ton is a high or a low estimate. 1199
The range of damages referred to equates to a range from £0.93 to £11.85 per tonne
of waste incinerated. Considering both the scientific uncertainties in the estimation of
impacts, and the unresolved methodological issues which affect valuation
techniques, such ranges might be considered quite unexceptional (although it should
be noted that the effect of dioxins in this study is nowhere near as high as the upper
end of the range quoted in the Danish study). 1200
63.1.2 Omissions from the Analysis
The following is a list (almost certainly not extensive) of externalities not covered / not
explicitly accounted for by the study. In all cases, the omissions relate to ‘direct’ and
‘avoided’ impacts:
� Disamenity (including odour, nuisance)
The argument that there is insufficient data available to incorporate
disamenity in a cost-benefit study comparing landfill with incineration is losing
1199 D. Jensen and N. Dengsoe (2004) Værdisætning af skadesomkostninger ved affaldsforbrænding -
en analyse af dioxiners skadelige effekter og et egneeksempel på disse effekters
samfundsøkonomiske omkostninger, TemaNord 2004:518, Copenhagen, Nordic Ministry.
1200 Some take these ranges to be evidence of some shortcoming in the methodological approach, and
we have heard some give this as a reason whey they prefer life-cycle assessment over cost-benefit
approaches. But if LCAs appear to give a more certain view of the world, this has to be considered
largely illusory. LCAs tend to reduce ‘impact assessment’ to one number, obscuring (rather than
highlighting) uncertainties, and with rarely any attempt to place margins for error around the figures
being generated. The scientific uncertainties have not ‘disappeared’, rather they are less explicitly
acknowledged (or ignored) because of the lack of any ranges in the weightings assigned to pollutants
in any given impact assessment category. This is all the more strange in LCAs since there is no attempt
to pinpoint ‘impact’ (as opposed to ‘potential impact’) whereas most CBAs are at least based upon
some effort to understand actual impacts upon receptors. Neither approach is perfect, but scientific
uncertainties surround both.
International Review of Waste Policy: Annexes