Unlocking Local Food Systems’ Zero Waste Potential

A Success Story from the Markets of Warwick

Written by Lily Nobel

Over the last 3 years, the Warwick zero waste composting project has taken food waste from the Early Morning Market (EMM) in the Markets of Warwick (a neighborhood in Durban, South Africa) and transformed it into nutrient-rich compost at the Durban Botanic Gardens. As landfills in South Africa are rapidly filling up, this project showcases the power of utilizing small spaces and limited resources to reduce methane emissions from the waste sector — a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide. According to the UNEP’s Global Methane Assessment, reducing methane is a crucial step to keep global warming under 1.5°C, the threshold established by the Paris Agreement.

Currently, this project is being upscaled across the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and revolutionizing organic waste management in the area–unlocking resources through saving public funds and creating locally accessible jobs. Empowered by strong partnerships among local organizations, and fueled by effective data collection, this pilot successfully demonstrates the potential of decentralized, environmental justice-centered composting that not only brings climate benefits but also promotes social interests.

Team members from groundWork, the Durban University of Technology (DUT) Horticulture Department, the eThekwini Municipality Parks, Recreation and Culture Unit (PRC), the Cleansing and Solid Waste Unit (CSW), and the Business Support, Markets, Tourism and Agribusiness Unit (BSMTAU) pose together at the Durban Botanic Garden where the composting is done.
Collaboration at the Warwick Zero Waste Project. Photo credit: Lunga Benghu

Easily replicable decentralized composting model

In 2022, groundWork, the Durban University of Technology (DUT) Horticulture Department, the eThekwini Municipality Parks, Recreation and Culture Unit (PRC), the Cleansing and Solid Waste Unit (CSW), and the Business Support, Markets, Tourism and Agribusiness Unit (BSMTAU) partnered to launch a composting pilot project in the Durban Botanic Gardens’ permaculture site. It quickly evolved from composting a weekly 240 liter bin of food and vegetable waste to building 12 large compost windrows that are currently maintained to mature compost in a 3-month cycle.

Before zero waste: Organic waste from the EMM goes to the nearest landfills – Buffelsdraai and Illovu landfills – over 35 km away from the city. Photo credit: Lunga Benghu

As of March 2024, the pilot has diverted over 72 tonnes of organic waste from landfills by collecting approximately 1.5 tonnes of organic waste from the EMM weekly in two separate collection points and combining this with approximately 1 tonne of garden waste. Since July 2023, the project has supplied over 41 tonnes of compost to the city’s PRC Unit, free of charge, for use in parks and community gardens across the municipality. Samples of the compost undergo regular testing —such as full nutrient analysis, pot trails, and microbial analysis— to refine the ‘recipe’ and to ensure quality control. These tests demonstrate the high quality of the compost produced.

Cost-saving public funds for waste management

While many waste projects often seek investment from external actors, this project utilizes existing resources to unlock significant savings from public funds. By diverting organic waste from landfills, the city reduces the costs associated with landfilling and landfill airspace, which in Durban is estimated to be approximately R1,774 (93 USD) per tonne of waste. The Buffelsdraai and Illovu landfills, the only two operating landfills in Durban, are both located 35 kilometers or more from the city center, leading to high transportation costs. Findings from a cost-benefit analysis report on the project show how the various city departments have the potential to save money from reduced waste management costs and access to free compost. To date, the parks department alone has saved R23,600 (1,250 USD) from compost received through the project. As the project scales up, the savings can be used to sustainably cover the salary of the staff who manage the composters. Unlike waste incineration projects, which require huge capital and operational costs and lock cities in a put-or-pay scheme for decades, this composting model saves the city money, which is then reinvested to rapidly scale the composting model, leading to even bigger savings and opportunities to scale, in a virtuous circle. 

Job creation through zero waste

This environmental justice-centered model composting project improves social realities in the area by providing local jobs. On a tonne-for-tonne basis, composting can create three times as many jobs as landfill and incineration. In South Africa, 42.2% of people aged 15-34 years are neither employed, nor enrolled in formal education or training programs as of the last quarter of 2023. As this project is scaled up, composting is estimated to create four jobs per 400 tons of waste processed. The project also improves the working conditions and social protections of the informal market traders, waste collectors, and composters. Moreover, the Warwick zero waste project prioritizes the employment of people from the market and local communities, rather than using machines that often require external experts. In contrast, incineration creates the least amount of jobs and requires workers with highly specialized skills that are not accessible to the local population.

The delivery of Early Morning Market organics to the compost site and windrow preparations. Photo credit: Lunga Benghu

Waste methane reduction for South Africa

Meanwhile, source-separated organic collection with composting demonstrates significantly higher climate mitigation and adaptation benefits. Composting alone can prevent as much as 99% of methane emissions that would otherwise come from landfills. When the finished compost is utilized in place of synthetic fertilizer, further GHG emissions are saved by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide, not to mention avoiding the fossil fuel emissions from creating fertilizer. The application of compost to the soil also boosts flood and drought resistance and increases carbon sequestration capacity.

Although South Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) provide neither specific targets nor roadmaps for the waste sector, the Warwick zero waste project paves a crucial pathway to help the country improve its national climate goals. By proving the efficacy of decentralized composting projects, the Warwick site can be used as a model for the nation and other countries on how to invest in empowering and inclusive organic management projects powered by local organizations and communities, thereby maximizing municipal resources and local knowledge.

Zero waste markets in Durban and beyond

Currently, the project team and city partners are working on expanding waste collection from the EMM to compost all 400 tonnes of waste generated by the market every year. Alongside this expansion, the team plans to replicate the model in a second market, the Bangladesh Market. In the longer term, the project team is targeting all nine fresh fruit and vegetable markets in Durban, proving the model’s feasibility and efficacy on a larger scale. The project has drawn an increasing interest among other municipalities in South Africa, and the team is actively engaging with government officials across the country and region.

map of markets in Durban, South Africa. Aside from The Early Morning Market where the project is currently ongoing, 8 other fresh produce markets are highlighted in the map. eThekwini municipal markets targeted for scale up and in relation to the Buffelsdraai landfill. We are currently at the Early Morning Market and will be moving to the Bangladesh Market this year. Credit: Ayanda Mnyandu
Growing the zero waste composting model in all the markets in Durban starting with Early Morning Market then moving on to Bangladesh Market this year. Credit: Ayanda Mnyandu

No to incineration, go for zero waste

The cost-saving model demonstrated by the Warwick zero waste project can be upscaled rapidly with the right flow of capacity and resource support. This also means ceasing support for inflexible, costly, and carbon-intensive infrastructures, particularly waste incineration. Policymakers and financiers must ensure that investment in organic waste management projects must be aligned with Environmental Justice principles and inclusive of local organizations and knowledge to build lasting environmental and societal impact. 

More Environmental Justice Stories

Controversy on Waste: To Burn or Not to Burn?

Canada in the Spotlight as Host of Plastics Treaty Negotiations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: APRIL 4, 2024

While Canada is set to host the next round of the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations April 23-29, Canadian groups are raising an alarm about the expansion of waste incineration across the country. Dubbed “waste-to-energy” (WTE) by industry, burning waste through methods like incineration, gasification and pyrolysis is a practice that would undermine federal climate, plastics, and waste management policies.

“Canada has goals to end plastic pollution and stop climate change. That means we must close the door to polluting and wasteful garbage incineration,” said Karen Wirsig, Plastics Senior Program Manager at Environmental Defence. “Incineration poses real risks to the environment and human health. Plus, garbage is not a clean or ‘renewable’ energy source and incinerators have been found to emit more greenhouse gasses per unit of electricity than fossil fuels.”

The Town of Pontiac, Quebec, is fighting a proposal for a new waste incinerator to burn garbage from the City of Ottawa, where the treaty negotiations will take place. Other incinerator proposals are surfacing in Brampton, Ontario, and Edmonton, Alberta, among others.

The rise in incinerator proposals follows a report released last year by the federal government and shared with municipal officials that suggests incineration is a climate-friendly approach to waste management. That federal report was recently debunked by research commissioned by Zero Waste BC and GAIA.

Incineration threatens efforts to establish Canada as a leader in tackling plastic pollution, climate change and diversion of organics.

Analysis by the Canadian Zero Waste Coalition shows that:

Report author and environmental engineer Belinda Li, noted, “it is very important that our government supports real solutions like waste prevention and reduction and not costly distractions such as WTE. If we prevent waste from being generated in the first place, we can extend the life of our landfills and make the best use of our existing infrastructure.”

The floundering of experimental WTE plants offers cautionary tales to other communities. “Across Canada incinerators have proven to be costly failures that waste millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, exceed emission limits, never meet operational targets, and delay municipalities from taking actions that would actually reduce and divert organics and post-consumer goods,” says Liz Benneian, founder of the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition. 

For instance, from its inauguration in 2008, until it declared bankruptcy in 2015, the Plasco incinerator in Ottawa burned through $13.5 million in federal and provincial funding plus $8 million per year in municipal subsidies. The plant had numerous operational issues, processed only one third of the waste it promised and racked up 25 records of noncompliance with emission regulations.

More than three-quarters of waste disposed in Canada could have been avoided, recycled, or composted. “Local governments are setting ambitious zero waste targets, but when we burn waste, those goals go up in smoke,” said Sue Maxwell, chair of Zero Waste BC and former municipal councillor. “Proactive municipalities are reducing their waste through zero waste policies and programs.”

“Europe is often cited as a model for WTE but the European Union is turning away from WTE and major European financial institutions have pulled funding from WTE projects,” notes Janek Vähk, Zero Pollution Policy Manager for Zero Waste Europe. “Meanwhile, the EU has established an ambitious target of halving total residual waste by 2030 and WTE would lock in generation of waste over time to keep the incinerators running.”

WTE facilities are often particularly harmful to environmental justice communities. 

“Fenceline communities are badly impacted by particulates and other hazardous air emissions, in addition to truck traffic” noted Dr. Neil Tangri, Science and Policy Director at GAIA,  “Some of the worst impacts are felt in the far north, where First Nations bear extremely high body burdens of persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins from incinerators that biomagnify in the food chain.” 

As all eyes look to Canada later this month, over 40 environmental groups across the country implore the country to be a true leader and reject WTE in favor of zero waste solutions. (link to action page)

For more information about this campaign and to access the coalition’s publications, please visit https://www.no-burn.org/stopping-waste-to-energy-in-canada/ 

CONTACT

Claire Arkin, Global Communications Lead: claire@no-burn.org | +1 973 444 4869

About the Coalition:

The Canadian Zero Waste Coalition is a coalition of environmental groups including the Ontario Zero Waste Coalition, Zero Waste BC, GAIA, Environmental Defence, Zero Waste Canada, Toronto Environmental Alliance, Durham Environment Watch, Waste Watch Ottawa, and Citizens of the Pontiac.

####

A significant step to comply with the Global Methane Pledge

Contributed by YPBB

In a significant and forward-thinking move, the West Java provincial government officially prohibited the disposal of organic waste in the Sarimukti landfill, located in the West Bandung Regency, effective January 1, 2024. This comes as a response to the  August 2023 Sarimukti landfill fires. The policy has the potential to divert 228,855 tons of organic waste per year from Bandung alone — preventing 575,428 tonnes CO2eq of methane emissions per year from the landfill. The West Java Provincial government has targeted a reduction of 754,154 tonnes CO2eq from all the landfills in West Java by 2030. This means that Bandung, the capital of the province, can contribute 75% of the set target.

Apart from reducing methane, this policy has the potential to contribute to environmental justice by significantly reducing river pollution caused by the landfill’s leachate, which is a water source for more than 6,000 people. If implemented in parallel with separate organic waste collection and treatment, cities could save significant costs, particularly on transportation, and it could also contribute to the local economy, creating 6 jobs per tonnes of waste managed, double the current system.

A fireman aims the water hose at a fire at a landfill in Sarimukti
The Sarimukti Landfill catches fire. source: Sindonews

Methane, a greenhouse gas 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide, is an increasingly significant global concern to deliver climate action. According to the UNEP’s Global Methane Assessment, reducing methane is a crucial step to keep global warming under 1´5ºC, the threshold established by the Paris Agreement. Interestingly, the Climate Transparency Report (2022) highlights that Indonesia’s waste sector is the country’s largest methane emitter.

In 2023, Sarimukti landfill, a regional landfill serving four cities in West Java, was projected to surpass its capacity. Landfill fires got out of control – AZWI reported 38 landfill fire occurrences in 2023,  attributing methane from organic waste as its root cause. Responding to this critical situation, the Bandung Zero Waste Forum and grassroots groups, particularly Friends of The Earth Indonesia (WALHI) and Yaksa Pelestari Bumi Berkelanjutan (YPBB) —members of Alliance for Zero Waste Indonesia (AZWI)— initiated intensive advocacy efforts, targeting the ban of organic waste landfilling and incineration, emphasizing how the air pollution was affecting waste pickers and the community around the landfill. By August 2023, provincial and local governments declared a waste emergency status, and soon after, the organic waste ban to landfill was sealed.

A waste worker in Bandung, Indonesia collects segregated at-source waste, he is seen transferring organic waste from a resident's trash bin to his collection cart.
An informal waste collector conducts separate collection in a neighborhood in Bandung. source: YPBB

Incinerator Threat Looms

However, while this policy is a critical milestone for the Metro Bandung area, the provincial government is risking this achievement with a Waste-to-Energy incinerator project proposal in Legok Nangka, a newly built regional landfill to replace Sarimukti. In opposition, WALHI has continuously warned the government about the hidden risks of incineration, emphasizing the risk of methane-to-carbon swapping, the obstacle it will pose to cities to achieve its climate and waste reduction targets, and its adverse impacts to local communities. Accordingly, YPBB and Bandung Zero Waste Forum advocate for coherent policies through alternative policy scenarios that do not rely on incineration. 

Furthermore, the organic waste ban to landfill should be implemented carefully. The government must not allow pitfalls as experienced by the European “zero waste to landfill” policy, which has resulted in an excess of incineration capacity in this region. The policy should be more ambitious by including a mandatory source separation, separate collection, and treatment of organic waste, and a ban on landfilling ‘untreated organic waste’.

Three protesters wearing complete PPEs protest the incinerator plans in Indonesia. On the left, the protester holds a placard that says in Bahasa Indonesia "Bakar Sampah Masalah Datang", the middle one's placard reads "Incinerator: Fake Solutions!"; and the protester on the right holds a placard that can only be partially seen
Local groups protest incinerator plans in Indonesia. source: WALHI

Zero Waste is Already Happening

It is critical that the organic waste ban to landfill policy drives and scales up the existing zero waste models. Nine zero-waste city models throughout Indonesia (Bandung City, Bandung Regency, Cimahi, Sumedang, Purwakarta, Karawang, Gresik, Denpasar and Gianyar) organized by AZWI cover a population of more than 478,000 people with an average of 40% waste segregation compliance rate, up to an 88% in the best cases, which is by far the highest in the country. In total, these zero waste models have the potential to reduce organic waste sent to landfill by 6,500 tons per year. In a recent report, YPBB and GAIA found that a city-scale zero waste implementation in Bandung is four times more climate-effective than incineration. The success of these zero waste initiatives has relied on two strategic pillars:

  1. implementation of waste prevention measures, source separation and separate collection of various waste streams, including organic waste; and
  2. strong community engagement with a clear priority for inclusion of informal waste collectors. Ultimately, local stakeholders have played a pivotal role in implementing the zero waste models that started with minimal government support.
Nine members of AZWI and DLH sit around a concrete table at an open public space in Bandung.
Aliansi Zero Waste Indonesia (AZWI) and Dyan Prasetyangningtyas (DLH Kota Surabaya) conduct a stakeholders meeting in Bandung. source: YPBB

In conclusion,  the level of ambition required in achieving Indonesia’s climate commitments, and the political momentum in West Java should be harnessed to drive systemic change. This can happen now thanks to decades of collective and dedicated work of local groups like YPBB, Bandung Zero Waste Forum, WALHI, and AZWI. To make the most of this, governments and financial institutions must create the right flow of resources and capacity — aligned with Environmental Justice principles — making the inclusion of local organizations a clear priority for a lasting impact.

Back to COP28 Resources

February 20, 2024 – In 2003, community leaders and members in Broga-Semenyih Selangor protested and won the fight against the construction of waste-to-energy (WtE) incinerators in Peninsular Malaysia.  Malaysia has set a sterling example of averting incinerator proposals in the region. Today, however,  WtE incinerators are making a comeback in the guise of “circular economy” and “climate action”. Residents of Batu Arang WtE proposed site are pushing back on this government plan citing health, traffic congestion, property values, geogolical fragility as a previous coal mine with a long network of tunnels beneath the ground, and the site’s heritage status. 

 “Communities in Asia and the Pacific have long since proven that practical, low-cost, and community-led practices are more effective than burning waste,” said Brex Arevalo, GAIA Asia Pacific’s Climate and Anti-Incineration Campaigner, in a symposium organized by the Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP), Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM), and Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pacific. “But here we are, as we get more adept at zero waste solutions, waste burning industries are also getting more eloquent in selling their product offering fake and empty promises.”

A group of people sitting around a table.
Batu Arang residents discuss the challenges faced by the community. (Photo by Nur Colis/WALHI)

The symposium which was organized as part of International Zero Waste Month, aimed to share the environmental and public health issues on WtE incineration rampantly peddled in Asia Pacific. The event was attended by leading researchers, activists, and non-governmental organizations, from  Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Japan, Australia, and Europe.  “We intend to use the insights gained from presentations by invited experts to formulate a policy paper to be submitted to authorities in Malaysia as part of our advocacy on debunking false solutions,” explained Mageswari Sangaralingam, Senior Research Officer of CAP and Honorary Secretary of SAM. Malaysia currently has a policy of building at least one incinerator per state. 

Yuenmei Wong, an independent researcher from Malaysia, highlighted that the country’s legislation primarily addresses essential aspects of solid waste management like collection, disposal, and infrastructure, with insufficient enforcement on minimizing waste during resource extraction. In the current Global Plastics Treaty (GPT) negotiations, civil society organizations are demanding solutions to cover the plastic waste crisis holistically, not just at the end of its life cycle but from the extraction of resources.  

Leaders and residents of Batu Arang were also in attendance. Over three hundred people rallied in protest at Bandar Tasik Puteri just days before the symposium.

A group of people standing on a rocky shore.
Lake in Batu Arang which used to be the site of mining activities. “Batu Arang” means literally “stone charcoal” in English. (Photo by Nur Colis/WALHI)

Firefighting in Asia Pacific

“We have the solution,” said Froilan Grate, GAIA Asia Pacific Coordinator. GAIA has implemented the Zero Waste Cities Collaborators Project in partnership with 18 member organizations for the establishment of zero waste programs in more than 25 cities and communities in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and India. The project was able to divert more than 1.9 million tonnes of waste from landfills, and has put in place at least 23 local ordinances on waste management and single-use plastic bans.

Europe, China, and Japan have increasingly looked at Asian countries as emerging markets for their homegrown WtE incinerators as they face saturated domestic markets. Since investing in emerging markets are risky endeavors for their homegrown WtE incinerator companies, they have used their political and financial leverage through international financial institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB),  and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) to direct public finance in support of these industries. 

In the Philippines, despite a standing ban on waste incineration, Ninya Sarmiento, Plastic-Free Pilipinas Project Campaigner of the Ecowaste Coalition, has raised concerns over moves to legalize waste incineration and local partnerships with WtE companies in which the ADB, through its support for reviewing feasibility studies, developing Public-Private Partnership options, assisting in project preparation, and managing tender processes, has been accused of undermining the country’s Clean Air Act which banned waste incineration.

Speaking from Australia,  Jane Bremmer, the Campaign Coordinator of Toxics-Free Australia, shared the regression in waste minimization. “On the eve of the new Global Plastics Treaty negotiations in Paris, the Australian Environment Minister has decided to reopen plastic waste exports after the previous federal government introduced a five-year ban. The 2019 ban on waste exports came in response to China and Southeast Asian countries’ exposure to waste dumping.” 

Dr Jorge Emmanuel, Adjunct Professor from the Environmental Science and Engineering Department at Silliman University in Dumaguete, the Philippines, emphasized a critical point, stating, “Even the most advanced WtE incinerators emit dioxins.” He noted that due to the latency period of dioxin emissions, the actual impact may not be observable for another 7 to 10 years and to have strong evidence of dioxin emissions, a large percentage of people would need to have died from dioxin-related diseases like cancer. Dr. Emmanuel stressed, “That’s why I believe in the precautionary principle; if there’s already strong evidence from around the world, we cannot wait for another incinerator to be put up and wait for the next decades for science to show us conclusively that people died because of WtE incinerator emissions.”

While in countries where WtE incineration is the default practice, experts have shared issues on environmental regulations. 

In China, municipal WtE incinerators have increased tremendously from 130 in 2011 to 927 at the end of 2022. However, more than 40 Not-In-My-Backyard Movements (NIMBY) in the past decade compelled the China government to improve regulations on WtE incineration. “When most of China’s big cities enforced mandatory waste sorting, the operational data from waste-to-power plants between 2020 and 2023 revealed that “plant stoppages” often occurred. According to their study of 29 province-level administrations, the national overcapacity figure for 2022 was 100.99%, with overcapacity found in 12 administrations.” said environmental researcher Lee Jiacheng from the Wuhu Ecology Centre,

Yuichiro Hattori, researcher and former Solid Waste Management Officer in Japan, pointed out that despite Japan’s overreliance on WtE incineration and compromised recycling efforts, WtE incineration only contributes to about 3% of the national electricity grid. Coupled with the compliance requirement for high environmental standards, WtE has become a less cost-effective industry. In the last century, WtE incinerators have closed down and decreased from 1,965 WtE incinerators in 1975 to 1,028 this year.

Arevalo said that while there are disproportionate resources in terms of finances and power between communities and WtE and plastic industries, grassroots including waste pickers and waste workers are fighting and winning.

In Indonesia, Abdul Ghofar, Campaign Manager for Pollution and Urban Justice at WALHI (The Indonesian Forum for Environment) or Friends of the Earth Indonesia, identified communities affected by the WtE projects in twelve cities in Indonesia. However, there’s a silver lining as three cities have cancelled their projects in response to public demand, community protests, and potential financial loss. 

Banners Protesting the proposed incinerator (Photo by Brex Arevalo/GAIA AP)

Humans at the center: legislation and shared experiences toward a zero-waste future 

“I don’t want Asia Pacific or Malaysia to repeat the mistakes that Europe made in the past,” said Janek Vahk, Zero Pollution Policy Manager of Zero Waste Europe, highlighting the milestone achieved by the EU since 2015 by excluding WtE incineration from financial support and shifting to prioritizing waste minimization.

“Waste pollution is a global problem that requires local solutions.  Zero Waste values environmental and social justice. Placing humans at the center of waste management recognizes their lived experiences and expertise refuting the need to continuously burn waste and valuable resources,” said Grate.

Support Batu Arang residents in their fight against WtE incinerators, sign their online petition here.

NOTES:

  1. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government canceled the first pilot fluidized-bed gasification technology and ash-melting system in Broga, Semenyih, in 2006. Additionally, the Municipal Council of Kajang initiated the first Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) plant in Kampung Pasir Baru, Semenyih, which faced public complaints about environmental pollution and permanently closed in 2015 after nine years. Between 2012 and 2022, the Cabinet has approved seven WtE incinerators tendered by the Ministry in the states of Johor, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Kedah, Penang and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur. The Selangor State Executive Council has approved six (6) WtE incinerators with a daily burning capacity of 9,000 tonnes of MSW and 100 tonnes of scheduled waste in northern Selangor.
  2. Prior to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 77/161, the European Union withdrew financial support to the construction of WtE incinerators due to CO2 emission problems:
    – In 2017, the European Union called for a ban on investment in WTE and tax changes in the EU removed public support for WTE investment.
    – In 2018, the Sustainable Finance Investment Guide for the European Investment Bank excluded WTE as an acceptable investment.
    – In 2019, the European Green Deal (European Green Deal), established by the European Commission, requires waste reduction (waste reduction), increasing the level of recycling and preserving the right to repair (repair for reuse).
    – In 2020, the EU Taxonomy Regulation 2020 removed incinerators (WTE) from the definition of environmentally sustainable and denied incinerators as a cyclical economic activity. The European Environmental Bureau Climate Action Plan adopts a new circular economy action plan (CEAP) and calls for the end of WTE by 2040.
    – In 2022, the European Parliament included municipal incinerators in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) scope, which sets a price for CO2 emissions from municipal waste incinerators until 2026.

About the Campaign

Canada is among the most wasteful countries in the world and most of the waste could be avoided, recycled or composted. Canada has goals to decrease waste by 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2040, to end plastic waste by 2040, and to reduce landfill methane emissions by 50% by 2030. , Reaching even these goals will require ambitious and immediate actions to reduce waste. 

Waste to Energy (WTE) (sometimes called energy from waste) includes different technologies for disposing waste through a high-temperature process such as mass burn incineration, gasification, and pyrolysis. WTE is portrayed as a “climate-friendly” solution for waste management because of the avoided methane emission from landfilling and energy generation potential, however it emits more greenhouse gases than modern landfills when a full accounting of all GHGs is made. Waste minimization is a far better choice for the climate than either landfills or WTE.

Many communities are approached by incineration/thermal technology companies with proposals to build Waste to Energy (WTE) facilities for waste disposal. Local government staff and elected officials, who review these proposals, may not have comprehensive knowledge about WTE or the expertise to thoroughly evaluate these proposals. 

Recently, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) commissioned a report on Waste to Energy, meant for local governments to use as a guide. This report painted WTE in a favourable light due to a narrow focus. In response to the federal paper, research was conducted for a coalition of environmental non-profit groups using a broader lens to better understand alternatives. 

This webpage is intended to support better actions to tackle waste that reduce the climate, biodiversity, toxics and cost impacts. Further tools and opportunities to take action will be added as they are developed. For more information, please email Aditi Varshneya, GAIA US Canada’s Network Development Coordinator, at aditi@no-burn.org.

Call to Action

Join 40+ organizations from across Canada and sign our petition calling on the Government of Canada, provinces and territories, and local governments to end waste incineration in Canada. 

 

Read the petition, sign on, and see the list of signatory organizations here
Read the press release

Resources

Climate Impacts from Waste to Energy – the Whole Picture

A more fulsome climate analysis of the federal study shows that not only are waste minimization strategies far better for the environment, but cost less as well. Properly managed landfills have lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than the total GHG emissions from WTE, but waste minimization has the most benefits.

Read

Cautionary Tales: Examples from Across Canada 

The federal study also mentioned several examples of thermal treatment of waste. It did not show the many cases where pursuit of these technologies was unsuccessful or resulted in financial, environmental and social issues for the communities. Communities need to understand the risks.

Read

Metro Vancouver – a Case Study 

An analysis of Metro Vancouver’s waste management over the duration of its last solid waste management plan was conducted, looking at waste volumes, costs and GHGs. Results show that a focus on zero waste strategies were successful and cost-effective while incineration was costly with high GHG emissions.

Read

Waste Incineration – What It Is, Why It Is Practiced, Implications and Zero Waste Alternatives

There are many reasons beyond GHGs, cost and effectiveness why WTE is not a solution. These are outlined here, along with an alternative solutions.

Read

Marcha en Temuco contra el proyecto WTE Araucanía.

Se están viviendo momentos cruciales para la ciudad de Lautaro, Chile, ya que el miércoles 20 se decidirá si finalmente se autorizará la puesta en marcha de la planta de incineración WTE Araucanía, que pretende incinerar la basura de la región de la Araucanía en la ciudad de Lautaro.

El proyecto ya fue rechazado en el año 2022 por la Comisión Evaluadora Ambiental de la región de La Araucanía; sin embargo, la empresa interpuso un recurso de reclamación ante el Comité de Ministros integrado por los ministerios de Economía, Salud, Agricultura, Energía y Medio Ambiente, quienes tienen en sus manos el futuro de la ciudad con la decisión que tomen esta semana.

El proyecto que ya lleva cinco años en evaluación, cuenta con un rechazo generalizado de la población. Así quedó demostrado en 2022 cuando la ciudadanía, las comunidades Mapuche y el mismo municipio local hicieron más de 16.000 observaciones contra el proyecto, una cifra récord al ser la mayor cantidad de observaciones ciudadanas en la historia del Sistema de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental en la región. 

Representantes de comunidad indígena Mapuche afuera del
ministerio de Economía, Santiago, Chile.

En esta misma línea, la Red de Acción por los Derechos Ambientales (RADA) convocó en Temuco a más de 90 organizaciones para entregar una carta dirigida al Presidente Gabriel Boric pidiendo que se rechace el proyecto WTE Araucanía. Además, una delegación compuesta por representantes de las comunidades Mapuche, junto a concejales y el alcalde de Lautaro, viajaron a Santiago para pedirle a las y los ministros Ximena Aguilera, Esteban Valenzuela, Maisa Rojas, Nicolás Grau, Diego Pardow y Aurora Williams, que se respete la decisión de la ciudadanía y que se reitere el rechazo al proyecto que ya dieron los organismos técnicos en la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental. 

Saber más:

Estudio de caso: No a la incineración en Temuco, Chile.

De estos seis ministros del Presidente Boric depende el futuro de las familias de Lautaro

Araucanía: Las graves irregularidades que rodean al proyecto de Planta incineradora de basura WTE en Lautaro

Gremios de La Araucanía presionan al Comité de Ministros para aprobar WTE

RADA vuelve a desmentir a la Multigremial: “insiste en señalar falsedades respecto del proyecto WTE Araucanía”

19 October 2023 – The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) Asia Pacific formally submitted its position on the proposed Philippine Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Guidelines (SFTG) to prevent the financing of industries that are harmful to the objectives of circular economy and just transition. Led by the Financial Sector Forum (FSF) of the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the guidelines aim to classify investments and economic activities based on their environmental and social sustainability, shaping a path towards responsible investments in the Philippines. 

GAIA Asia Pacific particularly commends the draft for its intent in addressing greenwashing, advocating a circular economy, and recognizing the negative impacts of landfills, waste incinerators, as well as other harmful activities like open burning of waste, open dumping, and the importation of toxic waste. 

GAIA Asia Pacific recommended the classification of the waste sector as a climate adaptation sector and not only a climate mitigation area of investment to allow the mobilization of much-needed resources on development activities, awareness-raising and information sharing of best practices, reforms in waste sector regulation, reforms in spatial planning or the procurement process, research activities, and options which relate to risk management or disclosure.

The environmental network also highlighted critical gaps in the draft which could create pathways for environmental and social harm. GAIA Asia Pacific’s submission highlighted the need for alignment with Philippine laws that prohibit waste incinerators, as these incinerators produce greenhouse gas emissions and harmful byproducts that pose severe risks to both the environment and public health.  

GAIA Asia Pacific also noted that the draft allows for the entry of high-risk projects as long as it demonstrates willingness to address those issues in a five-year remedial period which according to GAIA Asia Pacific, is not only too long for affected communities and the environment but also opens the door to continued generation of pollution, GHG emissions and human rights violations. 

Further, GAIA Asia Pacific emphasizes the importance of harmonizing the SFTG with human rights conventions and international obligations, highlighting the need to broaden the definition of the impact on individuals residing near these investments.

GAIA Asia Pacific said that a taxonomy must demonstrate to investors and companies that sustainable economic activities require the provision of spaces for participation and access to grievance mechanisms as required in the Philippine Constitution and the human rights instruments as the foundation of a just transition to climate change action. 

GAIA Asia Pacific also urged BSP to expand the consultations and conduct more stakeholder engagement on the guidelines. It also commented on the lack of information on the BSP website on the drafting, timelines of consultations and submissions, and two-way feedback loop. The gaps indicate a limitation in consultation engagements from civil society and communities affected by harmful investments and will critically impact the SFTG’s initial positive intentions. 

The development of the SFTG reflects the global demand for financing of real solutions to climate change and the prevention of greenwashing through clear-cut guidelines of which economic activities are truly contributing to environmental, climate, and social objectives. Some of the sustainable taxonomies adopted by economies include crafting sustainability taxonomies, the ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance, the European Union Taxonomy (which the SFTG benchmarks against), and national initiatives like Indonesia’s Green Taxonomy edition 1.0 and the Securities Commission of Malaysia’s Sustainable and Responsible Investment (SRI) Taxonomy. 

Additionally, GAIA Asia Pacific’s active involvement in the ongoing consultation process on the  Environmental and Social Framework of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) establishes an interconnected network of policy initiatives aimed at avoiding harm from development investments including climate change interventions that may in fact be false solutions. 

SOURCES: 

Zero Waste Europe. (2019 September). Waste-to-Energy is not Sustainable Business, the EU says. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/zero_waste_europe_policy_briefing_sustainable_finance_en .pdf. 

Zero Waste Europe. (2020 December). Sustainable Finance For A Zero Waste Circular Economy. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/zero_waste_europe_report_sustainable-finance-for-a-zero-w aste-circular-economy_en.pdf. 

Interview with Sue Coutts by Dan Abril

Zero Waste Network Aotearoa’s Hui (Annual Meeting) in 2022. (Photo Courtesy of Zero Waste Network Aotearoa)

In pursuing a greener and more sustainable future, Zero Waste Network Aotearoa (ZWNA) has emerged as a pioneering force. They opened the first community recycling center in Kaitaia in 1989, then in the late 1990s ZWNA pioneers Warren Snow and Gerry Gillespie built the Zero Waste movement in New Zealand. Since then the network of Zero Waste hubs has grown steadily over the last 20 years. 

Today, there are 1400 employees in member organizations across the network and with its Zero Waste roadmap, ZWNA is tirelessly advocating for practical projects across the country. We recently had a chat with Sue Coutts, environment advocate and ZWNA’s External Affairs Officer, who shared insights into the organization’s mission and ongoing initiatives.

What are ZWNA’s top priorities?

We wear two hats. One is a Zero Waste promotion hat and the other hat is for assisting the local scale businesses that make up the network. We also work closely with communities and provide support through social enterprises. It’s like building a network that operates as a collaborative club where everyone helps one another. This mutual support is essential because we can collectively achieve our goals by supporting each other’s causes. 

As a network, our services encompass behavior change repair, composting, recycling, and reuse.  Our approach is not about preaching or imposing a Zero Waste philosophy; instead, it’s about encouraging a domino effect and sharing knowledge. Additionally, our sister organization, Para Kore, is an organization focused on Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and they provide opportunities for IPs across the nation to promote Zero Waste and Māori culture. Taking these steps becomes more manageable when we collectively maximize our skill sets to make a meaningful difference in our communities.

Community March against an incinerator proposal in Te Awamutu, 07 October 2023. (Photo courtesy of Zero Waste Network Aotearoa)

What are the main ongoing campaigns? 

Over the past two decades, we’ve diligently advocated for implementing a  Container Return Scheme and put in a significant amount of effort to persuade the public. Our mission is to provide the necessary information for individuals to make well-informed decisions. This same approach guides our interactions with government officials.

Currently, we do not have waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities in the country but there are ongoing proposals for incinerators. Out of the three proposals, the pyrolysis project in Fielding has been withdrawn after undergoing an extensive evaluation process. Whether waste is buried or burned, we believe it still contributes to the same underlying issue. Our commitment lies in assisting both government and local communities to understand the implications of these proposals. With the coming general elections, we are hoping that the elected government will be more receptive to our cause. 

What are your biggest accomplishments/achievements?

For nearly three decades, we’ve been advocating for sustainability. In those early days, our efforts were often met with skepticism, but today, it’s heartening to see that nearly half the country is fully committed to sustainable practices. One example of this growing support is the Container Return Scheme, with an astounding 89% of the population backing its implementation. 

Our journey has been a lengthy process that involves a great deal of groundwork. We take pride in the fact that over the past 30 years, New Zealand has witnessed a significant shift towards a Zero Waste lifestyle, with a growing number of people opting to buy second-hand items and supporting Zero Waste stores. 

What challenges are you facing?  How is your work impacted by the COVID crisis?

While the COVID crisis did not have a massive impact and is not a major factor in our current situation, it did bring about some concerns. At the height of the pandemic, driven by fear, we witnessed a surge in single-use masks and containers. 

Today, our challenges are more towards the implementation of effective product stewardship like the Container Return Scheme and the ongoing mission to persuade individuals to reduce their waste. These efforts, however, face formidable opposition from various corporate interests. For example, there is a push by the glass industry to exempt glass bottles from specific regulations.

What are the main environmental issues that your country/region is facing?

Water is becoming a concern now with issues related to both water pressure and quality. The demand for water resources is further worsened by intensive farming practices, leading to waste entering streams and the loss of valuable agricultural soil. The recent torrent of heavy rains has also triggered erosion, which is a considerable challenge for a country heavily reliant on agriculture.

Some areas rely on snowfall for their water supply, but much of it flows out to the sea due to a lack of proper storage. As such, many cities and towns face water scarcity issues, with more frequent droughts and hot, windy weather patterns. Additionally, the situation is intensified by varying opinions on how to strike a delicate balance between development and environmental protection. 

How do you see your organization’s work evolving in the next few years? 

We see ourselves as strengthening our network extensively. We believe in the importance of sharing and learning and we are dedicated to building strong relationships with other organizations such as GAIA Asia Pacific and Zero Waste Europe. With these networks, we look forward to connecting local sustainability groups with others worldwide. 

Unloading reusable goods at one of Auckland’s Zero Waste Hubs. (Photo courtesy of Zero Waste Network Aotearoa)

How does your work relate to social justice? 

If you can empower people to tackle problems within their own communities it can have a ripple effect and allow them to address various issues. By fostering collaboration and building a resource base focused on local initiatives, community empowerment becomes a powerful force for positive change.

In Auckland, there’s a plan to establish more material recovery centers, and we’re actively connecting with individuals to make this a reality. This initiative not only generates jobs but also provides support to those undertaking this work, creating opportunities for both employment and resource development. This was already realized with the establishment of 10 centers including the Onehunga Community Recycling Centre, operated by Onehunga Zero Waste (OZW). Through this joint project between two social enterprises, Synergy Projects Trust and Localized Limited, OZW aims to inspire local communities to embrace a Zero Waste lifestyle, with a primary focus on practices like reuse, repair, repurposing, and upcycling. The project also seeks to generate local job opportunities and provide valuable training prospects for the community

This approach effectively bridges the gap between business models and community needs, opening doors for job opportunities and resource utilization. The commercial aspect of our work often involves collaborative ventures with communities and this integration of business and community efforts is vital for achieving sustainable change.

(L-R) Sei Brown, Zero Waste Network Aotearoa and Localised, Sue Coutts, Zero Waste Network Aotearoa, and Matthew Luxon, Localised. (Photo courtesy of Zero Waste Network Aotearoa)

Who do you admire most in environmental work?

Today, I want to give a special shoutout to our General Manager, Dorte Wray, who plays a crucial role in keeping our collective efforts running smoothly. Nevertheless, it is incredible how I encounter new heroes within environment work.

Environmental organizations are hard at work in every country and discovering what each of them is doing is a constant source of inspiration. I feel fortunate in my job as every day brings an opportunity to meet a new hero and that is a testament to the power of our shared mission. 

****

Discover more about Zero Waste Network Aotearoa and their initiatives at https://zerowaste.co.nz/. Support their mission to promote Zero Waste practices and sustainability in Aotearoa (New Zealand) by becoming a member or by participating in their online and offline trainings and events. Visit their Facebook page: Zero Waste Network Aotearoa or connect with them through this link.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) channels $270 billion in tax credits for climate investments but raises concerns about incineration—a false solution to waste disposal that could generate 637.7 million tonnes of CO2e emissions over two decades, further harming the environment and disadvantaged communities.

By: Marcel Howard (Zero Waste Program Manager, US/Canada) and Jessica Roff (Plastics & Petrochemicals Program Manager, US/Canada)

Key Highlights

  • The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is primarily a tax bill. Of the promised $369 billion in climate investments, $270 billion will come in the form of tax credits1
  • Incineration is one of the most polluting and expensive waste disposal systems. Industry2 often greenwashes incineration as  “waste-to-energy”3 despite producing minimal amounts of usable energy and massive energy input
  • By measuring the lifecycle climate impacts of incineration accurately, the Department of the Treasury can deny polluting facilities billions in tax credits intended for actual sustainable energy solutions and ultimately delay or block their construction or expansion
  • If industry succeeds in propping up incinerators for 20 years, they will produce 637.7 million tonnes of climate-change-inducing CO2e emissions and further exacerbate toxic pollution and environmental racism4
  • Pairing new subsidies for incinerators with incentives for EVs is perverse
  • Turning waste, including fossil fuel-derived plastics, into jet fuel is dangerous and does not decarbonize air travel 
  • Two-thirds of US incinerators are located in states that include incineration in their renewable energy portfolio
  • The IRA allocated billions of dollars in lending subsidies specifically meant to drive reinvestment in low-wealth and environmental justice communities. Environmental justice, frontline, and fenceline groups should consider applying for these IRA lending programs

Background

The United States (US) has a waste problem compounded by a plastic problem. For decades, we have been handling our waste in ways that harm communities, our climate, and the natural world. Federal, state, and municipal governments continue to site waste incinerators of all forms in Black, brown, indigenous, and lower-wealth communities — plaguing them with decades of harmful air emissions, high levels of greenhouse gasses, toxic waste, accidents, and other health and safety-related concerns. From fossil fuel extraction to final waste product disposal, the entire production process damages these communities and numerous others. Across the board, incineration is one of the most polluting and expensive waste disposal systems.

Industry often greenwashes incineration as  “waste-to-energy” despite producing minimal amounts of usable energy and leverages this greenwashing to access billions of dollars in federal, state, and local green, renewable, and sustainable energy subsidies and tax breaks. Against this backdrop, the Biden Administration signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law on August 16, 2022. Many agencies are already approving and funding false solutions under the IRA. The Department of Energy (DOE) is funding new carbon capture programs at nearly $3.5 billion and allocating $1.2 billion of Justice40 money to develop direct air capture facilities. We are in a pivotal moment where the US must decide if it will take critical steps to lower greenhouse gas and toxic emissions and move toward a truly sustainable future or will continue to subsidize the dirtiest industries to annually emit millions of tonnes of new CO2 and other dangerous air pollutants.

IRA Overview

The Biden Administration claims its 755-page IRA is the most comprehensive climate bill in US history that is supposed to “make a historic commitment to build a new clean energy economy.” Its provisions on climate change mitigation, clean energy, and energy innovation dominate headlines, as it raises nearly $800 billion from multiple sources. President Biden said, “With this law, the American people won and the special interests lost.” To ensure this is true and stop the incinerator lobby and other special interests from cashing in on a new pool of taxpayer money, the federal government must implement critical changes to its business-as-usual model.

The IRA is primarily a tax bill. Of the promised $369 billion in climate investments, $270 billion will come in the form of tax credits. Before the IRA, Congress awarded tax credits to specific technologies (including incinerators) regardless of greenhouse gas emissions or community harm. Beginning in 2025, however, their eligibility will depend entirely on the Department of Treasury (Treasury) determining that they are zero-emission technologies. By measuring the lifecycle climate impacts of incineration accurately, Treasury can deny polluting facilities billions in tax credits intended for actual sustainable energy solutions and ultimately delay or block their construction or expansion.

Threats & False Solutions

Lifelines to Old, Failing Incinerators

Corporate polluters are corrupting the IRA, lobbying to weaken its rules and definitions to qualify for billions in new subsidies to expand and retrofit existing incinerators, most of which have been operating for an average of 32 years. It is nearly impossible to construct new conventional incinerators due to cost and community opposition, so industry is focused on expansion and modification. If industry succeeds in propping up incinerators for 20 years, they will produce 637.7 million tonnes of climate-change-inducing CO2e emissions and further exacerbate toxic pollution and environmental racism. 

Codifying False and Greenwashed Definitions

The incinerator lobby’s goal is to maximize subsidies, profits, and expansion and to use the IRA and other climate bills as a subsidized path to an undeserved sustainable image upgrade. In the context of the IRA, federal agencies such as the Treasury, the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can either categorize incineration as the dirty, expensive, polluting process it is or bolster industry’s claims that incineration produces sustainable energy. If the federal government supports industry’s definitions in the earliest stages of IRA implementation, they will frame agency action and provide billions in tax credits, likely being codified for many climate laws, including the IRA.

IRA Breakdown & Opportunities for the Incinerator Lobby 

The incinerator lobby is working to undermine all aspects of the IRA, specifically focusing on (1) the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), (2) Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), and (3) IRA lending programs. 

Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

In consultation with the Department of Agriculture and DOE, EPA implements the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The RFS program is a “national policy that requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel.” The four renewable fuel categories under the RFS are biomass-based diesel, cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Although long limited to liquid fuels like ethanol, Biden’s EPA is in the process of allowing electricity from certain types of bioenergy to generate eligible credits. Under the current proposal, electric vehicle manufacturers would contract with power producers to generate highly profitable RFS credits.

Pairing new subsidies for incinerators with incentives for EVs is perverse. While support for electric vehicles is vital, it must not be fueled by dirty energy nor sacrifice frontline and fenceline communities. Incinerator interests recently launched a lobbying campaign to secure these incentives. Fortunately, EPA is not required to allow incinerator electricity into the program and has recently tabled an industry-backed eligibility proposal. But, only public pressure on Biden’s EPA and key Administration climate deciders will ensure they don’t approve such proposals.

Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) 

As one of the most generous IRA incentives, the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Tax Credit (SAF) poses an urgent environmental justice concern. The credit increases in value for lower lifecycle emissions fuels. Treasury’s implementation will determine if this approach succeeds or fails. Industry interests are pushing to make the credit friendlier– and more lucrative–to a new generation of incinerators masquerading behind greenwashing like “pyrolysis,”  “chemical or advanced recycling,” and “plastic-to-fuel.” Turning waste, including fossil fuel-derived plastics, into jet fuel is dangerous and does not decarbonize air travel. 

Although the new aviation production tax credit theoretically excludes petroleum-based feedstocks like plastic, industry is pressuring the Administration to interpret the law to maximize benefits for incineration-based aviation fuels. President Biden and Treasury must decisively determine that plastic-derived fuel — including that derived from pyrolysis oil or any other product of chemical recycling/pyrolysis/gasification — is ineligible for these tax credits.

Lending Programs

The IRA allocated billions of new dollars to EPA and DOE, in particular, to expand existing lending programs and launch entirely new ones. Like the rest of the IRA, these programs’ climate and justice benefits depend on implementation. EPA is in charge of the new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), arguably the most important non-tax provision of the IRA. Worth $37 billion, it will be divided into three separate programs. EPA released broad, unenforceable guidelines in April 2023, suggesting they will focus lending on distributed generation, building decarbonization, and transport. These guidelines will not ensure the money is appropriately allocated, so EPA must prioritize applicants working on proven zero waste approaches. 

DOE is in charge of The Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program, a new loan guarantee program with $250 billion that must be spent before 2026. It can fund energy infrastructure upgrades and the reopening of defunct energy infrastructure, both of which industry could coopt to support their ongoing incineration and chemical recycling plans. DOE must refuse to consider any incinerator applications to guarantee industry does not use loopholes to access clean energy tax credits. 

In July, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee passed the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies budget for Fiscal Year 2024. Their budget supports chemical recycling while cutting massive amounts from EPA’s budget and the IRA’s environmental justice efforts, including a nearly $4 billion EPA budget cut (a 39% reduction over 2023), reneging on the IRA’s $1.35 billion promised in environmental and climate justice grants.

Call to Action 

The incinerator lobby is so desperate for money and a government-greenwashed reputation that they launched a new, big-money–astroturf5 network, including DC power brokers and local government enablers. The combined movements6 for climate justice don’t have industry money, but we have people power, the truth, and a prime opportunity to fight against this industry push. There are three key areas in which to counter industry’s agenda: (1) Treasury engagement, (2) state-level renewable portfolio standards, and (3)  IRA lending subsidies. 

Treasury Engagement

As the Washington Post exposed in May 2023, the incinerator industry is among polluting industries racing to position themselves as green to access billions in subsidies and tax credits. In the last year alone, industry launched two trade groups to push their message: the Waste-to-Energy Association and the Circular Economy Coalition. Both have made comments to access benefits for incinerators under the Inflation Reduction Act, or considered prioritizing it. Industry is dedicated to getting Treasury to qualify incinerators as renewable, despite overwhelming evidence that incinerators are extremely polluting. 

It is critical to engage with Treasury as it develops policies, rules, regulations, and procedures to implement the IRA. If Treasury determines this most costly and polluting form of energy is zero emission, it will set an appallingly low bar within the IRA that will exacerbate rather than address the climate crisis, perpetuating and compounding the issues we currently face, and permanently scarring the Biden Administration legacy.

State-level Renewable Portfolio Standards 

The IRA has broad implications, reaching far beyond the federal level of government. Defeating federal government incinerator giveaways in the IRA and other federal climate initiatives will strengthen communities fighting state and local government incinerator giveaways. Currently, different states provide a patchwork of policies and incentives related to incineration. Perhaps most notable are state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). Twenty-nine states, the District of Columbia, and four US territories have an RPS. Each RPS has its own renewable electricity targets, defines what technologies qualify as renewable, designates particular technologies as higher or lower tier within the mix, and enables the trading or sale of renewable energy credits. Two-thirds of US incinerators are located in the 26 US states and territories that include incineration in their renewable energy portfolio. Showing industry’s power, scope, and connections at both the federal and state levels of government. It also shows an entrenched mentality that incineration is a clean energy solution. It is imperative that the IRA does not follow suit.

IRA Lending Subsidies

Along with Treasury engagement, environmental justice, frontline, and fenceline groups should consider applying to IRA lending programs. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) and DOE’s Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program offers billions of dollars for projects specifically meant to drive reinvestment in low-wealth and environmental justice communities. Both programs provide an opportunity to fund proven zero waste solutions that push back against false solutions, like incineration. 

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): The GGRFis a $27 billion investment program designed to achieve the following: “ (1) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants;  (2) deliver benefits of greenhouse gas, and air pollution-reducing projects specifically to low-wealth and disadvantaged communities; and (3)  mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of greenhouse gas and air pollution reducing projects.” The GGRF is being implemented via three grant competitions, which include: (1) the National Clean Investment Fund, (2) the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and (3) the Solar for All Fund.”7 

The National Clean Investment Fund: “The National Clean Investment Fund competition will provide grants to 2-3 national nonprofit clean financing institutions7 capable of partnering with the private sector to provide accessible, affordable financing for tens of thousands of clean technology projects across the country.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Grants.gov. Application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023, at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time) through Grants.gov.

The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator: “The Clean Communities Investment Accelerator competition will provide grants to 2-7 hub nonprofits that will, in turn, deliver funding and technical assistance to build the clean financing capacity of local community lenders working in low-wealth and disadvantaged communities so that underinvested communities have the capital they need to deploy clean technology projects.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Grants.gov. Application packages must be submitted on or before October 12, 2023, at 11:59 PM (Eastern Time) through Grants.gov. 

DOE Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment (EIR) Program: “The EIR Program provides $250 billion for projects that retool, repower, repurpose, or replace energy infrastructure that has ceased operations or enable operating energy infrastructure to avoid, reduce, utilize, or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit Energy.gov. Individuals interested in applying should request a no-cost pre-application consultation with a member from DOE’s Loan Programs Office. 

USDA Empowering Rural America (New ERA) Program: “The ERA program provides $9.7 billion for projects that help rural Americans transition to clean, affordable, and reliable energy intending to improve health outcomes and lower energy costs for people in rural communities.” To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit USDA.gov. Individuals interested in applying should submit a Letter of Interest (LOI) by September 15, 2023.  

Conclusion 

On paper, the Biden Administration’s IRA may be the most comprehensive climate legislation in history, but it also has the immense potential to be a climate destroyer. We are at a crossroads where the Administration and all other levels of government have the power to use the IRA for its stated purpose to “confront the existential threat of the climate crisis and set forth a new era of American innovation and ingenuity to lower consumer costs and drive the global clean energy economy forward.” To make the promise a reality, the Administration — including all the executive agencies, particularly Treasury, Energy, and EPA — cannot succumb to industry greenwashing lobbying.

The Biden Administration must accurately measure the lifecycle climate and health impacts of all forms of incineration and its products (including pyrolysis and gasification) and unequivocally determine that it is not a source of clean energy or a safe way to make jet fuel. It will be up to our ever-expanding movement to hold the Administration accountable to the ideal of the IRA and ensure it is not another greenwashed handout to industry — and that its tax credits and funding go to sustainable solutions that benefit the Black, brown, indigenous, and low wealth communities as it initially intended. 

For more information on the Inflation Reduction Act and its lending programs, visit our fact sheet here.

Resources 
  1. As a tax bill, the categories and definitions of processes are critical because they will determine if a process is covered under it. Historically, there have been some good and some bad determinative definitions (including currently for chemical recycling). ↩︎
  2.  Industry refers to the plastics, incinerator, fossil fuel, and chemical industries who are all perpetuating the plastic waste problem ↩︎
  3.  Industry labels waste-to-energy (WTE) a number of different ways including: plastic-to-fuel (PTF), plastic-to-energy (PTE), refuse-derived-fuel, etc. ↩︎
  4.  This is entirely dependent on if the federal government places incinerators into favorable categories for purposes of massive amounts of tax credits and de facto subsidies. ↩︎
  5.  Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants. ↩︎
  6.  The movement includes, but is not limited to – and is always open to expand – the environmental justice movement, climate movement, conservation movement, public health movement, plastics movement, etc. ↩︎
  7. The deadline for the Solar for All Competition has recently been extended to October 12, 2023. Please review this link for additional information: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-launches-7-billion-solar-all-grant-competition-fund#:~:text=The%20Solar%20for%20All%20competition,%2C%20Tribal%20governments%2C%20municipalities%2C%20and ↩︎
Our Work
Global Community
Donate