On the path of technocration, to the ienzos
Lately they use word by word the subject of incineration. In this topic there have appeared opposing positions and we think they must necessarily appear. And the debate can be translated into the meeting of different models.
At the ERREKA Platform we believe that betting on incineration will mean a loss of future opportunities to promote solidarity in our society. And when we say in the future, rather than protecting the environment, we believe that with proper management of our resources and without generating pollution, it will hinder the promotion of local R&D. At the end of the century, chimneys are chimneys.
The Provincial Council of Bizkaia and Zabalgarbi want to build two incinerating plants to treat 458,000 tons of garbage. This figure is higher than the garbage generated today and obviously the recycling criterion has not been taken into account, although both entities state otherwise. Through the conceptual analysis of incineration, we find an incinerated society model that relates development to increased consumption.
On the other hand, it is said that the German regulations will be used to control emissions, but it is known that it is not respected. They say that the emission of dioxins will not exceed the value of 0.1 ng/m3, but does not guarantee that it does not adversely affect our health. The US EPA has recognized that dioxins can cause cancer and accumulate in living beings, criteria that have not been taken into account when carrying out the project. In addition, other contaminants such as heavy metals are generated during incineration, which have not yet been overcome. Would the incinerator close if any such problem arose? In addition, incineration reduces waste, but it is delivered in the same proportion that is obtained in composting, that is, it reduces waste by a third, while the waste that remains at the end of the process is toxic and dangerous waste according to data provided by the Vice Ministry of the Environment.
The energy recovery that is often cited in this incineration debate is also noteworthy. Since Lemoiz's theme, it is an incomplete internal wound of the PNV party, and saying that it can be used to facilitate a hidden business is not just a suspicion. As for the incinerating plant that is intended to be implemented in Bizkaia, only a third of the raw material will be garbage and the rest will be derived from oil. Basically we are considering the creation of a new thermal power plant, without saying that we have three similar plants practically unused (Santurtzi, Burtzeña and Pasaia).
Consequently, incorrect management of our waste will directly affect the electricity bill that we pay all of us, since in this case the Decree of Self-destruction that regulates the use of kilowatts generated therein will be interpreted tortuously. Based on this resource that was created to achieve the opposite effect, the rate of household waste can be prevented from increasing, since failure to do so will increase by 500%. All this means that the annual amount we pay (15,000 or 20,000 pesetas), we will have to pay through the light and covertly.
The incineration of waste is a very expensive technique, since it is necessary to create special infrastructures to reduce the emissions generated in the incinerator plant and for the treatment of secondary products and slags: conditioning of systems of treatment of gas emissions, creation of safety cells for the accumulation of slags or the implementation of plasma treatments for the management of the problem of ashes. All this means 40,000 million pesetas, so each vizcaíno must provide 34,000 pesetas. They say that the operating cost of the incinerator will be 5,000 million pesetas (it is to be seen! ), i.e. 4,200 pesetas per inhabitant. All this without taking into account the security cell to be built for the management of the slag generated in the process.
In the environmental platform ERREKA we are against incineration in our environment (Vitoria-Gasteiz and Montejurra) because there are totally different experiences that indicate that there are more effective future paths – the time of use of the landfills of 10 years. Why now worry over time? In short, we believe that behind this debate there is something more important than the incineration debate. Among other things, there is another model of understanding development, defending the sustainability of an environment with limited resources and claiming the right to a correct management of our waste, is, in short, to start taking small steps to balance our way of life and enable new models of the future, which is behind that explosion.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
