The visitor to our blog asked: What about the studies done that show waste-to-energy does create less greenhouse gases and offered two weblinks for evidence.
Typically, the two weblinks were not to scientific studies but to documents intended either to sell incinerators or to justify the decision to purchase one.
When I checked the links I found a 24-page pamplet from Denmark bearing the logos of two organizations (RenoSam and Ramboll) who are, respectively, an association of 29 waste management companies and a European company that provides engineering, consultancy, product development and operation services.... The document produced by these organizations is not a scientific "report" but a sales pitch for their incineration products and services.
The second weblink is a promotional pamphlet from our own GVRD (now Metro Vancouver) about the Burnaby waste-to-energy incinerator.
In a second comment, the visitor says: While burning garbage isn't perfect, it's also not the highest priority. As can be seen in this 2008 discussion paper, the first priority is to reduce waste generation. Then, it goes onto discuss other methods. Of course, waste reduction is a process that everyone needs to be a part of.
Agreed! But priority? One measure of priorities is dollars. The Metro Vancouver Draft Solid Waste Management Plan talks dollars. Here's what it says:
dollars going to reducing waste generation: $40 million
dollars going to incineration: $2.5 - 3.0 billion.
What does this tell us about the priorities in Metro Vancouver's waste plan? Are these the priorities of citizens?