1 / 11

Submission into Waste Generation & Resource Efficiency

This submission by Dr. Michael C. Clarke discusses the need for waste minimisation and the potential of incineration with energy recovery as a valid waste management practice. It highlights the false expectations created by the promise of Zero Waste and the importance of considering environmental safeguards in waste management decisions. The submission also emphasizes the need for Life Cycle Analyses to determine the most suitable practices within the Waste Hierarchy.

tsaez
Download Presentation

Submission into Waste Generation & Resource Efficiency

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Submission into Waste Generation & Resource Efficiency Dr. Michael C Clarke, CPEng, FIEAust, RPEQ CEO M.E.T.T.S. Pty. Ltd. ABN 66 050 710 015

  2. Themes of Submission (1) • Zero Waste is not a reality: it is a goal • Waste minimisation however makes good sense in both social and economic (Resource Efficiency) contexts, • The promise of Zero Waste can create false expectations in developed and developing communities, and • Zero Waste proponents can adversely effect sound waste management decisions.

  3. Themes of Submission (2) • Incineration with Energy Recovery is a valid way to manage many wastes, including municipal wastes, and • It can be undertaken with strong environmental safeguards that protect the community more efficiently and securely than any other waste disposal option.

  4. The Waste Management Hierarchy

  5. The Application of the Hierarchy • Assists with emphasising opportunities in waste management, but • Does not take into account the cost of resources and energy in moving a waste up the Hierarchy, nor • Takes into account health and other risks in such a movement.

  6. Incineration with Energy Recovery(1) • Is being carried out successfully with no harmful environmental consequences, and • By following the EU Guidelines on Incineration of Wastes emissions are not harmful to human beings.

  7. Incineration with Energy Recovery(2) • Produce a biologically inert ash, • Significantly reduce the amount of material going to landfill, and • Produce a significant amount of energy for community use.

  8. Who is Incinerating Municipal Wastes - Safely (some examples) • The Europeans, including the Irish, • The Singaporeans, • The Japanese, and • The British.

  9. Should Australia do likewise? • Yes, despite claims that we have plenty of room for landfills (TIPS!) • Why: Landfills are not productive in any real sense. They can only produce a fraction of the energy from waste as can be obtained by incineration, and they LEAK!

  10. Conclusion (1) • Waste creation is part of human existence, • Each generation will produce a mark on the environment that will exist for many generations, • That mark should be minimised as far as possible, • The minimisation should not be to a point that we adversely effect our social and economic stability, and • Zero Waste in an unachievable goal.

  11. Conclusion (2) • Incineration with Energy Recovery is a very legitimate waste management practice, • For each waste Life Cycle Analyses are required to find what are the currently most suitable practices in terms of the Waste Hierarchy, and • May we all produce less waste, and the waste that we do produce, may it be cleanly and productively managed.

More Related