I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to debate the issues involved in waste reduction, recycling, composting, incineration and gasification, with particular reference to any possible consequences to public health.
While welcoming the Minister of State, I am shocked because the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. The motion seeks to discuss waste reduction and does not condemn the Government's policy or ask it to do anything more than it would normally do. I sought the debate because I wish to be informed, as do many people whom I represent. The local authority in Galway will have to make a decision on the Connacht waste management plan in the coming weeks. That decision will involve a number of issues but the one that is causing the greatest controversy is incineration.
The concept of incineration is frightening for people. The Minister may say that is ridiculous and that there is much hype attached to the issue. Nevertheless, I have to deal with people on the doorsteps. My colleague, Senator Walsh, has already faced the same issue. People are telling us how frightened they are about it. That fear might have been accelerated by a number of people with their own axes to grind. Some people involved in this controversy are against incineration and have their own agenda. There are even people who are making quite a nice living out of it travelling around the place. There are others who see it as a campaign opportunity on which to launch their political careers. These people represent a small minority, however. The majority is frightened by the thought of waste incineration.
Recent surveys from Galway city show that more than 20,000 people signed petitions against incineration – I am sure the Minister has seen the figures. One may say that people will sign anything if they are asked to do so by someone standing at the side of the street who frightens them by speaking about the worst aspects of incineration. I doubt, however, whether 20,000 people would sign a petition unless they were genuinely afraid. I sought this debate to discuss those very issues and get a balanced view, but I am surprised because at the very last moment the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. I cannot understand why because we are seeking information and clarity.
I have two files with me. One, a very thin one, is pro-incineration, containing claims that it is safe and that the dioxins produced are minimal. The other file is three times as thick and it contains evidence that incineration is dangerous. Included in that file is an Environmental Protection Agency report from the United States, which says that dioxins from incineration are carcinogenic, in other words, they cause cancer. I have no other proof of that and I do not know how this report was drawn up, but I assume the EPA in America is as qualified as the EPA here and that it did not lightly decide the dioxins are carcinogenic.
One may argue that we are talking about old incinerators, ones that are being closed down, and that new ones that have minimised dioxin emissions are quite safe. One can quote figures, but one would have to be a scientist to understand some of them. There is no point going into them because the public and I would not have a clue what they mean. The emission of any carcinogenic substance, no matter how minimal, must be scientifically examined to decide whether it is too much and should be eliminated.
I want the Minister of State to give me an informed viewpoint, based on scientific knowledge which is as up to date as possible, using the facilities of the Department. I hope I will then be able to make an informed decision on whether incineration is good or bad. When I balance incineration against the alternatives, I want to know if I make the right decision in voting for or against. I am reflecting the views of many local authority members the majority of whom, if a vote was cast now, would vote against incineration. My colleague, Senator Jackman, is a member of Limerick County Council which recently voted in favour of recycling and the other elements of their plan but decided to leave aside the question of incineration until it was proven to be safe. This is the view of local authorities throughout the country.
I have no reason to disbelieve that this Government supports incineration. I recently read a report in a national newspaper, where the Minister, responding to the American EPA report, said incineration is completely safe and he supports it 100%. Therefore, we must assume the Government supports incineration and that it will make a decision that will not adversely affect the health of the people. However, I must also assume that whatever decision I make is based on scientific fact.
I condemn previous Governments, including one of which I was a member, for not recognising that waste and waste management would be one of the burning issues of the future. We are reactive, not proactive, in this area. We should have started recycling a long time ago but we are now starting very late. I do not believe in conspiracy theories but now that local authorities are faced with a decision which must be made quickly, it is better to allow them to do that rather than build it up until they have to make a decision and go one way or another. In the context of the Government's amendment, I do not believe it has ever attempted to look at recycling, reduction or composting. There has been no genuine commitment to the alternatives.
There is a programme for 48% recycling in the future. I cannot see this happening in households where plastic bags are left outside containing a mix of every type of material. There is no attempt at separation or reduction. If there was a real attempt at reduction, supermarkets would not hand out plastic bags. They would demand that one had a bag made of jute or a natural recyclable material which could be reused until it wore out. Supermarkets give out plastic bags to hold products which are already wrapped or double wrapped in plastic – these bags are pushed at the customer left, right and centre. It is easy to say that customers can say no. However, they cannot because they have to carry the products somehow.
We must go to the root of this and stop the production of plastic bags or change the nature of their manufacture. I have spoken about this before. I am aware of ongoing scientific experiments on biodegradable plastic bags, which will harmlessly re-enter the earth because when they are buried the heat generated underground is enough to melt them down. This is a possibility, but in the meantime we must be firm in our commitment to recycling. When I was growing up, the rattle of milk bottles was a lovely sound and one knew when the milkman had arrived, which was the only alarm clock in the house for some people. Now we have plastic cartons scattered around which take years to degrade, if they degrade. Why do we not tell milk producers that we want to return to glass bottles? If we are to make a commitment to recycling, we should be honest about doing it. We should do it 100% and impose restrictions, in the same way as we do for litter. We should not rush into incineration because it is the last chance saloon.
Incineration will fail to be accepted by the public. I received a letter from my local chamber of commerce, in which it asked if we have looked at all the alternatives and the possibility of toxic emissions, etc. The chamber of commerce asks questions but does not direct us. It states in the letter that with the public perception as it is at present, it is unlikely that incineration will be voted through. This was said by an organisation which is not in the political arena but is involved enough to know what is going on. It is telling public representatives that incineration will not go through. This indicates to the Minister that the possibility of its happening is non-existent.
Will the Minister tell me why he believes incineration is safe? Will he assure me and everyone else – public representatives and those they represent – that its safety is guaranteed? Will he assure me he has looked at the alternatives, such as gasification, and that they are safe? Will he assure me there is a genuine commitment to recycling and reduction? To date, I have been assured of none of these. As I said at the outset, I have two files – one thicker than the other, one saying no to incineration and the other saying yes.
There is misinformation on both sides. I recall someone telling me that a certain location had no incineration and 100% recycling, which was extraordinary. I found out that the person was not telling me a lie and there was 100% recycling – 100% recycling of what was left because the rest of it had been transported to the next state where it was being incinerated. I was not given that information. I was given information on dioxins but what will happen to bottom ash was not addressed. This subject is worthy of a long debate. Senator Quill, other Senators and myself have continually asked for a debate on this which we did not get, so we must compress the discussion into Private Members' time. We are not being informed of all the facts. I want to be convinced that the decision I make is based on all the facts.
I was surprised – genuinely I was not that surprised – to read an article by Frank McDonald, who would not be known as a supporter of local government, in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times, where he came out strongly in favour of incineration, having looked at a project in Vienna which is quite up to date. Vienna has a population of 1.8 million and they incinerate 800,000 tonnes, which highlights how much they have reduced their waste. We produce half a tonne of waste per person. The Galway west and Connacht regions do not generate enough waste to justify an incinerator. We will have to take waste from other places. Going on the figures, we will probably need three incinerators throughout Ireland.
The time we have been given is too short. I should have complained about that this morning. However, my hands are tied by virtue of the fact it is our motion.