THE POSITION THAT OPPOSES HOUSE BILL 3161 OF CONGRESSMAN EDGAR R. ERICE WHICH SEEKS TO ALLOW THE USE OF INCINERATORS IN BURNING MUNICIPAL WASTES, AMENDING SECTION 20 OF REPUBLIC ACT 8749 In the 1990’s, the Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines, Inc. (ZWRMPFI), founded in 1972, through one of its founders, LUZ E. SABAS’ position paper entitled ‘INCENSED AT/BY INCINERATORS’ (ZWRM System Vol. 1, No. 2), expressed its stand versus incineration, raising questions as to costs entailed in the installation, maintenance and operation of incineration facilities, and more questions and issues on the impact on health and environment that incineration would create. More than two decades hence, in this year 2014, the ZWRMPFI stands by its founder’s statement supporting the Zero Waste way of life as the means to address the waste management, global warming and climate change problems, as opposed to incineration of waste resources which is ‘actually a waste of resources.’ Following is a comparative analysis leading to the conclusion, showing why low-cost and of local technology Zero Waste techniques as mandated by Republic Act 9003 (The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000) is the sustainable way to a sustainable environment, as opposed to incineration (The Comparative Analyses are also the reasons why we oppose H.B. 3161]: 1. Incineration Systems Entail Millions In Costs of Installation, Maintenance and Operation, While Zero Waste Techniques At Household or At Source Level Are Guaranteed Low-Cost, Local Technology Solutions to the Waste Management, Global Warming and Climate Change Problems. As to the Cost of Installation, Maintenance and Operation, incineration requires incineration systems that cost millions of funds. A 3,000 ton capacity incinerator alone for a medium-sized city would cost around $100M, while maintenance cost for the same (in Ames, Iowa), is $6.75M annually. In Detroit, lifetime cost of a unit exceeds $1Billion. In 1985, an incineration plant in New York, already needed repair during the first year of operations. In the past, the first incinerator in Quezon City (worth (P150,000,000.00), lasted only a few months due to the incorporation of stones to put it out of commission and done by a sulking, deprived waste picker. On the other hand, simple low-cost, local technology Zero Waste methods guided by the simple Segregate, Compost, Recycle at Home or At Source mantra radiating to the community, institutional or barangay level, ensure a sustainable approach to addressing the solid waste management problem which, in the words of Luz Sabas “is not actually an environmental problem but a matter of housekeeping.” 2. Incineration Defeats All Efforts At Waste Reduction, Consumption Reduction and Resource Conservation and Perpetuates the Throw-Away Culture, While Adopting the Zero Waste Lifestyle at Home or At Source Encourages ‘Total Ecosystem Conservation’ Through The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Mantra and Educates People To Make Informed Choices The 24-hour operation need of incinerators in order to avoid refractory lining damage caused by temperature fluctuations when operated at intervals, also create the need to increase waste demand to continually feed the incinerators, where people do not have to alter consumption and waste disposal (supposedly, management) patterns at all and to continue its throw-away culture and to putting a premium, maintaining (not reducing) the amount of trash produced and for trash to be continued to be discarded and hauled in the same manner, thereby defeating all efforts at waste reduction, consumption reduction and resource conservation. 3. Incineration Merely Transforms Waste Resources Into More Toxic Substances Which Are Harder to Manage, Entail Expensive Treatments, and Which Pose As Threats to Health and Environment, While Zero Waste Techniques Transform Waste Resources Into Materials Vital To Sustainable Living and Environment As to Impact on Health By Pollution Generated, since matter cannot be destroyed, incineration merely transforms waste resources into more toxic wastes that are more difficult to manage and which leach from the acidic environment of landfills into the soil and water supply. Some of these toxic wastes are furans and dioxins, component of Agent Orange, which is carcinogenic. (A case in point is a $130Million unit in Hampstead, Long Island which has to be closed. According to Madeline Haffron of SIN Stop Incineration Now); hydrochloric acid, nitrous oxide which lead to ozone layer depletion; sulfur oxide which cause acid rain formation; arsenic, chromium, cadmium, lead, mercury and other heavy metals linked to neurological disorders, cancer, hypertension, kidney failure, problems in the mental development of children, and lung and respiratory diseases; ash (10% fly ash, 90% bottom ash) which is more toxic than unburned waste and which operators dispose of through vitrification, pyrolysis, plasma arc and other expensive treatments which are also dangerous owing to difficulty in monitoring. The better the air pollution controls are, the more toxic the bottom ash ends up because the stuff has to go somewhere and that could lead to more destruction of terrestrial and aquatic resources. In Halyoke, Massachusetts, a propose trash incinerator was burned down by the State Department of Environmental Quality in part because local populace was over-exposed to lead. Morever, for every three (3) tons of trash burned, one ton of very toxic ash is produced. According to Ken Erano of Greenpeace, Philadelphia had problems in looking for dumping areas for ash produced by incineration as its local dumping sites refused it that it had to be exported to the Caribbean. One tanker traveled over two years to Cayman Island, to Columbia, to Panama, finally dumping 3 tons on a Haitian beach on the guise that it was fertilizer. Sweden and Denmark halted building of incinerators because these produced dioxin which showed increased levels in mother’s milk. As to air pollution, air pollution levels in the area in Metro Manila, according to the WHO is 300% beyond tolerable levels. 4. Incineration Destroys Waste Resources and Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources, While Zero Waste Techniques Ensconced In RA9003 Transform Waste Resources Into Materials Integral to Sustainable Living And Environment According to Dr. Metodio Palaypay (member of the ZWRMPFI Presidential Advisory Council), incineration destroys resources that are supposed to be utilized in the production of fertilizer, feeds, foods, factory-returnables, fillers for construction materials and fine-crafts, as according to Luz Sabas “ibalik sa lupa ang galing sa lupa, ibalik sa pabrika ang galing sa pabrika.” waste resources can also be utilized in brick/tile/hollow block production, object d’arts, methane capture and other fuel extraction, vinegar and wine-making, rural and urban gardening and farming, seed banking and more which reinforce organic agriculture, livelihood creation, cooperative efforts, hunger and poverty alleviation, restoration of natural resources through reversion of biodegradable agents Into vital elements and as integral to addressing the waste resource management, global warming and climate change problems. Incineration would lead to farmers resorting to increasing use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides which lead to mutation of pests into strains that are harder to eliminate or manage; lesser crop yields, diseases in tree plantations, destruction of beneficial bacteria, and further annihilation of terrestrial and aquatic life leading to plankton bloom, ocean acidification, decrease in food supply, oxygen generators and carbon sinks and other resources, increase in prices of basic needs and in hunger and poverty, unemployment and social restlessness, displacement of human resources, among others. 5. Incineration Produces More Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Waste More Energy Than They Produce, While Zero Waste Techniques As Ensconced In RA9003 Is Aimed At Curbing Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions As to power generation, incinerators, although generating useful steam energy, however, waste far more energy that they produce. Waste-to-energy incinerators generate only 500-700kwh per ton of burned waste paper. While it takes, and uses twenty times more energy to manufacture aluminum cans from its raw material bauxite than to make the same out of recycled aluminum, and using recycled paper than wood pulp to make paper saves over 10,000kwh per ton. Heat recovery is done in some incinerator projects but normal steam recovery methods applicable to solid fuel and oil-fired boilers are not applicable due to the corrosive nature of fuel gases generated by incineration of wastes. The most modern incineration technology captures only 989 BTUs of the 5250 BTUs in a pound of municipal solid waste. While recycling saves 3-5 times that much. Waste to Energy (WTE) Incinerators produce more CO2 per megawatt hour than coal-fired, natural gas-fired or oil-fired power plants. Manufacturing and transportation of the products discarded represent 38% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. The Zero Waste strategies (starting at the household or at source level) to slash this percentage had already been developed, and all that is needed is to implement (and enforce) them through the 5Es (Education, Engineering, Enforcement, Entrepreneurship, Eco-Valuation. Zero Waste is the cheapest and fastest way to combat climate change, much simpler than solving the problem of transportation, for example. There are also homes and communities that have 0% or almost 0% dependence on garbage collection and on dumpsites and landfills owing to their Zero Waste practices at household or community level. 6. Incineration Creates Less Jobs, While Zero Waste Recycling Techniques Create More Jobs and Promote Sustainable Best Practices In Ecological, Economic Activities As to Job Generation, a 1986 study by the NY State Recycling Forum estimated that recycling ten thousand tons of material would produce 36 jobs while landfilling produces only 6 jobs. An incinerator would create only 0.9 jobs per 10 thousand tons of burned trash. Incinerators don’t employ as many workers would be employed in environmentally sound options, e.g. retrieval, sorting, cleaning, drying, resorting, reusing, recycling, composting, vermi-composting, handicrafts-making, bio-intensive urban and rural gardening and farming, seed banking, bio-gas generation, plastics pelletizing, vinegar and wine-making, clipboard making, board-making, floor wax making, “green charcoal” making, soap making, tile/brick/hollow block making, etc. Haulers in the U.S. are losing to recycling while planned incineration projects have been shelved in LA, Seattle, Boston, Philadelphia, Austin. Because people do not want incinerators or dumps near them they appealing to elected officials to start Recycling Programs, according to Cynthia Pollock of WWI. 7. Incineration Defeats Global Efforts Toward Sustainable Waste Resource Management, While Low-Cost and of Local Technology Zero Waste Techniques Reinforces The Global Movement Toward A Sustainable Environment As to Global Action Towards Sustainable Waste Resource Management, since 1986, at least 50 counties in the U.S. have reconsidered and stopped incinerator building projects due to health reasons, and in favor of a Comprehensive Recycling Program. 8. Incineration Raises More Questions As To Cost, Operation, Monitoring, Risks To Health And Environment While Zero Waste Techniques Answer The Waste Resource Management Problem In An Ecological And Economical Way Despite E. Malone Stevenson’s statement that much more is known now about Incineration Technology than in previous years and the researches of the Environment Protection Agency had produced results to show that ‘a properly designed incinerator is an effective treatment devise that can be operated safely and with negligible apparent (note apparent) environment impact or health risk, and that incineration practices have improved over the past decade. 9. The majority of corruption, with very few exemptions of cities and municipalities, in garbage collection is in the trucking of garbage and collection of garbage. The OMBUDSMAN and the COA have a list of RA 9003 violators. The putting up of a GARBAGE INCINERATOR will aggravate the corruption as there’ll be no more evidence of ghost deliveries. The evidence will all be burned up. 10. The plan to put up an INCINARATOR (MAGMA INCINERATOR) for LAGUNA, as gleaned from a copy of the proposal with the Mayor of ALAMINOS, LAGUNA, Mayor MAGAMPON involve the lining up of hundreds of garbage trucks. This can cause more traffic and the attendant smell and flies that go with the garbage trucks. 11. The town of ALAMINOS, Laguna has the better alternative to INCINERATION. The town brings all the BIODEGRADABLES to the integrated MAPECON GREEN CHARCOAL, ACTIVATED CARBON and VERMICAST factory in Barangay San Pedro, ALAMINOS, Laguna. The biodegradable garbage is RECYCLED into Green Charcoal in accordance to Section 4-c of Article 1 of the Solid Management Law, RA 9003. Then the Green Charcoal is fed into the MAPECON HYDROGEN REACTOR that produces Hydrogen Gas as fuel for the activated carbon, boilers, gen set, and various machineries of the integrated factory. The Green Charcoal and or Green Coal is likewise delivered to the many MGCHP customers who have drum boilers for the “dressed” chicken business and various COMMISARIES of big restaurants and food processors to replace LPG with Hydrogen Gas fuel, the cleanest fuel in the world. LPG can cause fire and explosion while the Hydrogen Gas, when it leaks into the air, is transformed back into water. The HYDROGEN GAS can likewise be used for POWER GENERATION by mixing the H2 gas with bunker or diesel fuel; or by feeding 100% H2 gas to gasoline-fed gen sets. The town of ALAMINOS has a sign everywhere, “NO SEGREGATION, NO COLLECTION”. Since the people know that the biodegradable garbage will be recycled into Green Charcoal and VERMICAST, they cooperate. In Metro Manila, the people do not segregate. Why? Because the garbage trucks that collect them put all the garbage back together. The MMDA does not really encourage segregation! The MMDA and the LGUs can collect only BIODEGRADABLES on certain days or every other day as BIODEGRADABLES are about 51% of garbage; the other 49% is the non-biodegradables. To collect separately the BIODEGRADABLES from the NON-BIODEGRADABLES is being practiced in many cities of the world who do not INCINERATE their garbage. 12. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Lake Development Authority has a MOA with the National Committee on Urban Pest Control, NCUPC, the MAPECON Green Charcoal Hydrogen Philippines, MGCHP, to compose the Research and Development Task Force for the RECYCLING OF BIODEGRADABLE GARBAGE from Municipalities and Cities that include AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST WASTES, WATER-LILIES INTO GREEN CHARCOAL HYDROGEN FOR POWER GENERATION AND INTO 100% VERMICAST, a natural, organic fertilizer for food security. Three good outcomes of the R&D TASK force are the development by MGCHP of Hydrogen Fuel from Green Charcoal; the production of JC Hydrogenated Diesel and the Development of VERMICAST volume production using patent pending VERMI Log Food under a natural green house. Hydrogen gas is injected to diesel to produce JC, Jun CATAN Hydrogenated Diesel. The DENR EMB, Environment Management Bureau tests show that the hydrogenated diesel reduce polluting emissions by 65.8%. The power or kilometers travel per liter is also increased to 12 to 20%. The VERMI LOG FOOD is an extruded one meter long with 4 inch diameter, log that serves as food for earthworms. MAPECON has a hauling contract with MAYNILAD WATER SANITATION Inc. for its treated BIOSOLID. The BIOSOLID are then mixed with BIODEGRADABLE Garbage sprayed with MBA 54, MAPECON BIO-ACTIVATED CARBON with 54 useful micro-microorganisms. Into the BIOLOG FOOD, we plant lettuce, PECHAY, etc. and MYCORIZAH, a soil builder. The entire set-up is placed under well distanced giant banana SABA called SAGREX bought in tissue culture from Davao; they give greenhouse effect. The workers are not so exposed to the sun. Vegetables and other plants get sun scorched if very exposed to the sun. The farmers will now be more comfortable to work under the partial shade of bananas. The plastic sheets are eliminated while the farmers can still harvest bananas along with earthworms’ VERMICAST, vegetables and other crops and a high value soil builder, MYCORIZAH. 13. The Department of Public Works & Highways, DPWH, is signing a MOA with MGCHP, to mitigate flooding by collecting, shredding, hauling and recycling of water-lilies with bio-degradable garbage into Green Charcoal Hydrogen and VERMICAST natural fertilizer. The first site will be for the water-lilies from NAPINDAN to bring the shredded water-lilies to ALAMINOS. The second site will be in LIGWASAN MARSH. A tripartite joint-venture between the DPWH, the MILF and the MGCHP. The project likewise help mitigate the flooding in the 200,000 LIGWASAN MARSH by recycling the water-lilies and the organic mud into Green Charcoal or Green Coal Hydrogen and 100% VERMICAST fertilizer. The MOA likewise include the setting up of a high-rise MRF and Recycling area by clusters of neighboring cities and municipalities. The MOA likewise agree to set up a plan where all the garbage in Metro Manila will go to 6 or seven economic zones forming around the Laguna Lake, each economic zone to consist of 1000 hectares. LLDA has 93,000 hectares. Each of the Economic Zone will be using BIODEGRADABLE GARBAGE to be recycled into Green Charcoal Hydrogen and VERMICAST Fertilizer. The Economic Zone will be shape like a TAD-POLE. The head will be like a big QC Circle and the tail as ONE-WAY ROAD. The other product will be water. The MAYNILAD WATER and MANILA WATER will be asked to take care of the water recycling into potable water from the lake for use by Metro Manila residents. The Power of the Economic Zone will Green Hydrogen. This HYDROGEN Powered ECO ZONE will signal the beginning of the Hydrogen Economy for the Philippines. Hydrogen is the cleanest fuel in the world. Do we want to significantly mitigate our CLIMATE CHANGE or Global Warming? Then we need to change the polluting, carbon dioxide and methane producing petroleum fuels and the burning of garbage! All the countries of the world are trying spending big amounts for R&D in order that they can switch to the Hydrogen Economy. The Philippines is now first in producing commercial Hydrogen. The first 2 MW Hydrogen Reactor is now at MGCHP PHIL in ALAMINOS, LAGUNA. And the fuel is Green Charcoal recycled from biodegradable wastes! With INCINERATION of GARBAGE will not enable us to reach the Hydrogen Economy. 14. Who can and will protect our Philippine Environment but we Filipinos ourselves! Who are the modern enemies of our Environment? It is the big foreign firms with their vested interest who are often our modern enemies of our environment. I will cite the case of MAPECON versus the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, FPA. Why has this case become a legal jurisprudence in protecting our environment from the use of dangerous imported pesticides by foreign pesticide firms, their distributors and applicators? The Supreme Court Rulings of 2007 that include the main ruling as well as two accompanying rulings that denied twice and with FINALITY the two Motions for Reconsideration by the FPA. Unfortunately the FPA, contrary to the provisions of our Philippine Constitution particularly Article 14 Sections 10-13 to give full assistance and incentives to Filipino Inventors assisted the foreign pesticide firms their distributors and their applicators! The FPA filed no less than eight cases versus the MAPECON to stop MAPECON in using its patented pest control inventions that are indigenous, safer, botanical. The FPA and the foreign pesticide firms defied and even obstructed the enabling laws, circulars, and Presidential Proclamations instructing the FPA and all juridical persons to follow RA 7459, Inventors Incentives Law, Presidential Proclamations 990, 2063 and Health Circular 155 s. 1975 re: following the domestic law on pest control, Organic Agriculture Act 10068, the Foreign Investment Negative List that disallow foreign investment in Agriculture particularly the pesticide business with President Aquino’s Executive Order 168. Even now in the control of Coconut Scale Insect, CSI, FPA registration was one requirement in order that one can join in undertaking CSI control. And to add insult to injury, to already illegal and detrimental to our environment, FPA registered and recommended the SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDE, NEONICOTINAMIDE that is to be injected unto coconut trunks. And the coconut farmers and consumers cannot consume the BUKO, coconut, TUBA, etc. for months. And at first, the government disallowed MAPECON to use its much safer, patented, award-winning, indigenous BIG R 1 & 2, Botanical Insect Growth Regulator. MAPECON offered a GUARANTEE: NO CSI CONTROL NO PAY. AND THE BUKO ETC CAN SAFELY BE HARVESTED. AND CHICKEN, PIGS, DOGS need not be taken away during the spraying. MAPECON asked only a small area, 10 to 16% of the infested coconut, 200,801 in ALAMINOS and San Pablo in Laguna, Cavite and Quezon 2. Fortunately the PCA, and thank God, allowed MAPECON to participate and apply its proven, effective and ENVIRONMENTAL BIG R 1 & 2. MAPECON invoked the 2007 Supreme Court Rulings: The FPA has no legal authority and jurisdiction over the ACTS and Operation of MAPECON PH. The Supreme Court including MAPECONS SUPPLEMENTAL AND VEHMENT OPPOSITION to FPA’s 2 Motions for Reconsideration show all the damages to our peoples health and environment as well as the complete disregard of our domestic laws and provisions of Phil Constitution by the foreign pesticide firms, their applicators and distributors. One pesticide alone, DBCP, DibromoChlroPropane registered by FPA for the control of root nematodes in bananas caused the poisoning of 3200 banana farmers and their families. The Foreign Pesticide Firms lost in the Damage suit in the Court of Texas and these firms settled with big amount not only with Filipino banana farmers but also the victims of other banana farmers in other countries. But still the multinational banana firms up to now use chemical pesticides and fertilizers or they will not buy the bananas from the banana farmers! And what is happening to our bananas! The bananas are beginning to infested with banana wilt a serious banana disease. It is time that these foreign banana firms follow our Philippine Laws and Philippine Constitution. As Chairman of ENVIRONMENT of the SANGUNIANG LAIKO NG PILIPINAS I will ask not only the Catholic Churches to FIGHT VERSUS INSINERATION and promote instead SEGAGATION, SORTING AT SOURCE and RECYCLING! Do we need to harness the pupils, students and their parents to campaign against this BILL? We also have Atty. TONY OPOSA who can help us file WRIT OF KALIKASAN for and in behalf of the young people of the Philippines versus this Bill if approved. THE PUBLIC IS STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SAFELY OPERATE WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES; ABOUT THE ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE ON THESE FACILITIES with the key words A WELL-OPERATED INCINERATOR; HIGH COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY; CONTINUOUS MONITORING; STRINGENT REGULATIONS LEADING TO TIGHTER CONTROLS ON OPERATING CONDITIONS; BETTER TRAINING OF OPERATORS; CONTINUOUS EMISSIONS MONITORS TO IMPROVE REGULATORY OVERSIGHT. The solution to the Waste Resource Management Problem is AGGRESSIVE RECYCLING THROUGH ZERO WASTE TECHNIQUES THAT ARE LOW-COST OF LOCAL TECHNOLOGY, SAFE FOR HUMANS AND TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC RESOURCES, EASY FOR PEOPLE TO ADOPT AND CONTINUOUSLY PURSUE AT THE HOUSEHOLD OR AT SOURCE LEVEL, CLOSER TO SOLVING THE SAID DILEMMA, IN AN ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMICAL WAY. In Suffolk County, the group which originally promoted incineration, having been given its County Official Mika La Rosa the hand to take another look at the situation given one year of unlimited funds to look at all the alternatives, eventually was the same group that unanimously voted against it. Suffolk County became the first county in the state to repudiate the incineration approach. CONCLUSION With the above statements, the waste resource management, global warming and climate change problems are best addressed through low-cost and of local technology Zero Waste techniques, and through the implementation and enforcement of RA9003 (The Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000) and of RA8749 (The Clean Air Act), RA9275 (The Clean Water Act) and RA10068 (The Organic Agriculture Act); and the regimentation starting at the household or at source level with regards to the sustainable management of waste resources and its direction to proper destinations. The Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines, Inc. (ZWRMPFI) thus opposes House Bill 3161 which was introduced by Rep. Edgar R. Erice to the 16th Congress of the House of Representatives of the Republic of the Philippines. The Zero Waste Recycling Movement of the Philippines (ZWRMPFI) upholds the ban on incineration that is ensconced in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 8749 and calls for the immediate implementation and enforcement of RA9003, RA8749, RA9275 and RA10068, and of the No Littering Laws and Ordinances for a vibrant Zero Waste country that truly ensure a clean, healthful, verdantly abundant and sustainable environment for all. Signed by all Officers, members of the Board of Trustees, and members of the Presidential Advisory Council of the ZWRMPFI/ ZWP this 3rd day of July 2014, at the Conference Room, 3rd Floor, Environment Management Building, Department of Environment & Natural Resources Compound, Visayas Avenue. Diliman, Quezon City, during its Regular Monthly Meeting.
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:09:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015