Bahaya bakar plastik
Burning
Plastic: Incineration Causes Air Pollution, Dioxin Emissions, Cost Overruns.
Plastic waste constitutes between 60% and 80% of marine debris
and is “one of the world’s most pervasive pollution problems impacting our
oceans and waterways,” according to the U.N.
Over the past 60 years, plastics production and waste have
dramatically increased, part of a global waste crisis whose drivers have
included rapid urbanization, increasing consumption in both high- and
low-income countries, and increased production of “throw-away” products.
Indeed, the vast majority of plastics are not recycled at the end of their
useful life, ensuring that this multiplication in production results in
multiplication of harmful waste. From raw material extraction through to
plastic polluting the ocean, plastics represent the failure of a predominantly
fossil fuel based, linear economic system.
A problem this complex and embedded in our societies and economies
requires solutions that address the cross-sector nature of the problem and are
built upon sustainable and environmentally just frameworks that deliver
permanent solutions and the deep changes we need.
For those new to waste issues, incineration, gasification,
pyrolysis, and plasma arc may appear appealing. But our network’s experiences
in countries around the world have shown that these approaches are at best a
distraction from real solutions, and at worst a source of serious climate and
toxic pollution. As part of the Break Free From Plastics
movement, we know that this isn’t just about managing the problem. It’s
about preventing it in the first place.
Incineration — including gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc —
is not a viable solution for plastic pollution, and is harmful.
·
Dangerous for marine life and human
health. Burning plastic and other wastes releases dangerous substances
such as heavy metals, Persistent Organic Pollutants, and other toxics into the
air and ash waste residues. Experience looking at the few commercial-scale
gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc facilities that have actually processed
municipal solid wastes (as opposed to processing other materials) shows that
these approaches can emit the same pollutants as mass-burn incinerators.
Such pollutants contribute to the development of asthma, cancer,
endocrine disruption, and the global burden of disease. Persistent Organic
Pollutants travel long distances, and ultimately deposit into the ocean
and polar ice caps, where they can adsorb onto other plastic marine debris and
microplastics, bioaccumulating up the food chain, threatening marine and human
health.
·
New incinerator technologies are prone to
failure and ineffective at eliminating plastic pollution. Many
companies claim to heat plastic to turn them into oil or energy using new
incinerator technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc. Yet
despite their impressive claims, these technologies have failed
repeatedly in country after country. They can also be exorbitantly
expensive. In many coastal countries in Asia — where issues of poverty, open
dumping, and a lack of waste management infrastructure and services contribute
to the release of significant quantities of plastic waste into the oceans — it
would cost between $5-53 billion per year to operate large-scale incinerators
built to European standards of health and safety — which still allow the
release the release of dangerous plastic waste pollutants to air and into
the ash residues.
·
Smaller scale and cheaper options raise many
additional questions: what types of pollution filtration is provided? What happens to
any filtered toxics? Are combustion sites monitored for emissions? If any fuel
made from plastics is used off site, how is monitoring possible?
·
Bad for the climate and oceans. Plastic
is a petroleum-based material, and when burned it’s like any other fossil fuel:
it releases climate pollution. This in turn leads to rising sea levels,
increased ocean and air toxicity, and destruction of coral reefs and other
marine life. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, burning
plastics is notably the worst possible end-of-life management approach for
plastics from a climate perspective. Gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma
incinerators are even less efficient at generating electricity than mass burn
incinerators, and often supplement waste with coal and other fossil fuels in
order to produce energy. Climate change is a major threat to our oceans and
marine health.
·
Violate the principles of environmental
justice. Incinerators cause environmental injustices in the communities
where they are built, which carry the disproportionate burden of the air
pollution and toxic ash. These places — often in the global south
or communities of color in the global north — are also disproportionately
impacted by the climate change that incinerators contribute to. People around
the world are developing real solutions to our waste and climate crisis, based
on the principles of zero waste and environmental justice. For more information,
see our blog on the power of community-based solutions to plastic in
the global south.
Plastic Pollution Solutions:
Zero Waste + Redesign
Zero Waste + Redesign
The most cost effective, reliable, and proven solutions for
immediate marine plastic pollution are found in zero waste models that are
being implemented in many cities around the world already. Community-based
approaches of decentralized waste separation and collection, increased resource
recovery, composting, recycling and waste reduction, have opened economic opportunities
for millions of waste workers and are being sustained at costs that are a
fraction of what it would take to build any incinerator. Now is the time
to support the expansion of sustainable zero waste practices to address plastic
marine pollution and walk away from false solutions like plastic waste
incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.