The Great Air Pollution Confidence Trick

How We Found Out

As West London Friends of the Earth studied the case of the Grundon incinerator at Colnbrook, it became apparent to us that the air pollution issues were being treated in such a way as to ensure that they could not be an impediment to the incinerator going ahead. The issues are somewhat involved, so we give a simplified, but nonetheless accurate, summary of the position.

How the Air Pollution Assessment Works

When a major scheme such as this incinerator is proposed, the company that wants to build it is required to carry out an assessment of the effects of the scheme on air quality. This was duly done by the developer, Grundon, and was submitted to the government agency responsible for authorising polluting plants and processes, the Environment Agency.

The air pollution resulting from the incinerator was estimated by computerised air pollution modelling. This is a standard procedure for major plants which might have an appreciable effect on local air quality.

In most of the area around the incinerator, the current air pollution is within the standards. The incinerator would not produce enough pollution to cause those standards to be breached. In such cases there are not grounds for turning an incinerator down (Note 1). So if the air is not already highly polluted near the incinerator, it is all right to make it worse !

In some locations near the incinerator the air pollution already breaches the standards. The incinerator will clearly make it worse. But here the excuse is that the contribution of the incinerator is small compared with the background level (Note 2). So if the air is already highly polluted near the incinerator, it is also ok to make it worse !

Further away from the incinerator, modelling of air quality is not carried out. So whether the air there is highly polluted there or not, it is ok to make it worse ! (Note 3)

The reader may being to suspect a conspiracy here !   It is almost impossible to turn an incinerator down on the grounds of air pollution.

Even if the incinerator were to make a large contribution to air pollution locally, one could just build a higher chimney. Although this does not reduce the total amount of pollution, it spreads it over a wider area. At any particular place, the proportion contributed by the incinerator is made smaller. So it becomes ok again !

And if all else fails, one can incinerate by stages. Apply for one smaller incinerator and then, when that has been agreed, apply for another incinerator or an extension to the first one. Each one has a relatively small impact and so is acceptable. There is apparently no limit on the cumulative effect which is allowed.

Greenhouse Gases

The air pollution assessment carried by Grundon and EA concentrated entirely on 'noxious' gases. But equally or more important than noxious gases are the greenhouse gases which cause global warming and threaten catastrophic climate change. But in over 200 pages of detailed evidence, Grundon and the EA did not mention the issue once !

West London Friends of the Earth does not have the resources to calculate the emissions of greenhouse gases to any level of accuracy. But based on published studies, we estimate that the incinerator could produce an astonishing half a million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year.

The reason for this omission was given to us by Dr John Gregory of the EA, who said that incineration generates no more greenhouse gases than landfill. This is correct. But what he failed to point out is that incineration produces a great deal more greenhouse gases than other methods of disposal such as recycling and composting. Presumably he feels that his duty is to justify his political masters' support of incineration, rather than give us the true picture !

Notes

Note 1 Our advice from the EA (Dr John Gregory) is that only if the incinerator is expected to produce over 2% of the existing (background) levels of pollution would it be a "priority for control". For most pollutants in most places, this threshold is comfortably met. But for sulphur dioxide, the incinerator could produce up to 7 times the background and it appears this threshold may not be met. However, this has not disuaded the EA from agreeing to the incinerator. [Return]

Note 2 The same 2% rule applies. But if an area is already highly polluted, the proportional contribution from a new source, such as an incinerator, will tend to be small. [Return]

Note 3 Beyond the area of air pollution modelling, the contribution of the incinerator to local air pollution levels would undoubtedly be very small. But a small increase in air pollution will ocur over a very wide area. By ignoring the total impact, the EA is endorsing a "disperse and ignore" approach to air pollution. [Return]

More information

More on Colnebrook incinerator

Back to introduction to incineration

Back to waste, recycling and incineration introduction

(Originally written 02, still valid Oct 04)