incineration

-  by Josh Newtown, April 23, 2014, Tahlequah Daily Press

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"227","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 275px; height: 183px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]TAHLEQUAH — Negotiations involving the purchase of nearly 20 homes on 7 acres of land near Basin Avenue hit a snag Monday night when concerns surfaced over potential contamination of the area.

Tahlequah Mayor Jason Nichols had proposed the city purchase the homes and duplexes as a large step in a greenbelt project, which would establish a solid park and trail system from the downtown area to the site of the city’s old solid waste transfer station.

Until Monday, details of the negotiations had been mostly discussed behind closed doors, though Nichols confirmed the list price for the property to be $480,000.

After an executive session Monday night, councilors emerged and announced they had concerns that soil in the area might be contaminated. Councilors then voted unanimously to deny the purchase of the property.

“Of foremost concern is the questionable quality of the soil in the area,” Weston said in an email to the Daily Press. “We were informed [Monday] night that back in the ‘60s, the land where the homes sit now was a dump site from an incinerator. Waste was allegedly burned in an incinerator and then dumped on Basin as landfill. Knowing that young children would likely be exposed to any possible hazards, the councilors want to ensure the safety of our citizens and have the soil tested.”

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"207","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 160px; height: 156px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;"}}]]- by Mike Ewall, Energy Justice Network

While Energy Justice Network's work is mainly focused on helping you win grassroots victories, we've had to weigh in on some state and national policies that would have major consequences for how many bad ideas need to be fought. Misguided policies aiming to limit coal or climate pollution continue to push (fracked) gas and biomass/waste incineration as false solutions. We encourage you to look over some of the well-documented comments we put together and to borrow from them in your own work, as needed. 

EPA's CO2 Rule for New Fossil Fuel Power Plants: thank you to the nearly 600 of you who responded to our action alert in May, telling EPA that loopholes for "clean coal" / carbon sequestration, natural gas, biomass and waste incineration are unacceptable! 

Department of Energy Subsidies for Incinerators: a Solyndra-related program to provide billions in loan guarantees to renewable energy and energy efficiency would subsidize trash and biomass incinerators and biofuels, even though the program is required to fund only technologies that reduce greenhouse gases. These technologies are among the worst greenhouse gas emitters! Within just six days, over the 3-day Memorial Day weekend, we pulled together 131 groups on a sign-on letter challenging this, including about 100 grassroots or state/regional groups from 27 states plus DC and Puerto Rico as well as about 30 national / international groups, including some of the big greens: Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA and Sierra Club.

COMING UP: EPA's CO2 Rule for Existing Fossil Fuel Power Plants: this rule just came out this week, and is riddled with loopholes as we expected. We're concerned that this rule does far too little (nearly 2/3rds of the reductions required by 2020 over 2005 emissions levels were already accomplished without any rule!), and that it could do more harm than good by encouraging a switch from coal to fuels more polluting than coal for the climate, like natural gas and biomass/waste incineration. Biomass is 50% worse than coal for the climate; trash incineration 2.5 times worse.

The plan also would keep open risky and dangerous old nuclear power plants that the industry recently decided it wants to close, and subsidize the building of new reactors, sucking up the money we need for a genuine transition to clean energy. Coal is already on the decline without a CO2 rule due to activism and geology (we've used much of it up and the remainder is getting too expensive to extract). This rule is so weak that it'll do less than what would happen anyway, but could make things worse if we don't beat down these false solutions.

EPA's Waste-to-Fuels (WTF) Deregulation: We're working with Earthjustice and the Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance (GAIA) to figure out how to stop this dreadful trend to redefine wastes into unregulated "fuels" that can be burned in any of about one million boilers in the nation's industries, schools, hospitals and other businesses.

In the States: We've commented and testified on several flawed energy and waste bills in Maryland that would encourage biomass and waste incineration, none of which passed by the end of this year's session. We've also recently commented on Maryland's incinerator-friendly draft Zero Waste Plan and filed comments on New York's new Energy Plan.  Feel free to borrow from our comments in your own advocacy.  We're also working with the Washington, DC City Council to ban styrofoam and adopt a zero waste plan that would start curbside composting, make electronic waste recycling more responsible, and end the city's use of incinerators.

- by Mike Ewall, Energy Justice Network

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"206","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"338","style":"width: 444px; height: 333px; margin: 5px 10px; float: left;","width":"450"}}]]Most progress in stopping polluting energy and waste industries is accomplished by grassroots activism, stopping one project at a time. Many assume that grassroots groups are "NIMBY" types just pushing polluters from one community to another. However, 50% to 95% of each wave of industrial development in recent decades has been blocked, be it coal, gas or nuclear power plants, biomass or waste incinerators, landfills or related industries. Most groups quickly move from NIMBY to "Not in Anyone's Backyard" (NIABY) mindsets once they see the bigger picture and get networked with similarly-targeted communities. 

We need to step up the solidarity in the face of new trends, however. We're seeing coal use declining, but rising record levels of natural gas use, and stronger-than-ever push for waste and biomass incineration as a climate solution. We're even seeing this in the Obama Administration's CO2 and waste deregulation rules, which threaten to do more harm than good as coal power plants are encouraged to switch to these false solutions.

It's now fairly well documented that natural gas is worse than coal for the climate, due to leakage throughout the system and the fact that methane is now known to be 86 to 105 times worse than CO2 over a 20-year time-frame. It's also now well-documented that trash incineration is 2.5 times as bad as coal for the climate, and that biomass incineration is 50% worse -- and that these are not "carbon neutral" as claimed. It's also a fact that trash incineration is far worse than coal by every other measure of pollution. 

Despite these facts, EPA is pushing an unprecedented deregulation effort that will allow wastes to become "fuels" that can be burned, unregulated and without community notification, in coal power plants and even your neighborhood elementary school's boiler. This waste-to-fuels rule is a giant, undiscussed loophole.

It's urgent that we band together comprehensively as anti-combustion advocates. Just as it's not acceptable to stop a coal plant and encourage it to be built in the next county or state, it's not acceptable to allow the coal plant in your area to switch to burning trees, trash or gas when those impacts will be felt locally, globally, and across a different set of impacted communities where gas or trees are extracted, pipelines are built, or toxic ash is dumped.

- by Jaisal Noor, May 27, 2014, The Real News 

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"110","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 200px; height: 200px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;"}}]]VIDEO HERE

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: This is Baltimore's Benjamin Franklin High. Will a the country's largest incinerator, being built just one mile from here, endanger the health of the students at the school?

The Energy Answers Fairfield Renewable Energy Project will burn 4,000 tons of trash, shredded tires, and cars each day.

Supporters say it will adhere to the strictest air pollution controls in the country.

- by Lisa Wozniak, June 2, 2014, Lansing News

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"203","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 480px; height: 410px; float: left; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px;","title":"Photo: MLive"}}]]People in politics tell a lot of “success” stories, but one that can be substantiated is the rise of clean, renewable energy in Michigan. Thanks to a law passed with bipartisan support in 2008, Michigan has been challenged to generate 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources like wind, solar, or water by 2015. We are currently on track to meet or exceed that goal, which has resulted in job creation, cost reductions, and cleaner air and water.

Despite a track record of success, however, efforts to increase the use of clean renewable energy in Michigan are under attack. Besides a looming expiration date of 2015 on our clean energy goals, state legislators want to rewrite the definition of renewable energy to include some of the dirtiest, most hazardous substances generated by oil refineries and coal plants. They want us to consider hazardous waste and petroleum byproducts clean, renewable energy.

[No intention of getting into pro-choice vs. pro-life discussion--it's just important to know where your energy comes from. -Ed.]

- by Joe Schaeffer, April 23, 2014. Source: Newsmax

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"182","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 280px; height: 210px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: SustainableBusinessOregon.com"}}]]Aborted human fetuses are being shipped from British Columbia to the United States, where they are incinerated to provide electricity for Oregon residents.

The British Columbia Health Ministry has admitted the fetuses are ending up in a waste-to-power facility that provides power to Oregonians, LifeSiteNews reports.

The Health Ministry disclosed in an email to the B.C. Catholic, the official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Vancouver, that "biomedical waste" sent to the U.S. for incineration includes "human tissue, such as surgically removed cancerous tissue, amputated limbs, and fetal tissue."

- by Mike Ewall, Energy Justice Network

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"60","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 377px; height: 399px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;"}}]]VICTORY!!  For a second year in a row, pro-incinerator legislation in Maryland was defeated.  This stealthy legislation was written by Covanta (the nation's largest trash incineration company) and would put Maryland on the path to burning nearly all of the waste that isn't recycled. 

The legislation takes the Renewable Portfolio Standard concept (which mandates a phase-in of renewable energy) and applies it to municipal solid waste (trash).  Without even mentioning incineration, this "Recycling and Landfill Diversion Portfolio Standard" would move the state toward increased recycling, but require that the remainder be diverted from direct dumping in landfills. Rather than move away from both landfills and incinerators, the bill would create the market for burning nearly all of the non-recycled waste in the state, before dumping the ash in landfills. This fits with efforts by many corporations and cities to hijack the concept of "zero waste" to make it mean "zero waste to landfill"— pushing incineration and pretending that the ash isn't then dumped in landfills.

In 2011, Maryland was the first state to bump trash incineration into Tier I of their Renewable Portfolio Standard, putting it in competition with wind power. This awful idea, pioneered in Maryland, is now being pushed in several other states. Please look out in your state for these covert attempts to promote incineration in the guise of recycling and "landfill diversion."

This bill in Maryland passed the Maryland House, but was stopped in the Senate when their Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee voted unanimously (11 to zero) to reject the bill. See www.energyjustice.net/md/ for more information on this and other pro-incineration bills we worked to stop (all of which are dead for this year).

Many thanks to all who helped stop this misguided legislation, most especially Greg Smith of Community Research and the following organizations: Assateague Coastal Trust, Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Water Action, Community Research, Crabshell Alliance, Energy Justice Network, Food & Water Watch, Free Your Voice, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, No Incinerator Alliance, Sierra Club, United Workers, Waste Not! Carroll, Wicomico Environmental Trust, and Zero Waste Prince George's.

[Biomass industry pushing for even less regulation of their dirtiest fuel source. -Ed.]

- by Erin Voegele, March 27, 2014. Source: Biomass Magazine

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"171","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"384","style":"width: 333px; height: 272px; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: http://teknologi-bahanbinaan.blogspot.com/","width":"470"}}]]On March 27, the U.S. EPA released a proposed rule to amend its Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The NHSM rule was finalized in February 2013 and establishes standards and procedures for identifying whether non-hazardous secondary materials are solid wastes when used as fuels or ingredients in combustion units.

Information published by the EPA explains that if a material is classified as solid waste under RRA, a combustion unit burning it must meet Clean Air Act section 129 emission standards for solid waste incineration units. Alternatively, if the material is not considered a solid waste, combustion units that burn it are required to meet the CAA section 112 emission standards for commercial, industrial and institutional boilers.

Residents of six counties in North and South Carolina facing massive chicken and pig-manure burning biomass power incinerators, including a man dressed as a chicken [pictured below], were barred from giving testimony at a North Carolina Utilities Commission hearing over biomass electricity requirements on August 28 in Raleigh.

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"41","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"360","width":"480"}}]]