Consider alternatives to incineration

Incineration retards the movement to create a true zero-waste society, because of the fact that incinerators need waste to burn.

To the Editor,

Incinerators have been presented to Nanaimo as a benefit to the community.

Please consider that incinerators are more expensive to build and operate than true alternative energy sources like wind and solar.

Recycling creates 10 times or more jobs than incineration because recycling requires more sorting of materials and more processes to turn recyclables into new materials.

Incineration retards the movement to create a true zero-waste society, because of the fact that incinerators need waste to burn.

There are better alternatives: mixed material recovery facilities, anaerobic digestion facilities, monofill, redesigning/reducing/recycling packaging. These processes change the whole concept of waste, compared with the need to feed the machine.

Cities have fallen deep into debt, even bankruptcy because of their incinerators. Detroit’s $500 million facility finally cost the city $1 billion because the city was not generating sufficient waste to meet contract obligations. Other municipalities filed for bankruptcy for the same reason.

Compared to other options, incinerators are a very poor choice. Say no to the incinerator.

David WangNanaimo