Report on European Waste-to-Energy Facilities and Sustainable Development Goal Alignment

Executive Summary

Waste-to-energy (WTE) incinerators across Europe, initially positioned as a sustainable alternative to landfills, are now facing significant scrutiny. An analysis of their operations reveals substantial conflicts with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning health, sustainable cities, responsible consumption, and climate action. This report details the environmental, health, and economic challenges these facilities pose, highlighting their misalignment with Europe’s evolving circular economy and climate objectives.

Challenges to SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

WTE facilities present a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 12, which emphasizes reducing waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse. The operational model of incinerators conflicts with the transition to a circular economy.

• Disincentivizing Recycling: The need for a constant stream of waste to maintain financial viability can discourage more ambitious recycling and waste prevention policies.
• Inefficient Resource Management: Incineration destroys materials, particularly plastics, that could be recycled, contradicting the goal of sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.
• Dependence on Waste Generation: Many facilities now import waste to remain profitable, a practice that runs counter to the goal of substantially reducing waste generation at its source.

Implications for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

The proximity of WTE plants to urban and residential areas raises critical concerns for public health and the sustainability of communities, directly impacting SDG 3 and SDG 11 targets.

1. Air Pollution and Health Risks: The combustion of mixed waste, especially plastics, releases harmful emissions and toxic byproducts, affecting local air quality. Scientists note that the long-term health risks for nearby residents remain inadequately studied.
2. Environmental Justice Concerns: A major facility in Spain’s Basque region is currently facing legal action and local opposition over alleged violations of EU environmental laws and the release of harmful emissions, illustrating the tension between industrial infrastructure and community well-being.
3. Unsustainable Urban Infrastructure: Promoting large-scale incinerators as a primary waste management solution locks cities into a carbon-intensive and polluting infrastructure, undermining the goal of creating safe, resilient, and sustainable human settlements.

Contradictions with SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action)

While marketed as a source of energy, the environmental footprint of WTE incineration conflicts with the objectives for clean energy and climate action.

• Significant Carbon Emissions: The incineration process releases substantial amounts of CO₂, with emissions comparable to those from fossil fuel power stations. This directly undermines efforts under SDG 13 to combat climate change.
• Fossil Fuel Equivalence: Burning plastic, a petroleum product, is a carbon-intensive process that contributes directly to climate pressures, challenging the classification of WTE as a “clean” or “green” energy source as defined by SDG 7.

Conclusion: Economic Viability and Stranded Assets

The long-term viability of WTE plants is in question as they face a convergence of economic and policy pressures. This threatens to create a legacy of costly, obsolete infrastructure.

1. Financial Instability: A combination of decreasing public subsidies and stricter EU-wide recycling mandates is eroding the financial stability of hundreds of plants across Europe.
2. Risk of Obsolescence: As Europe moves to phase out landfills and simultaneously tighten recycling targets, these capital-intensive incinerators risk becoming stranded assets.
3. Policy Misalignment: Janek Vahk of Zero Waste Europe notes, “The argument that burning waste is better than landfilling oversimplifies a complex issue. Both practices have serious environmental impacts and neither should be seen as a viable long-term solution.” This highlights a fundamental misalignment between WTE infrastructure and the forward-looking goals of a sustainable, circular economy.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article connects waste incineration to health concerns, mentioning “harmful emissions” and that “health risks to nearby residents remain poorly studied.” It also links to a study about incinerator pollution and toxics in breast milk.
2. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The article discusses “waste-to-energy” plants, which are framed as a source of energy. However, it questions their “clean” credentials by stating their emissions can “mirror those of fossil fuel power stations.”
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The core issue revolves around urban waste management. The article discusses incinerators as an alternative to landfills, their impact on “air quality” in cities, and local opposition in regions like Spain’s Basque region.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • This goal is central to the article’s theme. It discusses the management of waste, the problems with burning mixed waste and plastics, and the tension between incineration and “tighter recycling targets” as part of a move towards a “circular economy.”
5. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The article explicitly links waste incineration to climate change, noting that burning waste, especially plastics, “releases significant CO₂” and adds to “climate pressures.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • This is relevant due to the article’s mention of “harmful emissions,” “toxic byproducts,” and potential “health risks to nearby residents” from incinerators.
2. Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • The article addresses this target by discussing “waste-to-energy” plants, but critically evaluates whether this method constitutes a clean or sustainable energy source.
3. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.
   • The article directly addresses this by focusing on municipal waste management strategies (incineration vs. landfills vs. recycling) and their impact on urban “air quality.”
4. Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
   • This is identified through the discussion of burning “mixed waste, especially plastics,” which “releases carbon dioxide and toxic byproducts,” affecting air quality and health.
5. Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
   • The article highlights this target by mentioning that “stricter recycling policies” and “tighter recycling mandates” are making incinerators financially unviable and potentially obsolete.
6. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • This is relevant as the article critiques waste-to-energy as a waste strategy that contributes to climate change through “significant CO₂” emissions, suggesting a conflict with climate policies.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 3.9:
   • Implied Indicator: Levels of harmful emissions and toxic byproducts from incinerators. The article mentions “harmful emissions” and “toxic byproducts” as key problems.
   • Implied Indicator: Incidence of health issues in populations living near incinerators. The text refers to “health risks to nearby residents” and a study on “toxics in breast milk.”
2. For Target 11.6:
   • Implied Indicator: Air quality measurements in areas with incinerators. The article repeatedly mentions the impact on “air quality.”
   • Implied Indicator: Proportion of municipal waste managed by incineration versus recycling. The central conflict described is between burning waste and tightening recycling targets.
3. For Target 12.4 & 12.5:
   • Mentioned Indicator: National or regional recycling targets. The article explicitly states that “recycling targets tighten.”
   • Implied Indicator: Volume of waste incinerated versus recycled. The article discusses the financial need for plants to burn waste, which is at odds with reducing and recycling it.
   • Implied Indicator: Volume of waste imported for incineration. This is mentioned as a measure plants take to “stay profitable.”
4. For Target 13.2:
   • Implied Indicator: Amount of CO₂ emissions from the waste management sector, specifically from incineration. The article highlights that burning waste, especially plastic, “releases significant CO₂.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: ehn.org