Blog
Statement in response to The Conversation article published 16th May 2025.
Waste-to-energy in Australia: how it works, where new incinerators could go, and how they stack up, by the Associate Dean University of Sydney, Ali Abbas.
Statement in response to The Conversation article published 16th May 2025.
Waste-to-energy in Australia: how it works, where new incinerators could go, and how they stack up, by the Associate Dean University of Sydney, Ali Abbas.
The decision to publish this article which contains misleading information about the operations and safety of waste to energy incinerators is extremely disappointing and misleads the public on a significant public health and environment issue which many communities in Australia are facing and struggling with, right now. It is clear that this article has a purpose in being published on the last day of the NSW EPA public submission period on the NSW Energy from Waste Framework and with the opening of public submissions for the NSW Waste and Circular Economy Framework, both of which Mr Abbas has a direct interest in.
The author of this article makes a number of claims that have been disproven. The narrative used is clearly designed to give the reader the impression that “old incinerators are bad, but the new ones are good and safe.” This claim is untrue.
“When most Australians hear about making energy from waste, they think of old-fashioned incinerators. Those outdated facilities released smoke and toxins into the air. But modern incinerators use advanced air pollution control systems that capture harmful emissions.”
The growing body of evidence in Europe that dispels this often quoted industry narrative is gaining attention and we have recently published an international report which details exactly why this statement is false. 12 million people in France can no longer eat their backyard chicken eggs or produce as a result of their Best Practice EU waste incinerator which has contaminated 410 municipalities with Dioxin.
Frankly this article is insulting to the public and all researchers and academics who know full well that waste to energy incineration is the most toxic and climate polluting way to manage waste. This is an industry that is the subject of at least three international chemicals and waste conventions exactly because of the serious nature of the pollution they release (persistent organic pollution, mercury and hazardous waste ash), which for many, are not captured by the Air Pollution Control Systems nor do they have any emissions standards or health protection limits. Brominated Dioxins, PFAS and microplastics to name a few.
Similarly claims that it is better to send our residual waste to an incinerator than landfill is also highly disputed. Relying on the false premise that organic waste will continue to go to landfill despite state and federal FOGO policies, only deliberately misleads the public about methane generation from waste. I can find no peer reviewed or published paper in Australia that has analysed the best options for Australia’s residual waste management prior to legislating this one technology into Australian laws and policies resulting in a clear industry bias and anti-competitive situation. Our organisation undertook this important research for the benefit of all Australians and found that waste incineration was the worst option in terms of climate, air quality and health costs and that landfill with full pre-treatment was the best option for Australia.
Mr Abbass appears to be ignoring this research and much more, including the Public Health Association of Australia’s systematic review of the health impacts of waste incineration which found a range of associated adverse health outcomes. This systematic review warned that incinerators should not be grown near agriculture and that food grown near incinerators should not be eaten, yet this is exactly where NSW and Victorian waste to energy incinerators are being located. Worse still they are being redefined as important components of the new Circular Economy Technology Hubs that Mr Abbass is overseeing in NSW, such as the Parkes project.
Despite the increasing industry, government and media narratives around the importance and benefits of the Circular Economy to keep materials in use and maximise their value, waste incinerators appear to be the first technologies proposed for these hubs. With a bevy of futurists, change makers, thought leaders, innovators and circular economy behavioural psychologists at the helm of the ‘Circular Economy Revolution’, it’s difficult to understand how the most expensive and most polluting way to dispose of the smallest fraction of our waste stream, is dominating these new project pipelines.
Similarly missing from Mr Abbass’ narrative is the fact that the EU Commission’s Directive on the role of waste to energy in the circular economy, recommends to member states to decommission old incinerators and not build new ones. Yet Mr Abbass wants the Australian public to believe otherwise.
Indeed, it is the very evidence of widespread persistent organic pollution (POPs) surrounding EU best practice incinerators that drove the Netherlands to implement an immediate moratorium on this industry, something which other EU countries are seeking including Denmark who will reduce incineration by 30%. The Amager Bakker ski sloping incinerator is often held up as a success story when trying to sell this industry but does the truth matter at all? This plant has been the subject of numerous pollution and non-compliance incidences, is closed down during most of summer due to the grid exceeding its Renewable Energy capacity and has never operated to full capacity, relying on importing waste from other countries and representing a massive ongoing financial loss.
Mr Abbass frames the growing evidence of harm related to waste to energy incinerators as mere, “community concerns”. This position reflects a number of disturbing aspects. Public health, climate and environmental protection, environmental justice and human rights, appear to be of a lower priority in his analysis than the incinerator industries claimed benefits. Simply, “community concerns”, are considered the pragmatic price we must pay for the greater good that waste incineration brings. Yet the principle of environmental justice is recognised internationally as a foundation of our human rights to live in a safe, and healthy environment.
The absence of any inclusion or consideration of alternative residual waste management technologies is not only curious but suspicious. Advanced Waste Sorting, Anaerobic digestion (with energy creation), Mechanical Recovery Biological Treatment (MRBT) and a range of non-combustion technologies, such as Gas Phase Chemical Reduction (GPCR) and Super Critical Water Oxidisation (SCWO), can manage our residual waste stream just as effectively without the associated persistent organic pollution, climate and toxic air pollution and huge volumes of hazardous waste ash.
The Masdar Tribe consortium, with its ties to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabian national oil companies who are pushing this industry into Australia, should be ringing alarm bells for governments, academics and civil society in Australia. As the UN Human Rights Special Rapporteur for toxics and hazardous waste, remarked when recently here in Australia, that “Waste Incineration is the end of the line for the fossil fuel industry”.
This is an industry that relies on plastic waste as a fuel (a fossil fuel). Those countries where waste incineration is heavily entrenched have some of the highest plastic consumption and waste generation statistics globally (ie Japan) This is an industry that relies on plastic waste as a fuel at a time when the fossil fuel industry is looking for new markets and while plastic is by design, generally not recyclable. Burning plastic waste is not a solution. We have a global plastic waste and pollution crisis and need to cut production in line with the High Ambition Countries (including Australia) pursuing this at the UN Global Plastics Treaty negotiations. Burning plastic waste keeps this BAU linear, plastic production economy, alive at a time when our planet cannot afford it.
Indeed, as our latest report concludes, waste incineration is driving the triple planetary crisis – climate change, biodiversity loss and novel entities (chemical pollution). It has no place in any Circular Economy, Renewable Energy or sustainable Zero Waste system. Our previous report demonstrated that this industry does not stack up. This is an industry in decline looking for new markets in the global south. Australian citizens have a right to balanced, factual information on this major industrial pollution threat to Australia. The promotion of waste to energy incineration as simply a technology that is no more polluting than a leaf blower, is simply insulting and indefensible.
The truth is that waste to energy incinerators create profound cross sector impacts and undermine Australia’s Circular Economy, including the new Federal Labor government’s goal of a “Future Made Australia”.
Australia has a unique opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the mistakes of other countries who have heavily invested in waste to energy incineration like the EU. If we can manage our waste safely without the threat of irreversible persistent organic pollution, risks to farmers and produce, public health (especially children), our climate, natural environment, rivers, oceans and First Nations cultural heritage, why wouldn’t we choose this instead?
Response to The Conversation article can be downloaded here
