Here at Better BTU, we’ve said that instead of carrying the
financial burden of jumpstarting the clean energy industry, one of the best
things the U.S. government can do is promote the benefits of the
waste-to-energy process through education. And it looks like our friends across
the pond are trying to relay the same message.
BPF Director General Peter Davis |
Director General of British Plastics Federation Peter Davis
called on the government to “get off the fence” in a published letter to The Times on Apr. 11. His message came
in response to an article by John Simpson two days earlier that claimed
“millionaires and local activists have joined forces across Britan to fight
proposals for scores of huge incinerators.”
The fundamental catalyst for change is education and we
think it’s an excellent starting point for the British and U.S. governments.
Just as Sherlock Holmes would boil things down to the most elementary level to
solve his cases, educating the public on the basic facts of our environmental
situation and the waste-to-energy process will stop the frenzied protests that
often break out at the word ‘incinerator.’
As we discussed
in an earlier blog post, San Jose has taken on an ambitious initiative to
radically reduce its carbon footprint. While the city’s success in diverting
trash from landfills and creating green jobs is impressive, perhaps more
important is the success it has had in educating the public on WHY the changes
are necessary, resulting in an active and supportive community. (See: San Jose Sets the Emerald Standard for Green Cities).
Statue of Sherlock Holmes |
Davis reinforces this point when he calls on the local
councils to “consult in depth on proposals so as to ensure the whole community
understands the benefits, rather than just engage with head-in-the-sand local groups.”
Waste-to-energy (or energy for waste as it is referred to in
the UK) technology has made substantial progress over the past 30 years. Studies by both government and
independent entities have proved that today’s processes, whether incineration,
gasification or anaerobic digestion, are clean and effective without releasing
harmful emissions or endangering the health of the surrounding communities.
Davis even uses Denmark an example to show that “higher recycling rates are not
negatively affected by increased energy from waste.”
Of course there will always be a small percent of people who
will never be convinced, no matter how much factual evidence is presented (hey,
we still have folks that think the lunar landing was staged!) But by educating
the greater community with updated information on waste-to-energy processes, it
will reduce the effect of radicals showing decades-old images of incinerators
spewing black smoke from its stacks. Our advice to government: get off the fence and get in the
game!
Further Reading:
BPF Slams
Government Over Lack of Support For 'Energy From Waste' – Plastics
& Rubber Weekly, Apr. 11, 2012
Consulted
and Ignored: Council Takes Legal Action Over Incinerator – The Times,
Apr. 9, 2012
EFW
Hindered by Lack of Incentives – Packaging News, Apr. 24, 2012
This article in The Economist, published on June 2, 2012 goes along wonderfully with what we've been talking about here. http://www.economist.com/node/21556095?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/talking_trash
ReplyDelete