Is waste incineration less expensive than a comprehensive recycling program?

No. Recycling saves money over costly and polluting waste incineration.

According to Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D, of Economics, Sound Resource Management: "In Seattle a fast-track proposal was initiated in the mid-1980s to cite one large or several smaller EFW (Energy From Waste) facilities. In response to citizen concerns about environmental impacts of incineration and the substantial expenditure of City funds required to site and construct EFW capacity, Seattle's City Council instructed the Engineering Department's Solid Waste Utility to look at how much waste reduction and recycling (WRR) could be achieved if similar amounts were spent on diversion instead of incineration. The resultant Environmental Impact Statement compared the WRR alternative to several incineration alternatives and found WRR preferable in terms of overall economic and environmental (including energy, air pollution, water pollution, mining waste and water use) impacts.

After rejecting incineration in favor of aggressive WRR strategies, Seattle selected long-haul landfilling to manage the shrinking portion of waste not diverted by WRR programs throughout the twenty-five year planning period. A competitive proposal process then led Seattle to negotiate a contract with WMX that specifies a per ton cost for landfilled waste. Thus, Seattle has no fixed landfill disposal costs and every ton that 3Rs programs divert from disposal saves the City and its ratepayers the entire per ton charge that WMX would otherwise get for landfilling that ton of waste." (Competition Between Recycling and Incineration)

According to Greenpeace, "A study was done by the Centre for the Biology of Natural Systems in New York, USA in 1996 to examine the costs and benefits of eliminating dioxin sources from all combustion processes in the Great Lakes region of North America. The study found that replacing all municipal waste incinerators in the region with intensive recycling programmes would result in approximately $530 million annual savings.

The consequences of closing all the 52 Great Lakes garbage incinerators and creating programs of intensive recycling capable of diverting the same tonnage of waste that is currently burned involves an increase in collection costs and an increased education cost to the municipalities. But this is balanced against the net income from processing and marketing collected recyclables, the savings from avoiding disposal costs and paying off the debt for the incinerator.

The study estimated that 6,100 jobs would be created from additional collection and processing jobs after deducting job losses at incineration closures. Further job increases of 21,000 are predicted if the additional recycled materials are used by current and new manufacturing firms within the region." (Alternatives to Incineration)

"An incinerator costs anywhere from $100 million to $500 million to build. For argument's sake, let's say an incinerator costs $200 million. That money comes from the public treasury. Local governments do not often see such large bundles of money flowing their through budgets -- so an incinerator offers a unique opportunity for local politicians and their friends to take their cut, and it's perfectly legal. Bankers, accountants, lawyers, engineers, consultants, realtors and political "fixers" can all scoop off their small percentage. Even one tenth of one percent of $200 million is $200,000 dollars. So an incinerator project causes money to slosh around in the local economy in ways that no other public works project is ever likely to do. At election time, some of that money may kick back as campaign contributions to the officials who made the decision to incinerate local waste. All perfectly legal. But not good for democracy, human health, the natural environment, or the future."

References: