To the Editor, Vancouver Sun:
Two Metro politicians put coal in our stockings with their
Christmas greeting this year (Reduce,
recycle, waste-to-energy the answers for managing Metro garbage, December 24,
2012).
The week before, Jordan Batemen of the Canadian Taxpayers’
Federation had called out Metro politicians for “forging
ahead with plans to build a $450-million waste incinerator that will reinforce
our addiction to garbage, freeze out private contractors and put the Fraser
Valley air shed at risk.” (Taxpayers
feel pain of politicians and their perception that they are going green, Dec.
17).
To make their case that new
incinerators won’t pollute and will be cheaper than landfills, Brodie and Moore
cited “independent” economic and environmental analyses that were carried out three
years ago by consulting firms working under contract to Metro Vancouver (see AECOM
report, for instance). These studies told Metro what it wanted to hear.
Brodie and Moore may not know how
much the current regional incinerator costs us. I tracked these expenditures up
to 2004, relying on data provided by Metro staff at my request.
As long ago as 2004, Metro had
already spent nearly $41 million dollars on upgrades to a facility whose
original cost was $88 million.
Within the first 5 years of
operation, the Burnaby incinerator cost us $500 thousand for a carbon injection
system to treat mercury and $200 thousand for a filter to reduce particulate
emissions. Three years later, we faced a $800 thousand cost for a system to
treat nitrous oxide another $700 thousand for a flyash stabilization system.
Speaking of flyash, the company
Metro currently contracts with to operate the Burnaby incinerator is under
investigation by the provincial government for losing track of 18,000 tonnes of
toxic cadmium-laced flyash (Cadmium
contamination in Cache Creek dump appears worse than previously thought, Vancouver
Sun, November 2, 2012)
And then, the engineering firm Metro
retained (HDR) to manage the planning for the new incinerator recently had to
quit because it had its own agenda (Waste-to-energy
consultant quits Metro Vancouver project after ‘perception of bias’ in email,
Vancouver Sun, December 7, 2012). But over half of the $1.9 million
consulting money had already been spent.
The northern European countries
that Moore and Brodie like to cite for their “internationally accepted waste
management practices” are now experiencing a new crisis. They built too much
incineration capacity and are competing to import waste from other countries
(see, for example, this
report from Public Radio International). Already Metro’s 2008 projections
of waste volumes have had to be revised downwards several times, due to the
economic slowdown and new programs to divert large volumes of organic waste. Incinerators
have to operate at full capacity 24/7 or the pollution control systems don’t
work. Wouldn’t it make more sense to put the incinerator on hold until we
decide if we need it?
No comments:
Post a Comment