Dear Robert Buckland,

We are seeking your support in calling for the UK Government to introduce an immediate moratorium on new waste incineration capacity in England.

A ban on new incineration capacity in England is urgently needed to:

• Prevent further exacerbating incineration overcapacity;
• Encourage the more efficient use of existing incinerators;
• Prevent pollution from harming air and soil quality;
• Support the transition towards net zero carbon; and
• Enable a more circular economy, with increased reduction, re-use, and recycling.

To support the circular economy, both Wales and Scotland have already called a halt to further incineration capacity. The UK Government has set out their intention to move towards a circular economy, and a moratorium on new incinerators in England would send a clear signal that they are committed to this transition.

There is currently 15.6 million tonnes of operational incineration capacity in England. This could grow to more than 28 million tonnes, while feedstock is expected to fall to around 13 million tonnes by 2042. This would result in around 15 million tonnes of English incineration overcapacity, even without any of the further 4 million tonnes of capacity currently in the planning system being granted permission.

These numbers are based on waste and capacity figures produced by Defra and the Environment Agency, which are brought together in modelling carried out by UKWIN. For a briefing and methodology paper containing further details see https://ukwin.org.uk/overcapacity

In its 2022 report to Parliament, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) warned that “action is required to avoid an over-reliance or over-capacity of incineration”, stating that unchecked growth of incineration could “undermine the sector’s contribution to UK emissions targets and efforts”.

The CCC went on to advise that new incinerators “should not be built unless they can demonstrate compatibility with waste treatment capacity needs and the waste hierarchy” and that “Defra should urgently complete and publish an up-to-date assessment of residual waste treatment capacity needs for the UK out to 2050, consistent with committed and proposed targets…”

It is therefore vital that Government does not allow any planning permissions or environmental permits for new incineration capacity in England until this assessment of residual waste treatment capacity is completed. An immediate moratorium would cap English incineration overcapacity at around 9 million tonnes.

Such a moratorium would align with the demands of more than 172,000 people who signed The Big Plastic Count petition calling on the Government to tackle the plastic waste crisis including by banning new incinerators.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these matters. I look forward to hearing back from you about what you are doing to support the call for an immediate moratorium on new waste incineration capacity in England.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Bell
Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator

Dear Justin Tomlinson,

We are seeking your support in calling for the UK Government to introduce an immediate moratorium on new waste incineration capacity in England.

A ban on new incineration capacity in England is urgently needed to:

• Prevent further exacerbating incineration overcapacity;
• Encourage the more efficient use of existing incinerators;
• Prevent pollution from harming air and soil quality;
• Support the transition towards net zero carbon; and
• Enable a more circular economy, with increased reduction, re-use, and recycling.

To support the circular economy, both Wales and Scotland have already called a halt to further incineration capacity. The UK Government has set out their intention to move towards a circular economy, and a moratorium on new incinerators in England would send a clear signal that they are committed to this transition.

There is currently 15.6 million tonnes of operational incineration capacity in England. This could grow to more than 28 million tonnes, while feedstock is expected to fall to around 13 million tonnes by 2042. This would result in around 15 million tonnes of English incineration overcapacity, even without any of the further 4 million tonnes of capacity currently in the planning system being granted permission.

These numbers are based on waste and capacity figures produced by Defra and the Environment Agency, which are brought together in modelling carried out by UKWIN. For a briefing and methodology paper containing further details see https://ukwin.org.uk/overcapacity

In its 2022 report to Parliament, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) warned that “action is required to avoid an over-reliance or over-capacity of incineration”, stating that unchecked growth of incineration could “undermine the sector’s contribution to UK emissions targets and efforts”.

The CCC went on to advise that new incinerators “should not be built unless they can demonstrate compatibility with waste treatment capacity needs and the waste hierarchy” and that “Defra should urgently complete and publish an up-to-date assessment of residual waste treatment capacity needs for the UK out to 2050, consistent with committed and proposed targets…”

It is therefore vital that Government does not allow any planning permissions or environmental permits for new incineration capacity in England until this assessment of residual waste treatment capacity is completed. An immediate moratorium would cap English incineration overcapacity at around 9 million tonnes.

Such a moratorium would align with the demands of more than 172,000 people who signed The Big Plastic Count petition calling on the Government to tackle the plastic waste crisis including by banning new incinerators.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these matters. I look forward to hearing back from you about what you are doing to support the call for an immediate moratorium on new waste incineration capacity in England.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Bell
Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator

5th March 2021

Dear Justin,

I e-mailed you on 4 Dec to invite you to an online meeting to discuss issues around waste incineration.

Unfortunately you were unable to attend but did reply by addressing many of the issues in your email. Thank you for having got back to me with such a well considered response - I do apologise for not having acknowledged your reply sooner.

As you may remember I was involved in the campaign against the proposal for a waste incineration plant ('gasification plant' according to the developers) at the Keypoint site, and took part in the planning inquiry that ensued. In the light of my experience at the inquiry there are one or two points in your reply that I must take issue with.

You say that "the priority is to prevent waste in the first place". I agree, but a large part of the problem is quite simply that this is not reflected in the incentives that companies face. Their costs do not reflect the problems caused by needing to deal with waste, let alone with the downstream environmental impacts of waste processing or disposal. At present, the real polluters - those who design products and packaging - do not pay for the environmental impact of their decisions.

I appreciate that there is often opposition from businesses who raise issues of cost, impact on jobs and so on. These are, I suggest, false arguments. The cost of undoing pollution is enormous in comparison to the cost of avoiding it. Moreover a move to a 'green' economy does not necessarily entail loss of jobs - if anything it may well provide many new sources of employment.

You also mention that "... the EA will not issue an environmental permit if the proposed plant will have a significant impact on the environment or harm human health." This is true up to a point, but only up to a point. A major concern with waste incineration is the greenhouse gas emissions that it produces. This is not part of the Environmental Permitting regime and the Environment Agency will not comment on the greenhouse gas impacts of a proposal. It is left to the planning process to address this issue. But planning officers, and planning inspectors generally do not have the background which leads them to be confident in assessing such things. It is far too easy for developers - who are often far better resourced than local authorities - to either avoid the greenhouse issue altogether or to muddy the waters around it.

There is increasing concern that the actual greenhouse impact of incinerators is far greater than had hitherto been realised and that the argument that they are better than sending waste to landfill is increasingly dubious. (This is in any event a false framing of the problem - but one favoured by developers, who rarely even mention options around prevention, reuse or recycling. Building an incinerator yields far greater returns - for developers.) Channel 4 Dispatches this Monday (8pm on 8 March) will look at waste incineration and the issues around it - www.channel4.com/programmes/dirty-truth-about-your-rubbish-dispatches.

I wonder if you consider that we face - as increasing numbers now say - a climate emergency? If so is there not now a need for a radical shift in the way the economy is structured?

I have become aware recently that a local campaigning group - Plastic Free Swindon - has been set up precisely with the aim of encouraging people to use less plastic. This kind of initiative seems to me to be consistent with the direction which we now need to take. I have - I hope you will not mind - also copied them in to this e-mail since I suspect that they also would be interested in your thoughts on this issue.

Kind regards,

Robert Ayres, SKIP chair.

8th March 2021

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your email, it is appreciated.

Thank you for also your sterling work om the SKIP campaign.

On your point: I agree, but a large part of the problem is quite simply that this is not reflected in the incentives that companies face. Their costs do not reflect the problems caused by needing to deal with waste, let alone with the downstream environmental impacts of waste processing or disposal. At present, the real polluters - those who design products and packaging - do not pay for the environmental impact of their decisions.

I think that is a very fair point and something we (Parliament) need to start addressing. Supermarkets are a classic example – they have been given an opportunity to make significant progress in this area, it doesn’t seem to be making a huge shift, so we will need to tighten up the laws.

On your point: You also mention that "... the EA will not issue an environmental permit if the proposed plant will have a significant impact on the environment or harm human health." This is true up to a point, but only up to a point. A major concern with waste incineration is the greenhouse gas emissions that it produces. This is not part of the Environmental Permitting regime and the Environment Agency will not comment on the greenhouse gas impacts of a proposal. It is left to the planning process to address this issue. But planning officers, and planning inspectors generally do not have the background which leads them to be confident in assessing such things. It is far too easy for developers - who are often far better resourced than local authorities - to either avoid the greenhouse issue altogether or to muddy the waters around it.

They do have to meet the current laws / regulations / rules – where the debate is are those set at the appropriate level. This is exactly the sort of thing that will need to be continuously reviewed, especially with COP26 likely to see countries sign up to (tougher) targets to reduce environmental impacts.

Kind regards,

Justin Tomlinson MP

14th March 2021

Dear Justin,

Thank you very much for getting back to me. I do appreciate your taking time to address this issue.

You say, with respect to Environmental Permitting that developers "... do have to meet the current laws / regulations / rules - where the debate is are those set at the appropriate level". However, my point is precisely that Environmental Permitting regulations do not cover greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions are covered (actually from my experience, not really covered) by the planning process.

The Environmental Permitting regime was set up to deal with noxious emissions which are directly harmful to human health. Dealing with noxious emissions presents fundamentally different issues from dealing with greenhouse gases, which are not (so far as the main ones are concerned) harmful to human health. Noxious emissions have to be kept to very low levels in all instances. Greenhouse gas emissions do not - the essential requirement is that they reduce overall. (Actually they need to reduce very sharply if dangerous levels of climate change are to be avoided.)

The current problem is precisely that developers who propose, for instance a waste incinerator, need only make a case that it will lead to a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, compared to other ways of dealing with the waste (even assuming the issue is addressed at all in the planning process - often it is not.) Current government guidance is vague and confused on the issue and, from my experience, developers do not really need to demonstrate a clear reduction, merely to confuse the issue sufficiently that it is not a clear ground for refusal of the application.

You mention COP26 but the Government does not need to wait for a climate change conference to take measures in this country to reduce greenhouse emissions. Though of course the issue is difficult to the extent that it is more than simply a matter of legislation - there is also a need for leadership in showing how waste can be avoided and moving towards reuse and recycling.

It is precisely such leadership which I feel, at a local level, a group such as Plastic Free Swindon is aiming to provide.

I wonder if you support their campaign, which I understand to be Swindon-wide and consequently directly affects your constituency? I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

Kind regards,

Robert Ayres, SKIP chair.

15th March 2021

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your reply.

I would be very happy to feed in your comments to the relevant Minister re: Environmental Permitting regulations – with your feeling that there is insufficient weight in the planning process to take account of Greenhouse gas emissions. Once I get a response I will share it with you.

As previously mentioned, I think we do need to do more regarding the downstream recycling – whilst we have given various industries (and money for research of alternatives) time to start the ball rolling, we need to start introducing tighter rules / regulations to speed this up.

Re: plastic free Swindon – my understanding is they would like a complete ban of plastic (immediately?) – rather than aiming for a reduction and recycling loop. I am not sure I would go that far, but the principles of (significant) reduction I do support.

Kind regards,

Justin Tomlinson MP

17th March 2021

Thank you very much for getting back to me on this matter. I look forward to receiving the relevant minister's comments.

I agree with you that recycling needs to be encouraged but would like to point out that incentivising companies not to generate waste in the first place also has an important role to play if the issue of plastic (and other) waste that produces greenhouse emissions is to be fully addressed.

I have taken the liberty of copying PlasticFreeSwindon into this reply. I am not sure that they want, as you suggest, an immediate ban on plastic use, so much as a move to a zero-waste/circular economy, which is not quite the same thing. Nevertheless I am sure that they will be pleased to learn that you support the principle behind their campaign.

Kind regards,

Robert Ayres, SKIP chair.

12th May 2021

[Personal information]

The Resources and Waste Strategy (RWS), published in 2018, sets out how we will minimise the damage caused to our natural environment by reducing and managing waste safely and carefully. Our ambition for the future of waste management in England is to ensure that we preserve material resources through a reduction in the generation of waste and by moving towards a circular economy. We also want to manage any residual waste in a way that maximises its value as a resource whilst minimising environmental impacts.

All local authorities and waste operators are required to collect and dispose of waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy to minimise the environmental impact as fully as possible. This requires them to ensure that where waste cannot be prevented or reused it is recycled where practicable, before considering energy recovery. Disposal, for example in landfill, is generally regarded as the worst option for most residual waste.

We committed in our RWS to reform our current packaging producer responsibility system and to introduce measures to incentivise producers to make better, more sustainable decisions in their design and use of packaging. In 2019 we consulted on proposals for an Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging, which would ensure that producers pay the full net cost of managing packaging they place on the market, including the collection and disposal costs of packaging waste.

A further consultation on more detailed proposals, including targets, timelines and scheme governance was launched on 24 March 2021, with a closing date of 4 June 2021. Your constituent can submit their views to this consultation here:
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/extended-producer-responsibility/extended-producer-responsibility-for-packaging

The RWS recognises that even with our policies for greater waste prevention, reuse and a 65% municipal waste recycling rate, there will still be a need to manage residual waste. The best evidence we have suggests that energy from waste (EfW) is a better option than landfill for residual waste, in terms of carbon impact.

We have always been clear that incineration should be a last resort behind re-use and recycling – but using waste to generate energy is currently far preferable to putting our waste in landfill for future generations to deal with. The RWS included a commitment for the Government to monitor residual waste treatment capacity and we intend to publish a fresh analysis over the coming months.

Under the Environmental Permitting process, EfW plants are closely regulated once operational through a programme of regular inspections and audits carried out by the Environment Agency (EA), which also carefully checks the results of the continuous air emissions monitoring which all plants must do to meet the conditions of their environmental permit. For greenhouse gas emissions, the EA ensures that the global warming potential of the incinerator will be minimised by the use of Best Available Techniques (BAT - including those set out in the European BAT reference notes) in order to maximise the energy efficiency of the plant and minimise nitrous oxide emissions from its de-NOx system.

On 18 March 2021, we launched a public consultation on a new Waste Prevention Programme (WPP) for England: Towards a Resource Efficient Economy. The WPP sets out priorities for action to manage our resources and waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy, through actions such as increasing reuse, repair and remanufacture of products. It outlines the potential for, and benefits of, action on waste prevention, what industry is already doing and could do, as well as setting out actions for Government. The c onsultation closes on 10 June 2021. Your constituent can submit their views via the Citizen Space platform here:
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/waste-and-recycling/waste-prevention-programme-for-england-2021

Thank you once again for taking the time contact us about this important issue.

Rebecca Pow MP

10th January 2021

Dear Mr Tomlinson,

On behalf of Plastic Free Swindon, I am writing regarding a parliamentary debate next week.

On Tuesday 12th January 2021 there will be a Parliamentary debate on waste incineration and recycling rates scheduled to start from around 4:30pm at Westminster Hall. We ask that you attend this important debate.

Waste incineration pollutes our environment with toxic chemicals. Examples are furans, dioxins and toxic ash; all the cause of disease. So incineration is not a solution to our waste problems; it doesn't make waste disappear. Clarification of this in further detail can be found at the Global Alliance of Incinerator Alternatives website:

https://www.no-burn.org/facts-about-waste-to-energy-incinerators

Genuine waste solutions lie in a creating a system of zero waste where care is taken to use and reuse natural materials so that we don't further poison the environment. This would be beneficial in other respects such as lower energy requirements, reduced transportation, and economic growth.

Clarification of all points can be found in-depth on our website: https://plasticfreeswindon.org

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Kind regards,

Hollie Snyder, Refill Swindon.

15th January 2021

Dear Hollie,

Please be aware that, as a minister, I can only attend debates which relate to my ministerial portfolio. However, for your convenience, I have provided an update on this important issue below.

Firstly, I do understand your concerns about the growth of incineration and I agree that we need to do all we can to encourage people to recycle and use resources more efficiently.

By being more 'resource efficient', we can ease pressure on the environment and our stocks of natural resource, but also reduce costs too, boosting productivity. Where waste is produced, wherever possible we must ensure it is recycled. The Resources and Waste Strategy sets the Government’s higher recycling ambitions, including delivering a 65 per cent municipal waste recycling rate by 2035, and a minimum 70 per cent recycling rate for packaging waste by 2030.

In accordance with the waste hierarchy, the priority is to prevent waste in the first place and where it does arise, to reuse or recycle it. Waste incineration is the best management option for waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled. It plays an important role in diverting that waste from landfill, reducing its environmental impact. The Resources and Waste Strategy commits to increasing the efficiency of energy for waste plants.

All energy from waste plants are regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) and they must comply with the strict emission limits set by the European Industrial Emissions Directive. The EA assesses the emissions from new energy from waste plants as part of its permitting process, and consults with Public Health England on every application it receives. I am encouraged that the EA will not issue an environmental permit if the proposed plant will have a significant impact on the environment or harm human health.

On the issue of recycling, in 2019, the Government consulted on measures to require businesses, public bodies and other organisations to separate waste streams including plastic, metal, paper, glass and food waste so that these could be collected and recycled. Measures to reduce the costs of putting in place recycling collections, particularly for smaller firms, were also consulted on.

The response to this consultation showed strong support for businesses to recycle. I am therefore pleased that the Environment Bill introduces duties for businesses to separate waste to be recycled. I understand that the Government will work with businesses to implement these changes and to increase recycling including investigating measures to reduce costs.

In addition to this, a £1 million fund was launched to encourage organisations that collect or facilitate collection of business waste to provide new or improved recycling services. This fund also aims to provide new infrastructure and better access to services for small to medium enterprises.

More widely, the Resources and Waste Strategy, mentioned above, sets out how plastic pollution will be reduced and material resources preserved by minimising waste, increasing recycling rates, promoting resource efficiency and moving towards a more circular economy. The Government has consulted on proposals to make producers pay the full net cost for dealing with the packaging they put on the market at end-of-life, the potential introduction of a deposit return scheme, and on a world-leading tax on plastic packaging which does not contain at least 30 per cent recycled material. These reforms should help reduce waste and increase the amount of packaging recycled.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. I will be sure to monitor this issue closely.

Kind regards,

Justin.

1st March 2021

Hi Justin,

Thank you for your response and apologies for the delay in getting back to you. You have made many points so I will respond to each:

It’s good to see mention of the waste hierarchy. However government policies and the Environment Bill do not reflect that important understanding. A key message of our campaign is that there is no away with plastic, that our use of it pollutes at every stage of its journey, from the sourcing of raw materials through to its eventual waste in the environment. This unhealthy system is enabled through the fallacy that a system of recycling plastic will solve plastic pollution problems.

Plastic recycling has been repeatedly touted by industry and governments (including the UK) as the way forward over the last 50 years, despite industry knowledge of the accumulating pollution that it causes. Proclaimed aspirations have repeatedly failed to address these problems, yet here we are again being sold the same non-solutions by the same organisations:

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled

Indeed, it is clear that the oil / plastics industry have deceived the public for decades with regards to plastics, as mentioned, and climate change. Given the enormity of these crimes, what will you and the government be doing about that?

https://desmog.co.uk/2021/01/15/api-american-petroleum-institute-oil-industry-public-climate-denial-campaign-1980

The government’s waste strategy and Environment Bill would continue to enable the use of fossil fuel derived plastic, and the recycling targets you mention would still enable a vast stream of plastic waste to be produced. That is clearly not good enough, especially considering the current levels of plastic pollution, considering the contribution to climate change and biodiversity loss made clear in the Center For Environmental Law’s report, ‘Plastic and Climate’:

https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate

With regards to businesses recycling, an example: Swindon Borough Council have been promoting the importance of recycling to residents. However they have not provided facilities for businesses to do so since removing them around 5 years ago. That seems to be hypocritical. The council have told businesses that recycling is not deemed to be cost effective. Now the Environment Bill seeks to reinstate business recycling and that is dubbed progress, no mention of regression.

It has been the case that the privatisation of waste and recycling services has been problematic and not served our best interests. For example, if the price of glass is deemed too low, then glass can end up in landfill instead of being recycled. That has been happening in Swindon. I suggest that the £1 million fund that you mentioned is grossly inadequate. We need a great deal more consideration, time, money, and facilitation; systemic change not token gestures.

To eliminate plastic pollution, it is clear that we need to stop producing plastic in the first place. The Plastic Pollution Bill would enable that, providing the strong legislation and timetable necessary to reduce plastic production / pollution, as quickly as possible. Are you supporting this bill? If not, why not?

We welcome a Deposit Return Scheme; it’s much needed and would be beneficial in many respects. It’s been almost 2 years since the public consultation. What’s the current situation with it? Why the doubt about introducing such a beneficial scheme?

Incineration is an awful way to deal with plastic, problematic in many respects:

• Incineration releases toxins into the air causing health problems. Burning plastics produces highly toxic and persistent materials such as dioxins and furans.
• Scrubbers may remove some of the pollution from the incinerated emissions. However, that toxic material still has to go somewhere, polluting another area.
• Many UK towns and cities have had air pollution levels that have breached EU legal limits for many years. So we need to be reducing emissions, not increasing them.
• Recyclable and compostable material is being incinerated.
• Government and industry are forcing incinerators onto communities, despite campaigns to stop them. Who wants to live next to an incinerator?
• Many incinerators are built in poorer areas. Is this why Swindon has been chosen to have an incinerator?
https://www.no-burn.org/facts-about-waste-to-energy-incinerators

Waste-to-energy incinerators and plants provide indirect means to burn waste, including plastics. This enables polluting industries to avoid responsibility for the outcomes of their activities. At what cost? The following article describes the reality of burning SRF produced from waste-to-energy plants (such as the one at Cheney Manor in Swindon):

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2014/03/when-waste-ends-up-in-acement-kiln

The standards for SRF and RDF were set by industry including Plastics Europe. Swindon’s SRF is sent to Eastern Europe. What disease and suffering are we causing those communities because of our continued use of toxic materials, because of our inability to introduce effective legislation to reduce plastic production?

Returning to the waste hierarchy, the use of waste incineration indicates an inept system. We need to do much better if we are to effectively deal with plastic pollution. For the Plastic Free Swindon campaign, we support a system of zero waste, of strong chemical regulation and effective legislation to reduce plastic production (the Plastic Pollution Bill). Those are the core aspects needed to properly address plastic pollution, to deal with root problems rather than symptoms.

Further detail on all the aspects mentioned can be found on our website: https://plasticfreeswindon.org

Thank you,

Hollie Snyder, Refill Swindon.

2nd March 2021

Thank you for your reply Hollie. You raise some important points and I read them with interest.

I can assure you that the government takes these issues seriously and has committed to leaving the environment in a better state than when we found it. It is still early days – we have a long way to go and more to be done. As we look towards our recovery post-Covid, protecting the environment and tackling climate change will be priorities.

As you say, we can be in no doubt that plastic is wreaking havoc on the environment and degrading our most precious habitats. It is absolutely vital we act now to tackle this threat and the number of plastics that go unrecycled. I am pleased that Ministers remain committed to developing a deposit return scheme in England. I know that since consulting on its introduction in 2019, the Government has been developing proposals for a deposit return scheme for drinks containers using further evidence and ongoing engagement with recycling and waste organisations, as well as others. The scope of the scheme is being further developed and will be presented in a second consultation this year.

The Government has already taken strong action to reduce plastic waste; 15.6 billion fewer bags have been handed out to shoppers by the seven main retailers since the introduction of the plastic bag charge in 2015 and the ban on plastic microbeads in cosmetic products has been welcomed as one of the toughest in the world.

As I say, there is more to be done and I can assure you that both protecting the environment and tackling climate change will continue to be priorities for this government.

Thank you again for raising these important issues.

Kind regards,

Justin.

19th February 2021

Dear Robert Buckland,

I am writing to you to ask that you oppose waste incineration, instead supporting the actions required to transition to a zero waste system.

It is understood that waste incineration has no place in a healthy system of production. The need for incineration comes about through the use of toxic substances which cannot be dealt with, such as fossil fuel derived plastics. The idea that incineration makes the waste disappear is a fallacy, as is the notion that our air is not further polluted. Incineration furthers climate change, which is obviously not good considering the current situation. I refer you to the excellent resources on the UK Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) and Global Alliance Against Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) websites which clearly make these points:

UKWIN: https://ukwin.org.uk

GAIA: https://www.no-burn.org

Additionally, I would like to convey the realities of using Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF) and Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), Swindon Borough Council claim in their Carbon Reduction Strategy that, the Cheney Manor SRF plant is one of “a number of initiatives that continue to benefit the Council, its residents and the wider borough”. They also claim in their video on the SRF plant at Cheney Manor that SRF is better for the environment than burying waste.

The pollution of our environment benefits no-one except for the industries profiting from the continued use of toxic materials. The use of SRF is an indirect means to burn waste including plastics. This supposed standard was set up by industry for industry, including plastics. SRF is not an efficient fuel, is highly toxic, contributes to climate change, requires energy to produce and fuel for transportation. Swindon’s SRF is sold to Eastern Europe for use in cement kilns. What harm are we causing those communities and the environment through its use? Please read the following article which relays the experience of burning SRF in cement kilns in Spain:

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/2014/03/when-waste-ends-up-in-acement-kiln

Supporting waste incineration spreads the wrong messages and allows an unhealthy system to continue. A system of zero waste is ideal; good for people, animals, local economies and the environment. That is made clear in the following report. I urge you to support such a system, in which incineration would not be needed.

Zero waste and economic recovery: The job creation potential of zero waste solutions:

https://zerowasteworld.org/zerowastejobs

Your sincerely,

Ben Bell, Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator.

25th February 2021

Hi Robert,

Did you see the email below? Please respond.

Ben Bell, Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator.

15th March 2021

Hi Robert,

Have you seen the emails below regarding waste incineration? Please respond.

Ben Bell, Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator.

16th March 2021

Dear Ben,

Many thanks for this and I apologise for the delay in getting back to you.

Your thoughts and comments on waste incineration and the actions required to transition to a zero waste system are noted and I will share them both with my Government colleagues and the relevant Cabinet Member on Swindon Borough Councillor for their consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Buckland MP

17th March 2021

Hi Robert,

Thanks for responding on waste incineration and zero waste. To clarify, the points made provided the case for a system of zero waste over the current system of recycling, waste incineration (including waste-to-energy) and landfill. They did not provide, "the actions required to transition to a zero waste system", as you've conveyed. Did you read the email and links?

[Info on other subjects]

Sincerely

Ben Bell, Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator.

27th October 2021

Dear Robert Buckland,

I am writing to let you know that on Monday the 1st of November Parliament will be debating a petition which calls on the UK Government to stop subsidising fossil fuels and to start taxing all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Plastic is a fossil fuel that emits around 2 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of plastic incinerated.

The UK Government should stop subsidising waste incineration and immediately introduce an incineration tax to promote recycling and to reflect the unpaid cost to society of the CO2 emissions from incinerators. I would be grateful if you could attend the debate and convey my view to Parliament.

As set out at: https://ukwin.org.uk/facts/#unpaidcost, the UK's 55 operational incinerators released more than 6 million tonnes of fossil CO2 in 2020 which resulted in an unpaid cost to society of more than £1.5 billion pounds (based on the UK Government's central price for non-traded carbon). Further evidence to support the introduction of an incineration tax can be found at: https://ukwin.org.uk/policy

Yours sincerely,

Ben Bell, Plastic Free Swindon co-ordinator.