October 9, 2019 | 10:41 pm By Marvin Tort
More than a
year ago I wrote about a commentary in The World Post regarding new
Dutch technology that was looking into incineration as a “clean” alternative to
garbage disposal. And while we have existing laws on promoting solid waste
management and banning incineration, I believe this matter deserves a
second-look by our policy makers.
To begin with, some
quarters claim that not all types of waste incineration are banned locally,
citing some precedents contained in Supreme Court rulings. On the other hand,
pro-environment groups continue to press the government to strictly enforce
existing laws on solid waste management, while upholding the ban on burning
garbage.
I reiterate now my call
a year ago for policy makers as well as the public to rethink the matter, and
to make an “informed” choice regarding incineration, particularly towards
technologies that convert waste into energy. Technologies have changed, so have
circumstances, and so did the urgency for new and more effective modes to
manage solid waste and ocean plastic pollution.
Legislators should
start reviewing the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, as well as the Solid
Waste Management Act — two of three of which are now about 20 years old. There
should be a comprehensive audit of how these three laws and their implementing
rules have actually served us in the last two decades, and whether their
provisions have resulted in more positives than negatives. In particular, I
call for a review on the ban on incineration.
Incineration
technologies were different 20 years ago, and waste-to-energy conversion
projects were not as sophisticated as they are now. Conversion processes have
changed that even biomass and other waste conversion modes have actually become
“cleaner” by eliminating “tar” and by making sure that emissions meet
standards.
Already, Bill Gates’s
foundation is looking into developing new toilets particularly for the
developing world, via a system that will not only save water but will also
recycle it through some process of distillation. But this entails solid waste
being “incinerated” to become dust, also as a mode of separating liquids from
solids. And he is looking into modular facilities that can be deployed easily.
I believe we should
start doing the same, making the effort to better understand the new
technologies available and how they can be applied to our situation. And while
there may be gaps in law or in policy that can allow certain processes or
technologies to be used, nothing can beat a clear and unequivocal mandate given
through legislative and executive fiat.
Simply put, the country
and its people need to make an informed choice for the future. We have dabbled
with solid waste management — and banning incineration — for about 20 years
now. And what have we got to show for it now? Some quarter claims our solid
waste management law is among the best in the world. But have we actually
solved our garbage problem? Have we actually cleaned our air and water sources?
Or do we remain to be among the top sources of ocean plastic or plastic
pollution in our world seas?
I am not lobbying for
any particular technology. However, I do believe that looking for ways to
benefit from waste — and using them productively rather than just burying them
— will better serve the interests of our people. If incineration can prove
itself “clean” enough as a process, then I believe we should consider it and
promote it rather than strictly confining ourselves to what law prohibits at
present. Laws can be changed to benefit people.
Incineration, or
course, is not the only recourse. Technologies that make use of waste plastic
in road construction as well as converting waste plastic into building material
should likewise be encouraged and promoted. The effort should not be driven
purely by the private sector. The government, whether national or local, should
have some stake in the game.
Municipal
waste-to-energy facilities will ease the pressure on local governments as well
as the MMDA to build and operate landfills. Moreover, costs in waste management
can be offset by income from power generation. At the very least, through a
combination of solar farms and waste-to-energy facilities, perhaps cities and
towns can be partly energy self-sufficient.
The MILENA-OLGA
process, for instance, entails heating garbage to over 705° Celsius. And while
converting solid waste to gas generates carbon dioxide, this is offset by
reducing the use of fossil fuel and eliminates methane produced by landfills.
The process also claims to emit zero wastewater and produce no particulates or
other pollutants.
And only a small
portion of the original solid waste — garbage — is left over as inert white
ash, which can be used to make cement. The system is said to be capable of
powering turbines similar to those used for generating electricity with natural
gas.
Puerto Princesa City in
Palawan has reportedly partnered with a private company to put up a
waste-to-energy plant that will make use of garbage from the Sta. Lourdes
Sanitary Landfill. About 110 metric tons of garbage per day will be used as
fuel or feed stock to generate 5.5 megawatts of electricity.
Other than Puerto
Princesa, I believe even Davao City has initiated a waste-to-energy project, to
be supported by Japanese funding and technology. Waste-to-energy facilities can
benefit particular islands with limited space for landfills, and small cities
and towns. Even places like Baguio City and Boracay can benefit from such
technology.
There will always be
arguments for and against waste incineration and waste-to-energy conversion.
But we need to reopen the floor to debates and informed discussions, to allow
all parties concerned to discuss the issues, and for policymakers to consider
all the pros and cons. Garbage-related laws dating back 20 years or so need to
be reviewed and updated to deal with the pressing needs of today.
No comments:
Post a Comment