The EfW body – the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy (CEWEP) – claims that Eunomia has ignored the environmental benefits of ‘efficient’ recovery plants in order to “justify political conclusions”.
The Eunomia study was commissioned by the Zero Waste Europe organisation. It was presented in Brussels last week (24 November), ahead of this week’s climate change talks in Paris and attempts to throw light on the way in which greenhouse gas emissions are reported to the UN.
Inventory
At present the incinerator emissions are not reported under the ‘Waste’ section of the inventory, which Eunomia argues can be “highly misleading” when seeking to understand the extent to which better waste management can contribute to reducing climate change.
Eunomia highlights that even as the EU’s reported emissions from landfilling have fallen, this is offset by a rapid increase in incineration – with 100 million tonnes of waste burnt across the EU annually according to Eurostat.
‘Misconception’
The consultancy summarises that this creates a global ‘misconception’ that getting biodegradable waste out of landfill is the only way in which reducing waste emissions can be cut.
Eunomia’s chairman, Dominic Hogg, explained: “Because of the way in which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asks for emissions to be reported, the ‘Waste’ Section excludes just about everything other than landfill where solid waste is concerned. If nations switch waste from landfill into incineration, then so long as the incineration plant generates energy, the substantial emissions are reported under the ‘Stationary Combustion’ Section.”
He added: “The way the UN measures climate change impacts has a significant impact on the choices that waste managers around the world are making. That’s why it’s important that the Waste Section of the Inventory reflects the whole climate change impact of waste, which would highlight the critical importance of recycling, not to mention, waste prevention.”
‘Dangerous’
However, responding to the report, the CEWEP argues that playing down the benefits of minimising landfill created a ‘dangerous message’ ahead of the Paris Climate Conference.
The organisation, which represents EfW owners and operators from 18 European countries – including FCC and Urbaser in the UK – suggests that the science shows ‘efficient’ electricity and heat recovery plants contribute significantly to reducing the climate impacts of modern waste management.
Focusing on the report, it argues that Eunomia’s methodology “is not reported in a transparent way” and lacks critical parameters such as energy substitution for landfill-produced electricity. It also claims Eunomia omits other benefits such as CHP (combined heat and power).
It adds that a study produced by Defra in 2014 cited by Eunomia produced ‘very different results’, with the government concluding that whenever electricity-only EfW plants have a higher energy efficiency than 11%, they still provide a better carbon performance than ‘very efficient’ landfills.
Modelling
CEWEP said: “In conclusion, it appears that the authors of the consultancy report played with simplified modelling tools to justify political conclusions that had been drawn beforehand. CEWEP is concerned that the consultancy report could encourage countries, which landfill large amounts of waste, to simply continue landfilling.
“This is even more of a concern for countries outside Europe, sometimes lacking application of adequate landfilling standards, i.e. sufficient groundwater protection and landfill gas capture.”
A spokesman for Eunomia said that the consultancy ‘stands by’ the work it has carried out, adding that it did not believe additional detail would change the overall findings of the study.
He said: “We agree that it is important to get waste out of landfill, but do not believe that this is an end in itself. What happens to the waste that is diverted from landfill is important, and the point of the report is that way that the UN Inventories are constructed masks that – potentially misleading policymakers.”
Register for free to comment