Environmental justice advocates are pushing back on proposals to include trash incinerators and wood biomass plants as carbon-free energy sources under a new state law that aims to make Minnesota power 100% carbon-free by 2040.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), a governor-appointed board that regulates utility providers, is collecting input on what should count as carbon-free energy and has received comments from utility companies, the forestry industry and state agencies suggesting that greenhouse gas emitting sources like waste-to-energy incinerators and wood biomass burning plants should be included. 

For several environmental groups and lawmakers, those suggestions are alarming and go against the intent of the law. The law defines carbon-free sources as those that generate electricity “without emitting carbon dioxide,” which would include sources like wind, solar, hydroelectric and nuclear power. 

“This should be a very easy question to answer,” said Andrea Lovoll of the Minnesota Environmental Justice Table.  

Some state agencies and utility companies disagree. 

Two top Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) officials submitted a letter arguing that the PUC should allow waste-to-energy trash incinerators and wood biomass to count as carbon-free because they produce energy with waste that could create more greenhouse gas in the form of methane, a potent pollutant, if sent to a landfill. 

Assistant commissioners Frank Kohlasch and Kirk Koudelka said the PUC should take a big-picture view of overall emissions, rather than just looking at the “point of generation” to determine if an energy source is carbon-free. 

And they said the agency has flexibility within the law to determine “partial compliance with the standard for such fuels.”

That is not what DFL lawmakers had in mind when they passed the bill, a group of legislators and environmentalists said Wednesday. 

“Carbon-free means carbon-free,” said Representative Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis. 

Lawmakers expect the state government to implement laws, Hornstein said, not muddy the waters. The 100% carbon-free energy bill is a good goal, he said, but there are no guarantees the 2040 deadline will be met. He pointed out that the Legislature approved a 2014 mandate that metro counties recycle 75% of their waste by 2030, but recycling rates have stagnated and the goal looks out of reach.

“I see a parallel,” he said. 

Cecilia Calvo, director of advocacy and inclusion at Minnesota Environmental Partnership, said she is disappointed that polluting sources are being considered. It shows that passing legislation is only the first step, and that people need to follow the implementation process closely. 

“Ultimately, I think there will be industry and others that will find a way to push and protect their interests,” Calvo said. 

Controversial sources 

Trash incinerators are considered renewable energy sources in most Minnesota jurisdictions, but that has long been a contentious point with environmental justice advocates who point to the substantial pollution created by those facilities and their locations near diverse, low-income areas. Minnesota lawmakers stripped the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC) in Minneapolis of its renewable energy status when they passed the 100% clean energy bill in 2023. Six of the seven incinerators in Minnesota are still considered renewable energy sources, which is a lesser standard than being “carbon-free.” 

Wood biomass, the burning of wood chips to produce electricity, has controversially been considered carbon-neutral for years. The technology is popular in the European Union, which often sources its wood from the United States and Canada. 

Minnesota Power operates a large wood biomass facility in Duluth, the Hibbard Renewable Energy Center, and submitted comments to the PUC arguing that the technology should be considered carbon-free. But that facility produces a large amount of greenhouse gas pollution, according to a 2021 study examining Minnesota Power’s operations. The study was commissioned by Fresh Energy, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and the Sierra Club. 

A coalition of environmental groups led by rural advocacy organization CURE submitted a comment letter Friday arguing that including trash incineration and wood biomass as renewable energy sources would allow further greenhouse gas pollution near diverse and low-income areas. 

“Our pathway to carbon-free electricity should be grounded in the dual goals of achieving real emissions reductions while also assuring that already overburdened communities don’t bear undue costs,” the group wrote. 

The PUC received dozens of comments on their query and plans to hold a hearing to decide what counts as carbon-free sources in late September, but doesn’t have a set date for the hearing or a decision, according to a commission spokeswoman. 

This story comes to you from Sahan Journal, a nonprofit digital newsroom covering Minnesota’s immigrants and communities of color.

Does carbon-free mean carbon-neutral? Activists, industry fight over details in new Minnesota energy law is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

At first whiff, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s executive order centered on curbing food waste and boosting recycling across Virginia might pass an environmentalist’s sniff test. 

Scratch a bit deeper, however, and that same nose detects a less-than-pleasant odor.

Conservationists have no quibble with order No. 17’s initiative to keep leftovers out of landfills by doubling down on composting efforts statewide.

Where they smell greenwashing is in the section that cancels an initiative by the previous administration to eliminate single-use plastics. Instead, the new order urges state agencies, parks, colleges and universities to encourage recycling of the ubiquitous plastics.

“I would love to be positive about this,” said Tim Cywinski, spokesperson for the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club. “Youngkin easily could’ve written an order that didn’t get rid of the plastics phase-out.

“But every time he does something that seems good, he does something else and goes two steps backward.”

What’s the harm in backtracking on plastics? The Sierra Club is among those claiming it’s an invitation for companies with questionable claims about recycling plastic into fuel or feedstock for more plastic to move into the state.

In fact, Youngkin’s early April order does just that. The state Department of Environmental Quality is required to lead research on a report due next spring that outlines how Virginia can attract entities that specialize in post-consumer recycled products.

That order refers to those businesses as “clean technology companies.”

The American Chemistry Council has lobbied for years to locate plastic recyclers in Virginia, according to the Sierra Club.

“This is investing in something that is just going to pollute again,” said Connor Kish, Sierra’s legislative and political director. “What is clear is that Gov. Youngkin’s executive order undoes a lot of good work.”

Plastic ‘recyclers’ are no-shows thus far

Youngkin’s order fits with legislation the General Assembly passed last year — and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam — that lowers the oversight burden for so-called “advanced recyclers” by classifying them as manufacturers rather than solid waste processors.

That change removes such recyclers from the oversight realm of the Virginia Solid Waste Management Act.

“There’s an entirely different permitting process for each of those,” Kish said. “One concern is, where is the plastic waste stored if these are classified as manufacturing? 

“Air pollution, water pollution, really everything becomes an environmental concern for us if these facilities open.”

Plus, in 2020 Virginia legislators passed a separate bill that helped advanced recyclers gain tax exemptions and credits.

Kish and his colleagues had their first scare on that front two years ago when Northam announced that Braven Environmental would be investing $31.7 million in a manufacturing facility in Cumberland County. The county is 40-plus miles west of Richmond in the state’s Southside region.

Braven was referred to as “a leader in deriving fuel from landfill-bound plastic” in the news release. The company said it breaks down waste plastics via pyrolysis, not incineration, so the fuel is made with lower carbon emissions than traditional oil or gas production.

The company claimed its local presence would curb carbon pollution by cutting the need to transport waste plastic long distances out of state.

However, chemical recycling of plastic is expensive and inefficient because it requires extremely high temperatures. 

Sierrans tracked the Braven development, but minimally, Kish said, “because you see flashy press releases about these companies all the time. They rarely open and I felt this one was never going to take flight.”

Sure enough, in an under-the-radar move in early January, Braven withdrew from the deal and its commitment to hire up to 80 employees. 

The funding sources behind such companies are increasingly difficult to decipher, Kish said, and the technology doesn’t seem scalable beyond the laboratory.

“That’s why they fail to get off the ground; they can’t do this in a profitable way,” he said. “Lots of promises are made to communities and then they don’t show up.”

Momentum killer at GMU?

Youngkin’s order rescinds and replaces executive order 77, which Northam issued in March 2021.

The former governor was heralded by green groups statewide for issuing what they called one of the strongest executive orders nationwide aimed at single-use plastics.

It not only called for banning disposable bags and single-use foodware (bowls, utensils, plates, trays, etc.) at state agencies within four months, but also directed agencies and public universities to eliminate single-use plastic by 2025.

In addition, it instructed state leaders to deploy composting, reuse and other strategies to reduce solid waste and divert waste from landfills.

Northam’s executive order inspired public institutions such as George Mason University to launch its Circular Economy and Zero Waste Task Force in April 2021 to further its sustainability efforts campuswide.

Ironically, Youngkin recognized the northern Virginia university with a Governor’s Environmental Excellence Award on March 29 — roughly a week before he issued his executive order backpedaling on phasing out plastics.

George Mason was among six gold medal winners. The state lauded the university’s task force for an impressive and lengthy list of eco-accomplishments spurred by adopting a buy less, buy better procurement philosophy, converting more disposables to reusables and revamping waste diversion practices.

For instance, the task force won kudos for eliminating 92,000 pounds of single-use and polystyrene items in dining halls. As well, more than 556,000 pounds of food and other materials from dining halls were composted or recycled.

Interestingly, the university’s task force website noted that the school eliminated single-use plastic water bottles in July 2021. However, it no longer includes a line about ridding the campus of all single-use plastic bottles by 2025. That sentence had included a caveat noting that limited potential exemptions might be necessary.

That text change was made after an Energy News Network reporter sent questions to a university spokesperson and the task force co-leader about how Youngkin’s executive order would affect their plans for single-use plastics.

As well, the website no longer makes the clear link between the creation of the task force and Northam’s 2021 order.

The task force co-leader didn’t respond to follow-up queries. However, Stephanie Aaronson, deputy vice president for university branding said via email that “we plan to continue our award-winning work, including our already planned phaseout of single-use plastic bottles for items available in aluminum cans or refill options.” 

Reduce is the silent R

The globe is awash in tons of plastic waste. Cywinski, of the Sierra Club, blames the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries for creating the concept of plastic being recyclable, knowing full well it wasn’t a viable solution.

A new joint report by The Last Beach Cleanup and Beyond Plastics estimates that the U.S. plastics recycling rate, which has never reached double digits, now hovers at a dismal 5% to 6%. It estimates that per capita plastic waste generation exploded by 263% from 1980 to 2018 — a jump from 60 pounds to almost 220 pounds per person per year.

The report recommended that companies and legislatures endorse policies such as single-use plastic bans to limit production, usage and disposal. The U.S. Department of Interior is evidently heeding that advice with a recent proposal  to ban all single-use plastics by 2032 in national parks and on affiliated public lands.

That’s why Kish and the Sierra Club lament the stamping out of  Northam’s executive order.

Virginia would be wise to spend money educating the public about shrinking the state’s plastic footprint rather than dangle incentives to entice fossil fuel companies.

“We teach the three R’s,” Kish said — reduce, reuse, recycle. “But too often we skip the ‘reduce’ part.”

Derek Havens of Mason Neck in northern Virginia says amen to that. 

The 70-year-old was so irked by Youngkin’s turnabout that he vented via a mid-April letter to the editor published in the Washington Post.

“It shouldn’t surprise me that an environmental issue is being used as political football,” he said in a follow-up interview. “Recycling is a failed approach to these single-use plastics.

“It’s just a ruse so citizens feel like we’re doing something.”

Virginia governor rolls back plastics phase-out, seeking to court recycling is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

This article is co-published with the Maine Monitor.

How much does household waste fuel the climate crisis? Official numbers suggest a small role, but the full contribution is not yet known — even by regulators and scientists.

As New England states work to curb greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and heating, little attention goes to landfills and municipal solid waste, or “waste-to-energy,” incinerators. Combined, those sources typically represent 5% or less of each state’s total emissions, and they get scarce mention in climate action plans. 

But growing volumes of plastics in the waste stream complicate incinerator emissions accounting. Less than 9% of plastics are recycled, and global plastic production is expected to double by 2040. 

Plastic combustion produces many more byproducts than the three greenhouse gases that most incinerators report annually to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrous oxide and methane.

Some chemical compounds in plastics don’t appear to degrade during incineration, while others break down partially and recombine, potentially forming potent and enduring greenhouse gases — compounds that are thousands of times more effective at trapping heat than CO₂  and can linger in the atmosphere for millennia. 

Scientists do not yet know the scale of the problem, but a growing body of research suggests that even small amounts of these powerful warming agents could have a significant impact.

The Northeast is the hub of U.S. waste incineration

The Northeast is home to roughly half of the nation’s 75 waste-to-energy  incinerators, most of which were constructed in the 1980s and are now passing their expected 30-year lifespans.

These facilities typically operate around the clock, feeding waste into boilers that generate steam to produce electricity and that release pollutants in the form of gaseous emissions, fly ash, bottom ash and leachate.

Far more waste is burned in the Northeast than the EPA’s national estimate of 12%. Maine, for example, burns 34% of its municipal waste, Massachusetts 71% and Connecticut 80%. 

All three states award municipal waste incinerators renewable energy certificates for their electricity generation, crediting the facilities for helping to avoid the higher methane emissions from landfills. Without factoring in avoided emissions, a recent “cradle-to-gate” life cycle assessment of a waste incinerator outside Syracuse, New York, found its climate impact was comparable to “that of electricity from fossil fuels.”

Municipal waste incinerators typically burn a mix of consumer waste, with little control over what dump trucks bring in. “We are a reflection of our residents,” said Matt Grondin, communications manager for the EcoMaine incinerator in Portland, Maine; whatever is in household trash at a third of the state’s homes ends up at its facility. That ever-changing, heterogeneous mix of waste makes it hard to gauge what incinerators emit.

More estimating than monitoring

Waste that derives from fossil fuels — like plastics and synthetic fibers — contributes most of the carbon emissions from incineration. That portion is commonly a third to a half of what gets burned, an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paper noted. Given the shifting mix of waste, the IPCC added, “continuous monitoring” to track greenhouse gas emissions would be ideal.

The EPA currently mandates that municipal waste incinerators report emissions annually for just three greenhouse gases, using default formulas the agency set in 2009. Based on those formulas, the EPA calculated that the nation’s waste incinerators in 2019 released 20.2 million tons of CO₂, the equivalent annual emissions of about five coal-fired plants.

States that require reporting of additional greenhouse gases typically rely on estimates as well, rather than direct testing or ongoing monitoring.

‘Forever chemicals’ could have major climate impact 

Municipal waste incinerators depend on plastic waste because it burns efficiently, helping keep temperatures hot. But its combustion produces numerous hazardous compounds. Among the most concerning constituents are fluoropolymers, part of the PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) family of compounds dubbed “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and resistance to heat, water and oil.

The waste stream fueling incinerators now includes countless consumer items containing PFAS — from pizza boxes, takeout food containers and personal care products to clothing, electronics and nonstick cookware. And while waste incinerators are not generally equipped to handle construction debris or hazardous waste, materials like coated wire, carpeting, spray foam insulation, paint and PVC pipe do get incinerated.

Fluoropolymers are notorious for having strong carbon-fluorine bonds. Even at temperatures over 1,800 degrees F, which not all incinerators consistently achieve, the chemicals may not fully break down. Their partial breakdown can lead to the formation of numerous problematic compounds, including fluorinated gases like hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) – which remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, heating it far more effectively than CO₂.

The potential for inadvertent release of highly potent atmospheric gases and other byproducts of concern was first highlighted in a 2001 Canadian study, and a 2003 study examining the breakdown of fluoropolymers like PTFE (known by the brand name Teflon) found “a plethora of unidentified and previously unreported materials.” A 2009 Norwegian literature review reinforced these findings.

Researchers in a 2015 study that simulated incineration’s impact on Dupont-made “Nafion” membrane, which includes PTFE, detected “several types of PFCs.”

‘We don’t really know what’s actually emitted’

A 2020 EPA technical brief stated that “the effectiveness of incineration to destroy PFAS compounds and the tendency for formation of fluorinated or mixed halogenated organic byproducts is not well understood.” In webinars, agency staff members have acknowledged the need for “comprehensive research” into “emissions rates, composition and activity data from unconstrained sources like industrial facilities using PFAS [and] incinerators.” 

EPA’s 2019 PFAS Action Plan and 2021-2024 PFAS Strategic Roadmap contain no references to waste incineration, and “EPA is not doing research directly on PFAS contributing to greenhouse gases,” according to a spokesperson for the agency’s Office of Research and Development.

In-house pilot studies begun by the EPA’s Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling are researching ways to measure PFAS in air emissions. Initial results of introducing some compounds into a small research combustor showed that carbon tetrafluoride (CF₄), a potent greenhouse gas 6,500 times stronger than CO₂ with an atmospheric lifetime of 50,000 years, was “particularly difficult to destroy,” researchers reported.

Small-scale combustion experiments don’t reflect conditions in municipal solid waste incinerators, which vary widely in their burn temperatures and means of filtering out emissions through scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators, said Lydia Jahl, science and policy associate at the Green Science Policy Institute. Testing should be done routinely at each facility to assess a broad spectrum of pollutants, she added, given the wide array of harmful substances plastic combustion can release.

“Lack of [testing] methods is certainly a problem,” observed University of Rhode Island professor Rainer Lohmann, lead author of a recent fluoropolymer study and co-director of a collaborative research initiative on PFAS.“It is certain that upon incineration of PFAS, very volatile fluorine-containing gases will be emitted, and some of those could have a high greenhouse gas potential, and others might be toxic,” he noted. But right now, “we don’t really know what’s actually emitted.”

Combustion of plastics could be creating a surge in waste-to-energy plants’ climate emissions is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

A leader at the state’s only biogas plant says lax enforcement of the law has limited the potential for energy production.

More businesses in Connecticut next year will fall under a 6-year-old law that requires the recycling of food waste at an authorized organic waste recycling facility.

In theory, that should give a boost to the state’s only food waste-to-energy plant, Quantum Biopower, which opened in 2016.

But the plant’s vice president, Brian Paganini, is not expecting more than a slight uptick in the number of truckloads of rotting foodstuffs rumbling up to the plant’s reception bays come 2020. Enforcement of the existing law is minimal, he said. And the concept, still foreign to many, has been slow to catch on.

What would really supercharge the plant’s energy generation, Paganini said, is unlocking the residential side of the waste stream, supply that has so far gone untapped.

“It comes down to the cost for collection,” he said. “No one has figured out how to make that work yet.”

Located in Southington, Quantum uses an anaerobic digestion process to generate about 1.2 megawatts of electricity annually, offsetting an estimated 5,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

The food waste is fermented in an enormous, oxygen-free tank that Paganini refers to as “a giant steel stomach.” The process produces a methane-rich biogas, which is used to generate electricity. The leftover material is used to make compost.

About 20% of the power generated is used on-site. The town of Southington purchases the rest through a virtual net metering program, Paganini said.

Companies pay Quantum a disposal fee to recycle their food waste, which Paganini said is typically cheaper than sending it to an incinerator. About a quarter of the 40,000 tons of waste Quantum takes in every year comes from Connecticut businesses captured under the recycling law, as well as a growing number of university dining halls. Most of the rest is from large food manufacturers throughout the Northeast.

State law requires any commercial food wholesaler, industrial food manufacturer, supermarket, resort or conference center to recycle their food waste if they generate at least two tons per week on average and are located less than 20 miles from an authorized composting or anaerobic digestion facility.

The threshold drops to an average of one ton per week on Jan. 1.

The law was intended to act as an incentive for the development of more facilities like Quantum. But while several other proposals have received permits, all have stalled for various reasons, including problems attracting capital, said Chris Nelson, supervising environmental analyst for the waste engineering and enforcement division at the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

“The agency would like to see more capacity out there,” he said. “Our energy side might be talking about incentives.” 

The division has few resources to ensure that the food waste stream keeps growing, however. One part-time staffer on Nelson’s team spends a portion of her time looking for businesses that are likely to be generating lots of food waste and helps them get into compliance. Often, businesses are unaware of the requirement, Nelson said. 

“And one of the other challenging things is that people don’t really know what their food scrap tonnage is,” he said. “It’s not measured separately, unlike water discharge, so they may never have really thought of it before.” 

Colleges and universities are not required to recycle their food waste under the law, but about 10 are doing so voluntarily, Paganini said. 

The University of Connecticut, for example, diverted more than 330 tons of food waste to Quantum during the 2018-19 school year, according to Mike O’Dea, project manager for dining services. Food service employees separate out food waste at all eight dining halls on the university’s main campus in Storrs. The waste is stored in 55-gallon barrels that are picked up by a hauler three days a week. 

Food waste barrels have recently been added to the school’s catering department, and will soon be placed around the residential areas of campus for voluntary use by students, O’Dea said.

While it’s cheaper for the university to dispose of food waste with Quantum than through the general waste stream, those savings are offset by higher hauling costs, due to Southington’s distance from campus. 

“So for us, it’s close to a wash,” O’Dea said.

Julie Cammarata, a lobbyist for Quantum and other materials management firms, said she and Paganini are looking for ways to get municipalities into food waste diversion. Residential customers can currently subscribe for food waste pickup through a specialized hauler in Hartford. But she would like to see some state incentives or policies put in place that would make it more attractive for municipalities to divert what she said is the heaviest part of their waste stream. 

She is making that case as a member of a newly established Blue Ribbon Panel on Recycling appointed by the speaker of the House. The panel is looking into ways to deal with the collapsing market for recyclables and the financial impact on municipalities.

If sorting out food waste does become more common in Connecticut, Paganini hopes to expand Quantum’s existing facility, build additional facilities, and start using biogas to make pipeline-grade natural gas. Bipartisan legislation pending in the U.S. Senate would help ease that path forward by providing a 30% investment tax credit for biogas projects that capture gas for use as fuel.

Despite recycling mandate, food waste-to-energy struggles to grow in Connecticut is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

Working on environmental issues for a living is not for the faint of heart. It always feels like there are too many problems and too few solutions — and even the solutions can turn out to be problems. 

One big problem getting a lot of attention is plastic waste. Everyone has heard the admonition to “reduce, reuse, and recycle.” The increasingly ubiquitous use of reusable water bottles, shopping bags, and straws are signs that we are getting better at reducing and reusing. When it comes to recycling, however, we may be heading in the wrong direction. Prior to severe new international restrictions on imports enacted in 2018, the U.S. was sending 4,000 shipping containers of materials per day to China for recycling — including about a third of our waste plastic. In 2018, China accepted only about 4.5% of our plastic. Since these restrictions took effect, hundreds of towns and cities across the country have either shut down or greatly reduced their recycling programs. Our waste is piling up.

And perhaps the mother of all environmental problems is climate change. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading authority on the issue, has declared that in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change we need to transition to a net-zero carbon economy by mid-century. Such “economy-wide” decarbonization includes electricity, heavy industry, transportation, and agriculture. Of these sectors, electricity might be the most important. If we can decarbonize the grid, we not only eliminate the tremendous amount of greenhouse gases we emit in producing electricity, we also then can electrify other sectors (like transportation, the production of heat, and some industrial processes) knowing they in turn will be powered by climate-friendly energy. But today, about two-thirds of our electric grid is powered by greenhouse gas-emitting fossil energy. We have a long way to go.

What do these two problems have to do with each other? One of the ways we have dealt with municipal solid waste in the U.S. is to incinerate it. And through incineration, you can produce electricity that is then put on the grid (termed “waste-to-energy” or “WTE”). Some states deem WTE to be “renewable energy” and include it in policies that subsidize and support other forms of renewable energy, like wind and solar. Now, in the face of mounting waste including more and more plastic, the incineration industry believes that we can kill two birds with one stone: dispose of our mounting waste with more incineration and help fight climate change with more “renewable energy.” Sounds great, right?

Um, no. 

Regarding “bird #1” — the plastic and waste crisis — incineration is not the answer. In addition to causing local air pollution and health impacts, more demand for waste streams that include otherwise recyclable materials will further undercut the economics of our already struggling recycling. And if incineration is seen by consumers as a “solution” to our plastics crisis, it could undermine our progress on improving reduction and reuse behaviors. The WTE stone might just kill the wrong bird.

“Bird #2” — climate change — is the big bird, and unfortunately, the WTE “stone” badly misses its target. Whether WTE is “renewable” is debatable. It’s also irrelevant. What the climate cares about — and what matters in our efforts to decarbonize the grid — are greenhouse gas emissions. Those of us who work on climate change support wind and solar because they are zero emission, not because they are “renewable.” To decarbonize the grid, we need all forms of zero-carbon generation — and we need a lot more of it. Stated differently, we need to stop adding carbon-intensive generation — such as waste incineration — to our energy mix and rapidly phase out the dirty generation we have. 

Is burning garbage green? In Sweden, there’s little debate »

Adding more waste-to-energy generation would set us back in our critical need to decarbonize the grid. Even before China’s import restrictions, half of the carbon dioxide emissions from waste incineration came from plastic. Plastic is made from fossil fuels and contains a lot of embedded carbon which is released to the atmosphere when combusted. With declining recycling rates, we will have only more plastic in our waste stream. The dirty secret (literally) is that the energy produced from this mixed waste incineration is nearly as greenhouse gas intensive as coal and worse than natural gas. To make matters worse, some states include WTE in “renewable” energy subsidy programs, which means this dirty source of energy competes directly with zero emission renewables like wind and solar.

The urgent task of decarbonizing our electric grid is immensely challenging. At a time that we must rapidly add clean energy to the grid, we cannot afford to take a step backward with waste-to-energy. Our only option is to move forward.

Roger Ballentine is the president of Green Strategies, Inc. He served as chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton.

Commentary: Don’t look to the energy sector to solve our waste problem is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.