News today

« SNP under fire for backing nuclear submarines on the Clyde | Main | Pollution from nuclear plant will never be cleaned up »


Lisa Kleman

In the face of clear public opposition, risk to health and poor management standards of these operations, you can only conclude that someone somewhere is lining their pockets for all of these concerns to be ignored by the scottish government.

Michael Gallagher

Here are some questions for the Government:
1. Why does the Government describe its goal of recycling 70% of waste by 2025 as "ambitious", when South Oxfordshire Council is currently recycling 73%, and San Francisco is recycling 77% and aiming for 100% by 2020 with no incineration or landfill?
2. Why has the Government stated (in its new Zero Waste Guidelines) that it will not impose minimum standards for the extraction of recyclables at waste treatment facilities?
3. Why is the Government spending virtually nothing to improve Scotland's woeful recycling infrastructure, when its own figures show that recycling is no more expensive (and is often cheaper) than incineration?
4. Why is there so much variation in what can be recycled when comparing different local authorities?
5. Why has the Government removed the 25% cap on municipal waste incineration?
6. Why did the Government allow Dumfries and Galloway Council to abolish kerbside recycling in order to use recyclable plastic, paper and textiles to feed a new incinerator in Dumfries?
7. Why are emissions of carcinogenic dioxins and heavy metals at waste incineration plants only required twice a year?
8. Why does the Government describe waste incinerators as safe when its own report (Incineration of Waste and Reported Human Health Effects) says the evidence is inconclusive, and that further research into health outcomes is needed (p69). The report goes on to say “Health outcomes of interest, particularly rarer cancers, may occur in very small numbers.”

The comments to this entry are closed.