Page 1212 - Week 03 - Thursday, 31 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Members may have heard of the Wollongong solid waste and energy recycling facility. Between the company involved, the federal government and the local government, approximately $45 million was invested into this project. Despite much fanfare and huge expectation around the ability of the facility to separate co-mingled waste, its practice was plagued with problems. These were both in the technology and in the management. The project failed, millions of dollars were lost, and this approach to waste management turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. I am not saying that this will happen in the ACT if the government decides to pursue similar technology. But I am saying that the ACT government must be very certain about its decision to pursue the co-mingled option and to dismiss source separation. It is a big decision and the consequences can be enormous.
I talked earlier about the importance of reusing our organic waste in the natural system and improving soils. A dirty MRF or co-mingled approach is not suited to do this. Dirty MRF facilities in Sydney have had serious difficulties producing a usable compost product from the processed organic waste. They have struggled to obtain compost certification for the product and they have had problems with contamination and poisoning.
The organic product they have produced through their dirty MRF process is generally not usable for food growing due to its contamination problems. Again, this is made clear in the independent 2008 Wright report on waste technologies, which concluded that alternative waste technologies using resources from mixed residual waste “is still to be reliably and independently verified to deliver sustainable and significant reductions in waste to landfill and products that are readily saleable on diverse and robust markets”. The opposite is true for source separation and composting, which the report says are “well-proven and viable technologies”. Given this independent report, the Greens are naturally concerned that if the government decides to pursue alternative waste technologies, and it uses a feedstock derived from the dirty MRF, this will cause the technology to perform poorly and to produce a low quality end product.
In conclusion, the Greens are arguing that a source separation approach to waste management is the most favourable approach. It brings benefits to the community and to the environment that are not achievable with a co-mingled, dirty recycling approach. It will result in the kind of waste initiatives that we know can work—a third bin for organic material, public place recycling and separation of toxics. It brings the best benefits for the environment, the biggest reduction in greenhouse gases, savings on virgin materials and very important and necessary improvements to soil and food production.
These are the things that the government must be considering as part of its waste strategy. Currently, it appears to be giving them little attention, and this needs to change. I encourage the government to look at the evidence more thoroughly, including at the submission provided to you recently by the Greens, and to develop a strategy that will best serve the community and the environment, and a strategy that will also have the best economic outcome. As I have stated quite clearly, if you apply source separation, you have a high quality product. Not only is that better if you are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video