Last week, a rare week-long temperature inversion in Paris, not an uncommon occurrence in Vancouver, created a noxious blanket of pollution over the City of Lights, forcing officials to take drastic measures to cope with the smog. The smog is being blamed on the high numbers of automobiles running on diesel and unseasonably warm weather. Into the smog soup, three regional garbage incinerators continue to pump emissions into Paris's atmosphere, adding to the problems on the ground.
How's Paris's air quality problem relates to Vancouver
It was one of these incinerators that lured former Metro Vancouver waste management committee chair and current Surrey MLA Marvin Hunt to Paris in the spring of 2008. And that apparently helped to sell him on the idea that similar facilities would be good for Metro Vancouver.
In June, 2008, Paris had unveiled Europe’s newest and most advanced waste-to-energy incinerator along the banks of the Seine. Situated in the middle of the city and within view of the Eiffel Tower, the new incinerator could burn 460,000 tonnes of Parisian garbage a year and generate enough heat for thousands of homes, plus the nearby Musée D'Orsay and its paintings, sculptures, furniture and photography.
Paris under recent blanket of smog. Photo: Flickr Creative Commons.
What better way to view how a garbage incinerator could peacefully co-exist in a vast city of 2.2 million than to pay the incinerator a visit? So, with Suez Environnement officials anxious to show off their new Paris plant, that’s Metro Vancouver decided to send Marvin Hunt.
The foreign travel came during a time Metro Vancouver was operating its own incinerator in Burnaby. Built in 1986, it is, according to Metro Vancouver, “one of the best facilities on the continent.”
But the North American continent didn’t seem to cut it for Metro Vancouver in its search for new incineration technology. Johnny Carline, the chief operating officer of Metro Vancouver at the time wrote to the members of the local waste committee that an invitation had been received from “leading waste management company Suez Environnement” to visit its Paris facilities.
“Such a visit would allow firsthand knowledge to be gained of advanced facilities in an urban environment ... as these options are considered in 2008,” wrote Carline in 2008.
Gushing about incinerators
On January 11, 2008, Carline placed the following item on the agenda of the meeting.
“From: Johnny Carline ... Seeking approval for Director Hunt, Chair, Waste Management Committee, to visit waste to energy facility in Paris, France, and seeking authorization of expenses (up to a maximum $1,500) occurred in connection with the visit.”
Hunt had indicated he was able to visit since he would be in London on personal business. A three-day trip to the City of Love along with flights wouldn’t cost more than $1,500. Suez Environnement had offered to pay the freight for the whole junket but Metro Vancouver declined, saying only “normal hospitality costs” would be covered by Suez as the company may do business with Metro Vancouver in the future. Suez Environnement is currently one of the proponents for a waste-to-energy incinerator for Metro Vancouver.
Hunt returned to Vancouver gushing about the Paris incinerator tour and according to a number of directors, provided a glowing report to the Board. Marvin Hunt was contacted by VO but he did not return calls.
Hunt’s Suez/Paris visit wasn’t the only push for incineration at this critical January 2008 meeting. During discussion of an updated regional garbage plan, Metro Vancouver staff was directed to “forward an information package related to waste-to-energy technologies and facilities to board members. “
Paris incinerator. Photo courtesy Flickr Creative Commons.
During this time of examining the European incineration experience, developments were taking place in Vancouver’s backyard that had nothing to do with burning garbage and everything to do with saving it.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco...
On April 23, 2008, three hours south of Vancouver ‘as-the-plane-flies’, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was trumpeting his city’s latest environmental achievement: a 70 per cent recycling rate – the highest in the nation.
"I want to build upon this commitment to waste reduction with legislation that will get us to a 75 per cent recycling rate and ultimately support our 2010 Climate Action Plan goal," said Newsom in a news statement at the time. Today that rate is close to 80 per cent, and San Francisco continues to use landfills for residue that cannot be recycled or reused.
San Francisco Material Recovery Facility. Zack Embree photo.
Last week, Metro Vancouver chair Greg Moore told VO: “Of course we talk to San Francisco all the time. San Francisco is controlled by one body. There is a monopoly there in the sense that the hauler, the processor, the recycler is all run by one, which is a government organization. So it is a different model that they have chosen.”
Back in 2007-2008, however, Metro Vancouver wasn’t quite sure what the future looked like. They were pretty sure it would include a lot more garbage and few places to put it. More incineration was an easy solution that could solve that problem.
In 2008, with San Francisco and San Jose already achieving 70 percent recycling without incineration, some on the board of Metro Vancouver must have been listening.
According to minutes of a February 28, 2008 meeting of the Waste Management Committee, “concerns were expressed that the discussion document titled “Strategy for Updating the Solid Waste Management Plan” leads to an assumption that Waste-to-Energy recovery technology based on incineration is the selected energy recovery technology strategy. “
Those concerns didn’t slow down the Metro Vancouver incineration push. On April 25, 2008, the board was informed that “a Request for Proposals is being prepared for a long-term waste-to-energy solid waste disposal”.
And three months later, and shortly after the Hunt visit to the Paris incinerators, a new item appeared on the Metro Vancouver capital projects list: “Potential Addition of New Waste-to-energy Facility.” Added to the bottom of the item was this encouragement: “Resolving the need for facilities to handle solid waste is a significant and pressing Metro Vancouver priority. Consequences of delay would be serious.”
That fall, a consultant study comparing waste to energy to landfill was underway.
Thanks for sharing your concerns, but...
It was becoming apparent that Metro Vancouver was on a path towards another incinerator and it was not sitting well with community and environmental advocates. Joe Foy, a well known activist with the Wilderness Committee, appeared before the Metro Vancouver board early in 2009 expressing grave concerns about a new incinerator “undermining recycling initiatives.”
His concerns failed to sway many directors. Hunt said he didn't see what problem people had with incinerators, be it their potential impact on recycling or air quality. "Spend two hours in front of your barbecue and you'll get dioxin exposure equivalent to 10 years from our (Burnaby) incinerator," Hunt told Surrey Now.
By June, the board had approved sending four more directors to Europe to study incinerators in Sweden, a country that is now a leading European recycling nation. With no energy resources, Sweden had long been held hostage to the vagrancies of world oil and gas prices to heat its homes and businesses. The country embraced garbage incineration as an energy alternative and its technology led the continent in waste-to-energy. Four Metro Vancouver directors toured Sweden in May, 2009 and they too came back with positive reports on its technology, efficiency and low emissions.
By September 2009, it was clear Metro Vancouver was convinced incineration was the only path to deal with future garbage. “Garbage is a resource we waste when we bury it in the ground”, wrote then Metro Vancouver chair Lois Jackson in a Vancouver Sun editorial. “Waste-to-energy comes with a significant up-front capital expense, but it is the least expensive in the long run.”
When the vote on Metro Vancouver's Draft Integrated Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan approached in 2010, people sent emails expressing doubts about the benefit of building a new incinerator. But by then, Hunt was so convinced by the several tours he'd had of Europe's incinerators that he sent the same template-style response to people who urged him to consider other options:
"Thanks for sharing your concerns. I want you to know that I will be supporting Waste to Energy facilities that will in fact reduce pollution in the Valley by cleaning the air. In Copenhagen, the air coming out of their facilities is cleaner that the ambient air in Copenhagen. That is why the Embassies are just down the road for one of their Waste to Energy facilities.
"As for costs, over a thirty year life cycle, WTE facilities will make a profit of $20 million where as a landfill will cost $1.3 billion.
My vote is for WTE.
Again, thanks for sharing your concerns.
Marvin Hunt"
Comments