FIRST, a public service announcement: Much to my dismay, because I never have time for this kind of hassle, I have fallen victim to the “flu-like illness” that has lately been reported to have spread around Metro Manila, and perhaps other parts of the country, as well. I personally think it’s actual flu instead of something just “flu-like,” and that the Department of Health is simply being too coy to say so. But whatever it is, it is extremely unpleasant, and obviously contagious enough that some schools around the National Capital Region have temporarily shifted to online classes due to a concerning number of cases among their students.
One can hardly prevent picking up the infection from others out in the wild, but if you are feeling out of sorts, you can at least do everyone else a favor and avoid spreading it. Stay home, rest as much as possible, make sure you stay hydrated and make use of whatever common remedies you prefer when you have a bad cold or case of the flu. If you must go out, wear a face mask; masks do not really help in preventing this kind of infection for those who are not already sick, but they do work very well in preventing its spread from someone who is, so be considerate to your fellow man and mask up. And if you or someone in your household experiences severe symptoms, such as a prolonged high fever, or may be compromised by an existing health condition, by all means seek medical attention as soon as possible.
***
On to the topic of interest for today. Recently, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Gaia), which is an anti-waste incineration group, published its annual report called “The Burn Book,” in which it conducted an analysis of 20 waste incinerator facilities around the world and drew some entirely predictable conclusions. My esteemed colleague Marit Stinus-Cabugon also wrote about the new report (“Waste incineration: Expensive pollution,” Oct. 19), which came as no surprise, as I know this is a topic she has followed closely for years.
As Marit pointed out, there is an argument to be made that Gaia cherry-picked the facilities to some extent in order to produce data that puts waste incineration in the worst possible light. Many of those in its sample are decades old, working on technology that is at this point obsolete. Some, however, are fairly modern, built within the last eight to 10 years, and while these are better in terms of how “clean” they operate, they are still handicapped by the bad economics of incineration as a waste management model.
The Gaia report highlighted four basic findings. First, incinerators create a substantial amount of solid waste pollution in the form of toxic ash; 1.7 million metric tons per year combined among those studied. Second, in terms of emissions from various forms of power generation — since advocates are big on pushing the fallacy of “waste-to-energy” instead of just waste incineration — these facilities have the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in terms of metric tons of GHG per megawatt of power produced. Third, of the various alternatives for solid waste management, incineration is the most expensive; of all the assertions made, this is probably the one that is the most debatable. And finally, waste incineration undermines recycling and other waste reduction programs, due to the necessity of providing the incinerator with a steady flow of feedstock.
The answer to all this, as always, is that governments and communities should prioritize efforts toward achieving “zero-waste” status through the “reduce-reuse-recycle” formula. While it must be acknowledged that a great deal more could be done in this direction, the implication that this formula could actually achieve “zero-waste” is a laughably unrealistic ideal. And the fact that some environmental advocates continue to cling to inflexible and over-optimistic solutions such as this is precisely why their efforts are not as fruitful as they hope.
Unless we as a society are willing to profoundly change the nature of our consumerism, the “reduce-reuse-recycle” formula will, at best, only be able to account for a fraction of the waste we produce. We should, of course, maximize it; some plastics can be recycled (about 20 to 25 percent); we can recycle glass, metals and paper products; and a substantial proportion of compostable waste and biomass can be converted into fuels and fertilizers, although not 100 percent of it. What is left, then, will have to be managed through some form of disposal, and there are really only two options available: incineration or landfilling.
Between those two options, incineration is the better choice, even though it inevitably results in some solid waste in the form of indestructible ash that will need to be disposed of in a landfill, or made to disappear in some other way. Maybe go dump it at sea, in that part of the West Philippine Sea that China thinks it owns; that would show them. I jest; when I was much younger, that was actually a solution used for a while for solid waste from the big cities along the US East Coast, until governments realized it was actually a rather disgusting and harmful thing to do.
Between landfilling unprocessed general waste — a method that the Philippines has demonstrated time and again it is incapable of doing safely and responsibly — and incineration, with the foreknowledge that neither is necessarily a “good” solution, the latter is preferable, if it is employed under strict conditions. First, forget the “waste-to-energy” nonsense; any electricity produced by hooking up a boiler, turbine and generator to a waste incinerator is an incidental by-product of minimal value. Second, forget the notion that management of the system can somehow be left to the private sector on a revenue-generating basis; that is what kills the efforts to reduce waste in the first place. Just as governments bite the bullet and pay for solid waste management as it is now, so they should with waste incineration. Finally, the best available technology — which does in fact eliminate almost all of the harmful pollution and toxins, but does so rather expensively — should be utilized. That means ultra-high temperature furnaces, segregated feedstock, proper hazardous waste disposal for the unavoidable leftovers, and above all, strict and consistent monitoring and enforcement of environmental and safety standards.
I realize that all of the above is a bit idealistic, given the country’s existing solid waste management record, but it is not impossible. It simply requires leadership that is willing to plan beyond the short term, and regard the effort as something that requires constant care.
ben.kritz@manilatimes.net
Bluesky: @benkritz.bsky.social
Website: www.badmannersgunclub.com