Let me answer this key question on recycling

Saturday 21st February 2009, 9:58AM GMT.

From Deputy Daniel Wimberley.
PROFESSOR Demaid’s letter (JEP, 18 February) directly attacks the competence and integrity of States Members.

Professor Demaid is correct to ask his sceptical question about the benefits of recycling: ‘Is more energy consumed by manufacturing from waste materials than from raw materials?’

His question is indeed the key question to ask about recycling. I assume that as an academic, Professor Demaid has an open mind and listens to the evidence. The research on Life Cycle Analysis is growing and the results are clear.

WRAP, the Waste Resources and Action Programme, which is a government-funded body set up to promote and research good practice in the waste management sector, commissioned a major review of Life Cycle Analysis research from all over Europe, which was published in September 2006. The conclusion of the 253-page report was:

‘The results are clear. Across the board, most studies show that recycling offers more environmental benefits and lower environmental impacts than other waste management options. Further analysis by WRAP of the research findings has provided an assessment of the relative greenhouse gas savings associated with current UK levels of recycling for paper and cardboard, glass, plastics, aluminium and steel.

Again, the results are clear and positive. The UK’s recycling of those materials saves between 10 and 15 million tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year compared to applying the current mix of landfill and incineration with energy recovery to the same materials. This is equivalent to about 10% of the annual CO2 emissions from the transport sector, and equates to taking 3.5 million cars off UK roads.’

A recent report for the Welsh Assembly entitled ‘Life Cycle Analysis of Municipal Recycling Targets for Wales’, confirmed the finding with original research of its own — high levels of recycling save carbon emissions.

Professor Demaid also wrote: ‘An opinion unsupported by detailed calculations and the consideration of all aspects of the process is, well, just an opinion.’

I now hope that the professor reviews those references, which do exactly what he asks for, and writes to the JEP, accepting that recycling is a better option than burning resources. It is intuitively correct, and it now turns out that it is correct in fact.

The incinerator would be bad for the environment if it were to be built. The alternative is cleaner, cheaper and smarter.
2 La Hougue Mauger,
St Mary.

1
Nellie Macon

February 23, 2009 at 4:25 pm

What would be absolutely brilliant would be to have the means to make use of recycled materials here in Jersey, manufacturing items that we could make use of on the Island. That would not only create hopefully cheaper items for us to use (even if it were only plastic buckets or garden chairs) but also create employment for unskilled local people who are generally the ones who are laid off first in times of recession. It would also of course create jobs for our returning students as we would need technicians etc in this type of business.

We are desperate to diversify and this type of resourcefulness would be a great step forward and save all the shipping / transport costs involved as well.

Also, as interest rates are so low, people with funds to invest are looking for something good to invest their money in – maybe they would be happy to become involved.

So come on you environmentalists and brainy young people – get your thinking caps on and see what you can come up with.

Report abuse
2
chris mccarthy

February 24, 2009 at 2:09 pm

It is never easy to accept a mistake has been made.
Even more difficult if it is a big mistake.

To progress with the proposed incinerator will be one of the greatest economic; social and environmental disastrous decisions made to date

No doubt we would all have preferred that the French did not construct a nuclear power station so near to the islands.

After a nuclear power station the next most potentially hazardous ways of making energy is from burning solid waste.

The difference to the French nuclear power station and the jersey proposed waste incinerator power station; is that it is our choice whether we have or do not have a solid waste incinerator up wind of our most densely populated area of jersey with most of the schools .

Over 3 million people die prematurely world wide due poor air quality compared to
1 million in car accidents.

Jersey has great air from the Atlantic so why destroy this great natural environmental blessing with an incinerator when there are so many alternatives.

What ever the public may have been told, mass cannot be destroyed.

All the incinerator does is to convert the solid waste into toxic particles, which will either end up in the air we breathe or in our jersey soil .

I fully support your motion to avoid a unsustainable economic; social and environmental catastrophe

lets hope others Vote against the incinerator.

Christopher McCarthy Sustainable Engineer Consultant

Report abuse
3
Michael

February 24, 2009 at 2:58 pm

How much energy was generated from burning that pound note in Royal Square? Seeing as you are so keen to point out that we are wasting money with this incinerator, and the fact that we are in a recession; do we take this action by yourself as an indication of how overpaid you are in your position?

I would expect this answer to be a yes as a flagrant breaking of a law that most 8 year olds know about (burning money) and to do it in Royal Square on camera doesn’t seem very responsible or politically correct when some people don’t even have £1 spare to buy something they want.

Report abuse