Council's high risk approach to mass-burn incineration

12.00.00am GMT Wed 7th Jan 2009

In a statement to Bristol City Council Cabinet meeting on the 8th January, Paul Harrod, Prospective MP for Bristol North West will say:

I have made previous statements to the Council detailing my opposition to proposals for a mass-burn incinerator which would almost certainly be situated in Avonmouth, part of Bristol North West.

Not only would this be an expensive, wasteful and environmentally damaging solution, but there is increasing evidence that it is not wanted by the people of this City.

Bristol aspires to be Europe's "Green Capital" and a mass-burn incinerator would make a mockery of that aspiration and more than offset the efforts dozens of community environmental groups across Bristol make to reduce their carbon footprints.

It would send out the wrong message to residents about the importance of recycling, thereby undermining the great efforts Bristol has made in the recent past to boost recycling levels. A mass-burn incinerator, situated at Avonmouth, would also lead to a rise in lorry traffic bringing in waste from across the region to burn. Surely the Cabinet does not wish to subject the people of north Bristol to more congestion to add to already high traffic volumes. Nor must the Cabinet wish to see high calorific waste transported by road to be incinerated at great cost and with little useful energy harnessed.

I also share the concerns of my Lib Dem colleagues about the way smaller scale businesses and more innovative environmental technologies are being excluded from this process. Bristol Friends of the Earth have highlighted how other cities in the UK who have submitted bids to DEFRA highlighted the role a range of technology types could play in residual waste disposal. It is regrettable that the Cabinet appears so wedded to an outdated and expensive mass-burn incineration when better solutions exist that are already funded through other means.

The fact that the Cabinet is considering a PFI funded solution during a credit crunch brings heightened risk, uncertainty and expense to the process. We accept that, even after greater efforts to reduce waste and increase recycling, residual waste disposal is essential. Therefore the Cabinet's approach seems to be very high risk as well as one of environmental vandalism.