Incinerators (Pro) are better than Landfills (Con)

I thank Con for his quick response. Concerning Con's Rebuttals: 1. The Cost of an Incinerator is greater than that of landfills Con has ignored my points about landfills needing less land and human resources compared to incinerators, which makes incinerators cheaper in the long run. I have also cited sources, such as the Hong Kong government, which prove otherwise. Con cites from www.durhamenvironmentwatch.org which does indeed say that the capital costs for incinerators is high, but the source does not mention anything about incinerator costs in the long run. We are talking about waste management here, an issue that will go on for decades if not centuries. We won't be building an incinerator then shutting it down the next year. When divided, costs of an incinerator in the long run are less than that of landfills. It also fails to factor in the economic benefits brought forth by the generation of electricity. 2. Incinerators add to global warming and causes health problems I believe that Con has ignored my point concerning how incinerators do not produce methane. Methane has a Global Warming Potential of 30, and landfills are the principal anthropogenic sources of methane emissions in the United States, taking up 36.4%. Con has also ignored my evidence from a source, with the cited study finding "that the landfill released higher amounts of greenhouse gases, hydrocarbons, nonmethane organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, nitrogen oxides and dioxin than an incinerator." It is said that "At present, municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) in waste-to-energy (WtE) has confirmed to be an environmentally friendly solution and a common alternative to landfilling, while allowing recovery of a large part of the energy contained in MSW". Incinerators actually have the ability to destroy potential pathogens and toxic organic contaminants. It should also be noted that flute gas cleaning systems typically remove over half of the pollutants (required by law) that Con's cited source (no-burn.org) mentioned. It is very important to note that air pollution induced by MSWI has been strongly reduced by some up-to-date sophisticated air pollution control equipments, whereas nothing can be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills. Some studies that analysed in detail the health impact associated to the gaseous emissions of MSWI have revealed that no relevant health problems may be associated to modern MSWI systems, so Con's concerns about the impact of incinerators on human health is unfounded and not evidence-based. All waste incineration processes are now designed and operated so that residual emissions of pollutants comply with the emission limits set out in the Waste Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC). All emissions are measured continuously and online reported to the authority. Additionally the input and the environment are checked by bioindication (sampling of soil, water, plants, animals- showing measurable damages to flora, soil and water fauna) Thus, emissions from modern incinerators are not likely to put our health at risk, and in reality there are many other far worse emissions from factories, road traffic on motorways, and even home coal and wood fires. On a side note, Con has ignored my points concerning incinerators being cleaner, more sustainable, an alternative power source, operation hours and it's contribution to effective metal recycling. Rebuttals: 1. "I feel that while burning the trash is important" Con has conceded to Pro here. 2. Recycling instead of burning Con has yet again ignored my point concerning incinerators' contribution to effective metal recycling. Con also forgets that landfills do not process waste and thus recycling is not an advantage for landfills. This debate is about whether or not incinerators are better than landfills, not whether incinerators are the best waste management method. Additionally, ash from incinerators are actually used in road-building. Scrap from incinerators are used in the steel industry. Incinerators do not waste primary raw resources as much as landfills do. 3. "communities are forced to sign these 20-30 year contracts in which they have to provide therefore not giving incinerator companies incentive to recycle" Con has not stated what said communities have to "provide". Con's usage of the word "forced" is also inappropriate. This is a democratic society, and any such decision would have been made by the public where only a majority vote in favour of the motion would have allowed the construction and subsequent operation of an incinerator. Also, what does recycling have to do with all of this? Con forgets that landfills do not contribute to recycling, and thus recycling is not a point that can be used to attack incineration. 4. Jobs The main focus when comparing waste management methods are their efficiency, impact on health and environment and operating costs. Jobs are not as significant as the many other points I have brought up but Con has ignored, especially since landfills do not create unique jobs when compared to incinerators. For example, truck drivers working in landfills can do the same job for many other industries, whereas engineers for incinerators are professional and thus incinerators create much more unique job opportunities. 5. Recycling (again) I would like to remind Con that the waste hierarchy works this way: Source reduction and reuse; recoiling/composting; energy recovery; treatment & disposal. Any kind of recycling comes BEFORE treatment and disposal (where both incinerators and landfills belong to), and so the statement that "recyclables/wastes come from landfills" is false. There is no organisation which can legally go to landfills and collect "recyclables" on a usual basis due to safety concerns. Waste is ideally sorted and some recycled before it goes to landfills or incinerators, thus landfills have nothing to contribute to recycling. My Points: I would like to extend all of my points from the previous round, and stress upon the points that Con has ignored. An additional point: 8. Incinerators are able to handle medical waste With high temperatures, harmful bacteria in medical waste is killed in incinerators. Landfills have no such ability to handle medical waste, which is why 90% of medical waste is incinerated, the rest treated via autoclaves, mechanical/chemical disinfection, microwave and irradiation. Note how landfills are not a method of treating medical waste. References: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu... http://cdn.intechopen.com... (Margarida J. Quina, Jo"o C.M. Bordado and Rosa M. Quinta-Ferreira (2011). Air Pollution Control in Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators, The Impact of Air Pollution on Health, Economy, Environment and Agricultural Sources, Dr. Mohamed Khallaf (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-307-528-0, InTech) http://www.epa.gov... http://www.wastemed.com... http://www.asa-group.com... Sources used in the previous round