The existing Edmonton incinerator

• DOROTHEA Hackman (Petition against this new incinerator, February 7) and Primavera Boman (Oppose this absurd idea for a new incinerator, February 14) both raise important points about waste incineration.

There is much that I agree with. First, as Ms Boman points out, we used to produce far less waste and recycle far more. I remember very well the glass bottles of milk, and was sad when our dairy stopped delivering them in our area.

Secondly, Ms Hackman rightly points to the terrible impact of plastics on our environment, and the devastating role of micro plastics on sea life and birds. These issues are critical.

But it seems to me that the larger question of the Edmonton plant requires a more nuanced response. It is a brand new plant, designed to replace one that was built in 1971 that is now badly out of date. It needs replacing.

The two million people living in north London, which it serves, are not about to stop producing waste, no matter how much we would like them to.

The new plant is claimed to include: “a major investment boost for recycling and the delivery of a world-class energy recovery facility to stop north London’s unrecyclable waste from rotting in landfill.”

We need to hold them to this promise, and to their commitment to increase the proportion of the waste that is recycled. The waste that cannot be recycled will be incinerated. The heat this produces will provide power for our homes; enough for 127,000 homes in total.

In Sweden there are plants that are so efficient that they are running out of waste to burn. And their incineration is so effective that very few noxious gases are emitted. This is what we must demand.

There is, of course, an alternative. We could send the waste to landfill. But at what a cost! Every tonne sent to landfill is rightly taxed – at £91 per tonne.

Worse still, the landfill emits methane, which is even worse for our planet than carbon dioxide. The new plant – it is claimed – will actually save the equivalent of 215,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, compared with landfill.

Our response should, surely, be to ask our councillors to scrutinise the plans of the Edmonton plant carefully and to make sure that the pledges that are contained within them are plausible.

Then they must ensure that the promises are adhered to and the targets are delivered. If this is done then I see no reason why we should not welcome a treatment centre that could serve the community, while at the same time fighting the global climate emergency.

MARTIN PLAUT,
NW5