Debate (1)

Iniziamo. È gratuito!
o registrati con il tuo indirizzo email
Rocket clouds
Debate (1) da Mind Map: Debate (1)

1. 1. Della

1.1. Local environmental issues

1.1.1. Fine particles

1.1.1.1. Incinerators produce fine particles in the furnace. Even with modern particle filtering of the flue gases, a small part of these is emitted to the atmosphere. Under WID there is no requirement to monitor stack top or downwind incinerator PM2.5 levels

1.1.2. Heavy metals

1.1.2.1. Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.

1.1.3. Appeal by 33000 doctors to the EU on changes to the Waste Framework directive

1.1.3.1. Cited widespread concerns on incinerator particle emissions and the absence of specific fine and ultrafine particle size monitoring or in depth industry/government epidemiological studies of these minute and invisible incinerator particle size emissions

1.1.4. Dioxins and furans

1.1.4.1. The health effects of dioxin and furan emissions from old incinerators; especially during start up and shut down, or where filter bypass is required continue to be a proble

1.2. Not in my back yard

1.2.1. Time delays to setting up new plants

1.2.1.1. It took 10 years from planning to opening Poolbeg power plant due to local protests

1.2.1.2. There are several other examples of this

1.2.2. Still need a landfill

1.2.2.1. The highly toxic fly ash must be safely disposed of. This usually involves additional waste miles and the need for specialist toxic waste landfill elsewhere. If not done properly, it may cause concerns for local residents

1.2.3. Other negative impact on locals

1.2.3.1. Studies in Andover, Massachusetts correlated 10% property devaluations with close incinerator proximity.

1.2.3.2. Visual pollution

2. 2. Eddie

2.1. Incineration does not encourage recycling or waste reduction.

2.1.1. Waste Hierarchy states to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Recovery, Disposal in that respective order. Thermal utilization (Incineration) falls under the recovery heading. Thus, it should be viewed as one of the last options, particularly after recycling. European Commission (2013) states higher priority should be placed on plastics recycling, with incineration only to be used if recycling is not possible.

2.1.2. Incineration is further down the waste hierarchy pyramid for a reason. It should not be viewed as the first option.

2.2. Financial logic for improving recycling is lost.

2.2.1. No incentive for local municipalities to encourage improving recycling due to the long term contracts (>10-20 years) they have entered into with private operators of these incineration plants where specific tonnages of waste has been agreed for years in advance. Financial logic for improving recycling systems within the area is completely lost as financial penalties are applied to the local councils if these agreed amounts of waste are not supplied to the incineration plants. Thus, there is no incentive for reducing the amount of waste produced in the area. How can this scenario be said to be minimising the environmental impact of waste? If anything I would argue the opposite. This means we are relying on those in power to place a greater value in reducing environmental impact over their profits, which we all know is a dangerous position to expose ourselves.

2.3. Incineration is the 'easy' option.

2.3.1. A study carried out by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK in 2017 found in areas where the percentage incineration rate was high, the percentage recycled and composted was significantly lower. Take Westminister City Councils statistics for example, they incinerate just over 80% of their municipal waste and in turn only recycle/compost about 18%. On the other hand in Buckinghamshire approx. 56% of municipal waste is recycled, with only 42% being incinerated.

2.3.2. The biggest lure of incineration is that it means we don't have to change the way we act or think. |t doesn't force us to take responsibility for our waste and allows us to continue on with no regard for what we consume, and thus damaging the environment.

2.3.3. In 2016, Denmark was the country that generated the largest amount of waste per capita within the EU, at about 770 kg. In 2017, the confederation of waste-to-energy plants (CEWEP) released statistics showing that Denmark incinerated 53% of its municipal waste, whilst recycling and composting 46%. 46% was the EU average for recycling and composting that year. The fact that Denmark is the country with the greatest waste generation per capita and also one of the countries that has the highest percentage incineration is clear evidence that a country whose waste management policy favours the use of incineration will not minimise the environmental impact of waste.

3. 3. Abdullah

3.1. “waste-to-energy” environmental impact

3.1.1. Waste is not an effective fuel

3.1.1.1. Incinerators waste large amounts of reusable materials

3.1.1.1.1. Incinerators waste large amounts of reusable materials in order to produce only small amounts of energy. On the other hand, recycling and composting can save up to 5 times the amount of energy produced by burning waste.

3.1.1.2. Incinerators are hungry machines.

3.1.1.2.1. Incinerators are hungry machines. The high temperatures at which they burn require a lot of trash to keep the fire going, creating an ever-expanding market for trash. The more people throw away, the more money companies like Covanta make, because municipalities typically pay them per ton of trash, forcing communities to be stuck in 20-30 long contract keep this hungry machine running with constant inflow of waste. Therein lies the problem: Even if incineration was a clean way to produce energy, it’s not the best way to deal with trash because it doesn’t discourage the production of garbage in the first place. (Peter Orris, a physician at the University of Illinois at Chicago, has spent his life studying preventive medicine)

3.1.1.3. As municipal waste consist of discarded materials like paper, plastic and glass.

3.1.1.3.1. As municipal waste consist of discarded materials like paper, plastic and glass. More than 90% of the materials that end up in incineration plants and landfills could be recycled or composted. It is typical for countries that encourage waste burning to have low recycling rates as a result. Data on household waste in Denmark clearly shows this trend.

3.1.2. Waste incineration is not a source of renewable energy

3.1.2.1. Incinerator companies are often marketing “waste-to-energy” as a source of renewable energy. But unlike wind, solar or wave energy, waste doesn’t come from infinite natural processes. On the contrary, it is sourced from finite resources, like minerals, fossil fuels and forests, that are cut down at an unsustainable rate. Subsidies to support incineration could be better invested into environmentally friendly, energy saving practices like recycling and composting.

3.1.3. Burning waste contributes to climate change

3.1.3.1. Burning waste is far from climate neutral. Incinerators actually emit more CO₂ (per megawatt-hour) than coal-fired, natural-gas-fired or even oil-fired power plants. Denmark, the poster child of Europe’s incineration industry, recently discovered that its incinerators were releasing twice the amount of CO₂ than originally estimated, which led the country to miss its Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas reduction targets.

3.2. Incinerator "False hope"

3.2.1. Waste incinerators are a financial burden

3.2.1.1. Incinerators are the most expensive method to generate energy and to handle waste, while also creating a significant economic burden for host cities. The story of Copenhagen’s infamous Amager Bakke incinerator is just an example. There are many cases of municipalities that have ended up in debt because of incinerators, while others are trapped in long-term contracts compelling them to deliver a minimum quantity of waste for 20 to 30 years, to repay investment costs. On the other side of the Atlantic, the city of Harrisburg in Pennsylvania has due to financial costs of upgrading the city’s incinerator in 2011 became the largest US city to declare bankruptcy, for example

3.2.2. Burning waste creates less employment opportunities than recycling

3.2.2.1. “Waste-to-energy” plants offer relatively few jobs when compared to recycling. The livelihood of millions of waste workers worldwide depends on recycling. Studies show that the sector creates 10-20 times more jobs than incineration. With a national rate of less than 33%, the US recycling industries currently provide over 800,000 jobs. In developing countries like the Philippines, building incinerators will take jobs away from informal waste workers including waste pickers, recyclers and haulers. Investment in recycling, reuse and composting can enable informal workers to transition to these green jobs.

3.2.3. Waste incineration doesn’t fit into sustainable circular economy

3.2.3.1. Burning waste is incompatible with a closed-loop circular economy model as incinerators destroy valuable materials in a polluting manner. By reducing the volume but increasing the toxicity of waste, incineration merely replaces one waste stream with another. Incinerators also support the linear economy model by extracting virgin materials only to waste them at the end.

3.3. Future to embrace

3.3.1. The world is embracing Zero Waste instead

3.3.1.1. “Waste-to-energy” is often described as a good way to extract energy from resources, but in fact it works against the circular economy, producing toxic waste, air pollution and contributing to climate change – all without delivering what it promised. In contrast, investing in separate collection, recycling and waste prevention policies, and preventing countries from getting locked into long-term contracts with overdimensioned waste burning facilities, as it has happened in Western Europe, is crucial to ensure the shift toward a true circular economy.

4. 4. Final Speech

4.1. Main points from each speech

4.1.1. 30-45 seconds

4.2. Rebuttles

4.2.1. Prepare 5/6 20 seconds pieces with facts which could potentially be needed to discredit an opposing argument - decide which to use during the actual speech