Waste and Recycling

At last Britain, with the exception of Birmingham, seems to be taking steps to catch up with other European and North American countries. In a major recent development London has now set a 40% recycling target by 2005 (excluding energy recovery) and announced a five year moratorium on incineration to help recycling to develop.

Following this initiative I wrote to Councillor Margaret Wells, Chair, Environmental Services Committee to clarify FOE's position as our objectives are similar to those currently in operation in London. The letter stated:

The aims expressed above are also in accordance with European directives/guidance as well as national recycling targets. As such they should be both reasonable and attainable. However, at the time of going to print, Margaret Wells (Chair, Environmental Services Commitee) has not replied to the letter dated 19th April nor has she replied to any telephone calls.

MPs' response

A copy of this letter has been sent to all of Birmingham's MPs and other councillors who are members of the Environmental Services Committee and interested Council officials. Two MPs have now written letters of support stating that "representations will be made on your behalf" and "I have written asking whether the Council has plans to improve its record on waste recycling apart from expansion of the incineration programme".

Just ask yourself if you believe the Council make it easy for you to recycle plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Plastic is particularly harmful when burnt and aluminium can be recycled efficiently and the scrap sold for a significant value (approx. £450 per tonne). If the answer is yes you don't need to take any further action. If the answer is no are you wondering why we are paying for waste to be burned when we could be creating jobs and saving money by improving recycling?

Simple solutions:

• composting (up to 30% of waste)
• kerbside collection and sorting schemes
• support and recycling credits for local businesse

FOE's current position

This current campaign is necessary as it appears to be the only way to get the Council to talk to us in a meaningful way. Last year the only way we could get the Council to talk to us was to embarrass it by getting press coverage stating that it refused to do so. After being confronted with this on local radio the Council said it was willing to talk to FOE. Unfortunately these discussions have merely centred on the Council trying to convince us it really is doing a good job on recycling and reduction. Any more meaningful discussions were refused on the basis that:

• the Council represents the whole of Birmingham and not just FOE
• too busy for regular discussions
• FOE must use the Local Agenda 21 Environmental Forum and Ward Sub-committee meetings for further discussion.

It is essential that FOE continue to act fairly and properly in all its dealings with the Council. The door must always remain open to continue to give the Council the opportunity to discuss the objectives above. However, discussions relating to any other matters merely confuse the real issues and need to be avoided.

Possible legislative changes

There have been recent changes, and are likely to be more, including a new European Incineration Directive. This will inevitably make incineration an increasingly more expensive option. The following developments are probable in the near future:

• further emission reductions
• resulting additional costs to upgrade existing incinerators
• incineration taxes (following on from landfill taxes)

Watch this space for further information!

What can you do?

If you haven't yet written to Margaret Wells, Ian Coghill, your councillor or MP please, please, please do so as soon as possible. This is probably the only way in which policy will be changed. All necessary information regarding the issues is contained in the April/May Action Briefing (copies available from The Warehouse -Ed). Relevant contact addresses and phone numbers are as below:

• phone or write to Councillor Margaret Wells, Chair, Environmental Services Committee, Birmingham City Council, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B1 1BB. Tel. no. 0121-303 3137
• phone or write to Councillor Ian Coghill, Assistant Director, Environmental Services Committee, Birmingham City Council, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham B1 1BB. Tel. no. 0121-303 6101
• write to your MP at The House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA (phone FOE on 0121 632 6909 for names)
• write to your local councillor (FOE can provide names- see above)
• ask FOE for further information: Our leaflet 'Tyseley Incinerator the Inhibitor of Recycling' and national FOE's leaflet 'Incineration - a Burning Issue' are available upon request
• discuss your concerns with friends, neighbours and relatives. FOE will be happy to talk about the subject to any groups

If you have already written a letter:

Please forward a copy of the response to Paul Webb at The Warehouse. Everyone who has written will probably have received a similar letter with standard excuses for inactivity and attempts to convince writers that a good job has been done. Please, please please write another letter expressing your concerns and asking for increases in recycling and reductions/capping of volumes going for incineration. Further information which may assist you to respond is listed below.

FOE's Responses to Council's statements

FOE response - most of Britain's cities are well short of national and European targets which lag behind best practice elsewhere e.g. California and Ontario (50%+ by 2000), Nurnburg (50%) etc.. 80% of household waste could be recycled (incl. 30% composting). BCC should not be satisfied with comparison with poor practice but should strive to meet the best in Europe and North America. In London a 40% target (excluding energy recovery) has been set for 2005, and a 5 year moratorium has been placed on incineration, to help recycling develop.

FOE response - this is difficult to comment on without seeing the Audit Commission's report. However, it is most likely that the accuracy of the figures have been verified as opposed to any comments about the rate of recycling which is poor.

FOE response - Recycling actually saves more energy than can be created by EFW incineration. There are no advantages to incineration other than convenience. Incineration is actually a major polluter, constituting a major risk to health, which could be largely avoided by emphasis on waste reduction and recycling.

FOE response - Simply not true! The Royal Commission, European legislation and recent Coopers and Lybrand report all place EFW incineration below recycling in the "waste hierarchy". Indeed landfill and all forms of incineration should be "last resort" methods of waste disposal. Far greater priorities are reducing and then recycling. Similarly recycling versus EFW incineration has been proven to save money, create jobs and reduce pollution. BCC are currently trying, to classify EFW incineration as recycling in order to "fudge" the figures and get round government targets (25% by 2000 and 40% by 2005) which they admit will not be met otherwise.

FOE response - This is a poor excuse for not recycling! More than one in three local authorities in the UK have a collection scheme for plastic bottles, why can't Birmingham do the same? Recycling one plastic bottle saves enough energy to run a 60 watt light bulb for 6 hours. 99% of plastic bottles can be sorted into three types all suitable for- recycling. Revenue raised would be approximately £180 per tonne. Surely it is better to generate this revenue than to pay someone to burn plastic! Also the burning of plastics produces dioxins which are one of the most toxic substances known to man. BCC should be instrumental in trying to help generate the plastic recycling market e.g. by promoting composting bins on a much larger scale.

FOE response - Improving recycling is self financing. Other countries with higher recycling rates are creating jobs and saving money e.g. Ontario and California.

FOE response - BCC should take a lead in helping to create markets for recycled products e.g. by extending composting schemes using bins made of recycled plastic. Similarly, BCC should insist as part of its tendering process that all major suppliers have comprehensive environmental policies and are Eco Management Audit Scheme (EMAS) registered.

FOE response - dioxins are one of the most toxic substances known to man linked with cancer, respiratory problems, damage to immune system and hormone disruption. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) state that hospital and municipal waste incinerators together produce about 90% of air emission of dioxin. All incinerators produce dioxin and there are no safe doses. A lifetime dose equivalent to a single grain of salt divided into 9,900 pieces could damage a person's immune system or cause other problems. In order to avoid unnecessary risk incineration should thus be avoided (i.e. following the precautionary principle). The UK's 'tolerable daily intake' (TDI) for dioxins is about 100 times less stringent than the US Environment Protection Agency considers to be safe for the non-cancer health risks and about a thousand times less stringent than they calculate to give a cancer risk of one in a million (their usual benchmark).

FOE response - European law does not set limits for dioxins but a limit has been set by the UK Environment Agency. Other countries are already operating to higher standards. For example standards for dioxin emissions in Holland and the USA are ten times more stringent than the new UK standards. Also new European legislation will be introduced soon which the Tyseley EFW incinerator does not comply with. Any modifications will probably add to the Council's waste costs with likely increases in council tax following.

FOE response - as BCC has signed a twenty five year contract, with the Tyseley Waste Disposal Company (TWD), committing Birmingham to the incineration of waste, its actions have subjected the people of Birmingham to health risks. It is morally unnacceptable for BCC to attempt to absolve itself of all responsibility for the effectiveness of the incinerator. Although a shareholder in TWD, BCC does not appear to have any representation at Board level. This appears to be a further "distancing" tactic to avoid responsibility should anything go wrong. Unfortunately, the under resourced EA is unlikely to be able to be in a position to carry out any adequate independent monitoring.

In short Birmingham City Council should be held accountable for its actions.

Paul Webb