by Cameron Smith

Now that David Miller has been re-elected Toronto's mayor, there's been a pause in the debate over incineration that so permeated the mayoral campaign. 
 
The debate will resume, of course, but before it does, I want to revisit a front-page story the Star published near the end of the campaign that reported on a survey conducted by Decima Research.  I like to think the election proved voters were more sophisticated than they were credited in the survey. 
 
The sub-headline on the Star story declared: Survey says 91 per cent believe burning trash could be a viable option. Throughout the election campaign, Miller rejected incineration, saying even advanced technology would produce toxic emissions, while Jane Pitfield, his only real opponent, made electricity from incineration a major plank in her platform. If you believed the poll, nine out of 10 voters opposed Miller on this issue. So, why did almost six out of 10 vote for him?  
 
Possibly it's because he was giving them an honest answer, and the survey was asking a less-than-straightforward question.  
 
In the lead-up to the question, respondents were told that "one technology in the testing stage takes waste that would otherwise be sent to a landfill, and uses very high heat to break it down, at the same time creating electricity ... The process is supposed to create no air emissions, and produce only a non-toxic, glasslike substance that can be used in road building." 
 
The hard fact is that nowhere in the world is there an incinerator, in development or in use, that produces zero pollution and zero toxic residue.  
 
Dioxin is the most dangerous of the toxins that incinerators produce when burning certain plastics. It's found in emissions and as a residue, even in a gasification process where intense heat is used to turn waste directly into gases that are burned. There may be less dioxin produced through gasification or other similar processes, but that's not the issue since even infinitesimal amounts of dioxin are dangerous. 
 
There is one way to prevent dioxins from forming. That's to neutralize the chlorine released from plastics with compounds such as calcium carbonate. But, according to a European Community study, it takes so much neutralizer to do the job that every kilo of polyvinyl chloride burned results in at least a kilo of residue for a landfill. So, there's little to be gained from incineration. 
 
According to the Star report, respondents were asked if they think the technology "will prove successful and a good way to reduce garbage and create electricity, or will prove a failure and create emissions that are harmful?" 
 
What would have been the response, I wonder, if the lead-up to the question had told respondents no one has yet created an incinerator that eliminates all pollution and all toxic residues?  Or if it had mentioned the harm dioxin can do as a hormone disrupter? 
 
Or if it had pointed out that incineration would produce twice as much global warming as would occur if plastics were recycled instead of burned? 
 
I wouldn't have been surprised if 91 per cent of respondents had opposed incineration instead of supporting it, had they been told that when plastics are burned, the carbon dioxide produced, plus the greenhouse gases associated with manufacturing new plastics (including all the upstream emissions from oil fields, pipelines and refineries) are double the emissions created in recycling.  
 
Ignorance is not bliss. The respondents should have been given more complete information. 

Next week: Recycling 
 
Cameron Smith can be reached at camsmith @ kingston.net.