Dan Boyle (Green Party)

For too long, the debate on waste in Ireland has been about the end of pipe solutions, that is, how one disposes of the waste that is created. In Ireland, we invariably have chosen the landfill option and rarely took into account properly the reason so much waste is produced in the first instance. The per capita amount of waste produced in Ireland often is twice that produced by many of our European counterparts. Each Irish citizen produces the equivalent of 1.25 tonnes per year. That would frighten many people if they were standing next to it. Other countries have started successfully to reduce the amount of waste that has been created. We must ask ourselves the reason we have not done the same. We are now reaching the point at which after decades and generations of poor waste management, our countryside is littered with landfills, some of which have long exceeded their natural lifespans. Many are being closed and alternatives for them must be sought.

The question of mass burn incineration has been raised in this debate. I continue to believe that mass burn incineration is the wrong response. I listened with interest to Senator Norris's contribution, who quoted the views of P. J. Rudden. As a consultant the latter has been the person most responsible for promoting incineration in Ireland and his company was the main author of regional waste management strategies that suggested the development of a necklace of incinerators around the country. It is clear this proposal was wrong and unnecessary. Incineration is a technology that demands to be fed. If one builds an infrastructure that requires the burning of X amount of materials, a consequential requirement arises to produce X amount of materials. This is utterly incompatible with a strategy in which one seeks to reduce waste at every opportunity. In philosophical terms, incineration is the wrong answer. Moreover, incineration is a combustion-based technology. As the combustion process adds to the major global environmental problem we face, namely, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, it is a highly stupid solution. Until we cease to propose this option as a high point of any waste management strategy, we will not solve the central issue.

The programme for Government makes a number of commitments in this regard. A commitment in respect of the EU landfill directive states that by 2010 we must seek to have only 10% of waste going to landfill, with the other 90% being diverted either to recycling or other waste management technologies. The programme for Government goes further in stating that the preferred technologies are biological and mechanical methods of disposal. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is working assiduously to promote this use of technology. The other commitment in the programme for Government states that incineration will not be given an economic advantage, either by way of "put and pay" clauses, which are a controversial element of the contract that Dublin City Council has signed in respect of Poolbeg, or by not matching any increase in landfill levies with the introduction of a similar level of levy for incineration. The Minister is producing legislation in this regard that will bring into play that principle.

Although certain cases still are within the planning process and the courts, I remain optimistic that alternatives and other waste management options will emerge that will help us to avoid mass burn incineration. Members must give particular consideration to the subject of hazardous waste. As Senator Buttimer is aware, the proposal for a national hazardous waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy has been controversial. Ringaskiddy has been always a bad choice for a number of reasons. While it is a centre for the pharmaceutical industry, one must bear in mind that locating a national hazardous waste facility in a particular area means that waste must be transported thereto from the rest of the country. Advocates of incineration contend that Ringaskiddy, having been heavily industrialised, can accommodate more hazardous waste. I have always rejected this argument. It is rarely understood that there are already five incinerators in the Ringaskiddy area, two at the Novartis plant and three at the SmithKline Beecham plant. If I, as an individual, were to accept the principle of incineration, it would be on the basis of having small-scale plant-based incinerators subject to integrated pollution prevention control licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency. On the basis of the industrial processes of the companies concerned, we would have a fair idea of what would be incinerated and what would be emitted.

It should be suggested as part of the current review of the national hazardous waste strategy that incinerators, if we are to have them, should be small-scale and linked to the installations producing the waste. We need to reject, by way of policy, the view that mass-burn incineration is a solution. I am confident that Government policy is going in this direction.

Ireland is often accused of being a bad neighbour for exporting most of its hazardous waste abroad. This argument is similar to that on incineration in general in that it is a matter of economies of scale. If we are to have sufficient infrastructure in Ireland to deal with hazardous waste in an economically viable manner, we must produce more of it or import it from abroad. There is still a logic to exportation and I am glad the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has secured ongoing permission from the European Commission to allow some export of our hazardous waste. That said, we still require some hazardous waste facility in Ireland.

Regardless of what waste management method is chosen, there must be a degree of contained landfill. One can dispose of waste directly in landfill or one can use a mechanical and biological process or incineration. However, in the latter cases, a residue must still be sent to landfill. We must face up to the fact that we need a contained hazardous waste landfill as distinct from a hazardous waste incinerator. We must take care of as much of our hazardous waste as possible in Ireland and ensure we produce as little as possible, thereby guaranteeing there is less to dispose of.

Perversely, one item of good news that has emerged from our failure to deal with hazardous waste in the past is that it has created an incentive for companies to change their production practices. We have engaged in an act of waste minimisation over the past ten to 15 years that would not have occurred had the easy disposal option existed, as was proposed and as is still being proposed in some quarters. We need to strike a balance by reducing the waste we produce while ensuring it is very difficult to dispose of. Whatever other elements we require, such as a hazardous waste landfill or some exportation of materials we cannot handle owing to the expense or the requirement to produce more waste to justify processing it ourselves, it is a simple equation. I regret we have not been able to state it properly in political terms in the past. I am convinced, however, that through the work of the Minister and the programme for Government, the equation will be balanced in the short term.