Waste Incineration

Waste incineration is a waste disposal method that can be used to combust a range of materials classified as municipal solid wastes and hazardous wastes. Incinerators, sometimes referred to as thermal treatment plants, convert wastes into steam, gas, heat, or ash (those that produce a source of energy are often known as waste-to-energy plants). Waste incineration is a contentious and emotional issue. Geographers and other social scientists have explored many conflicts associated with waste incineration. Following a brief review of the history of waste incineration, some of the key conflicting issues are highlighted in this entry.

Waste incineration, or the systematic burning of waste, has been taking place for a little over a century. It is recorded that the first incinerator was established in the United Kingdom in 1874 and the first waste-to-energy plant was developed in the mid 1890s. The United States had more than 600 municipal waste incinerators in operation during the 1930s. Incinerators at that time employed low-level technology, and they functioned with limited control over the waste mix that entered the facility or the emissions that were produced by the combustion process. Mounting scientific evidence about the issue of human health hazards and environmental contamination led to growing public concern about the practice in Europe and North America from the 1950s onward.

Since the 1970s, tough national and transnational levels of emission controls have encouraged improvements in incinerator technology. Indeed, the 1980s and 1990s have seen a resurgence of interest in incineration as a waste management option because of enhanced levels of profitability, improved design, and a growing consensus for the need for energy supplied from non-fossil-fuel sources.

Some of the key arguments proffered by the proponents of incineration include the following:

• Incineration emissions are insignificant relative to total air pollution in developed economies, and any emission problems can be solved technologically.
• The generation of energy from incineration preserves nonrenewable fuels and therefore contributes to a net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
• Energy recovered from incinerators can serve as a revenue source.
• The volume of waste is reduced by as much as 90% and may extend the available landfill space.
• Incinerators offer geographical concentration of waste in comparison with other, more dispersed options such as landfills.
• No significant alterations to waste collection practices are required, and the construction, management, and operation of incineration plants can be carried out by the private sector, reducing potential tax burdens.

However, incinerator facilities and proposals for such plants have faced opposition from local communities in most countries in Europe and in the United States for at least the past 25 years. Some of the main arguments put forward by the anti-incinerator lobby include the following:

• The incineration process releases dioxins and furans into the air, resulting in possible risks to human health as well as to the environment.
• Incineration simply transfers contaminants from one medium to another (from the ground to the atmosphere).
• The release of contaminants into the atmosphere cannot be controlled in comparison with containment in a landfill.
• Incinerator plants are costly to construct relative to other waste management options.
• Ash produced from the incineration process still needs to be disposed of.
• The incineration process requires paper and other combustibles, competing with and detracting from recycling and waste minimization programs.

Geographers and a range of social scientists have produced a large body of research exploring contentious issues such as community responses to waste incinerator facilities, risk communication for incinerator siting, the technical processes of risk analysis and public perception of risk associated with incinerators, and the impact of waste disposal facilities on housing prices. One of the most important areas of research to emerge in relation to incineration conflicts has been the social and environmental justice movement. The uneven spatial location of waste infrastructure has been well documented. Often waste facilities tend to be located in areas that are characterized by remoteness, areas with peripheral communities, areas with economic marginality, areas with political powerlessness whose people have a culture of acceptance, and areas of existing environmental degradation. Community opposition to waste management infrastructure, such as incinerators, has given rise to many phrases, including “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) and “locally unwanted land uses” (LULUs). A key extension of this opposition has moved from NIMBY to NIABY (“not in anyone's backyard”) as the objection is often based not only on self-interest but also on wider social and political issues. These include general environmental concern, dissatisfaction with the consultation process, and distrust of decision makers.

...