Showing posts with label nuclear waste. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear waste. Show all posts

Thursday, July 11, 2013

The planet is drowning in waste

The planet is being overwhelmed by waste of all kinds, from plastic bags to throwaway digital devices. Even remote areas such as Alaskan beaches, often refuges for rare species, are increasingly blighted by tonnes of indestructible   objects and harmful and unsightly refuse.

The UK produces some 228 million tonnes of waste a year. In addition to household rubbish, there are growing mountains of agricultural and industrial  waste, as well as by-products from from power generation such as toxic nuclear waste. 

The waste issue has become so serious that the government has been forced to work on a “waste prevention programme”. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is due to publish the result of a consultation this December.

The way in which leading electronic brands brazenly defy the letter and spirit of laws and regulations is a global issue. Over the last decades a new and dangerous situation has arisen as millions of digital devices are used and jettisoned after only months of use.

As electronic waste increases exponentially on a global scale, a new study from India highlights that even where rules and regulations are in place, implementing them is another matter.

The report reveals that state pollution control boards and implementing agencies have failed to put any systems in place in the two years since the rules came into force.

The way in which companies evade regulation in India is naturally as true in other countries, including Bangladesh, China and Pakistan, Ghana and Nigeria which have become dumping grounds, often from richer states, spawning an escalating e-waste crisis. 

Short Circuit, a wide-ranging report by the Gaia Foundation, documents the scale of electronic waste on a global scale. It says that what we see as “re-cycling” is in fact turned into “down-cycling”, and can give people (consumers), a “false sense of security”.

Using a Buddhist term “Bardo”, the report says that humanity is at a critical juncture and that this requires a different view of our relationship with the earth. Amongst other proposals, the report lays down some excellent strategies for “zero waste”.

These are: reducing consumption and discards; reusing discards; extended producer responsibility; comprehensive recycling; comprehensive composting or bio-digestion of organic materials; citizen participation; a ban on waste incineration; effective policies, regulations, incentives and financing
structures to support these systems.

You could add to the list by including a ban on unessential packaging and the use of non-recyclables; including waste products within the production process a whole; the phasing out of landfill as a form of waste disposal; the nature and source of materials to be labelled on all products; products to be vetted for built-in obsolescence; the standardisation of interfaces for all devices and electronic products; the re-use of materials, especially metals and minerals; and resources  allocated for training in up-cycling skills.

The speeding up of built-in obsolescence in order to increase sales is vital for corporations to generate profit as the rate of technological change increases.  It is the system of production for profit – aka capitalism – which is at the heart of the problem.

So, ascribing the root of the eco-crisis to human existence on the planet as Gaia theorists do, is seriously misguided. The capitalist system of production alienates us from nature, not our desire to consume. As the example from India shows, even with laws in place, the needs of corporate profit will trump ecologically desirable ones.

Breaking away from the lethal cycle of production for profit is the great challenge of our time. We are part of this system and consumers within it. But we have the urgent need, the right and the power - collectively to put an end to it before it ends us.

Corinna Lotz
A World to Win secretary









Thursday, May 26, 2011

No local democracy on nuclear issues

The government has given the go-ahead for Augean Plc to dump nuclear contaminated waste in an ordinary landfill site outside the village of Kings Cliffe near Peterborough, despite massive local opposition.

Community Secretary Eric Pickles overruled Northamptonshire County Council, which turned down the company's application, and ignored a local referendum where 96% of local people opposed this dangerous move. This is the same man who is piloting the Coalition's Localism Bill through Parliament, leading Kings Cliffe Wastewatchers to express “surprise and disappointment that the wishes of local people appear to have been ignored”.

Augean, which has no experience of handling nuclear waste, is now permitted to transport 250,000 cubic metres of the stuff each year, by road, from the UK's original nuclear research plant at Harwell in Oxfordshire. Local people fear now the precedent is set, waste from other sites, for example Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex, will follow. They point out that the landfill site is above an aquifer that serves cities like Peterborough and Milton Keynes, but Pickles insists the risk of “actual harm is low”.

The mis-named Environment Agency recently made a similar decision allowing waste from Sellafield to be dumped at a landfill at Lillyhall in Cumbria. Allerdale Borough Council, Cumbria County Council and Copeland Borough Council all objected, but were overruled. The county council claims the decision does not follow the Agency's own rules, and "may have significant implications for future waste policy issues".


Councillor Tony Knowles said: "My fear is that this decision opens up the market for this waste to be disposed of at wherever offers the best deal on costs, rather than factoring in the wider environmental and economic concerns.” He is dead right there.

The coalition government has clearly decided that the only way to keep their commitment to nuclear power on track is by completely ignoring any local objections and forcing the programme through. More evidence of this came when environment and energy secretary Chris Huhne made clear that the UK, unlike other countries, will not allow the post-Fukushima concerns to halt, or even slow down, the building of new nuclear power stations.

Having considered a report from Dr Mike Weightman of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which said it was unlikely that the UK would suffer an earthquake like the one that hit Japan, Huhne claimed that he report provided the government with the “basis to continue to remove the barriers to nuclear new build in the UK”.

Of course, nobody thought there would be an earthquake, but Weightman did identify a range of other issues that should be reviewed. These included

international and national emergency response arrangements, public contingency planning, communications and the review of flooding studies, site and plant layouts, electricity and cooling supplies, multi-reactor site considerations, spent fuel strategies and dealing with prolonged accidents.

But none of this stopped Huhne from declaring: “We want to see new nuclear as part of a low carbon energy mix going forward, provided there is no public subsidy. The Chief Nuclear Inspector’s interim report reassures me that it can.”

So the government will bring forward Energy National Policy Statements for ratification. These provide a framework allowing the state to overrule local objections to major energy infrastructure projects and to shorten the planning enquiry process. They could be implemented not only for new nuclear stations, but also coal-fired, and shale gas exploitation (which by the way also got the go-ahead yesterday).

The government is driving through this profit-driven energy policy at whatever cost, including riding roughshod over local democracy. In practice, the Localism Bill means centralised decision-making on behalf of the energy corporations, as the people of Kings Cliffe have discovered.

Penny Cole

Environment editor