After reviewing the argument for and against incineration I would like to present my final resume. As a personal conclusion, I understand that incineration facilities are necessary when waste is not recycled or can’t be separated. It’s true that they have evolved a lot and that facilities nowadays are much safer than those of previous times, but there are still some serious potential risks and uncertainties that indicate that their general implementation is not recommended.
Previously, we have seen the main arguments against incineration, and to be fair and present all the information now is the turn of the positive points of view. The main arguments for incineration focus on the safety of these facilities, energy recovery in an environment of a global energy crisis, the reduction of emissions that cause climate change, the low occupancy of public land and the improvement of technology to reduce the pollution generated:
There’s no doubt that the burning of waste has been common throughout history. However, it wasn’t until 1874, in Leeds (England), that the first urban waste incinerator was built, due to a cholera epidemic. Alfred Fryer was the inventor who designed the incinerator for purifying organic matter and, curiously, he called the invention: Destructor.
Ecoparks are modern waste treatment facilities that allow some recyclable materials to be recovered and reduce the amount of waste destined for landfills or incineration.
All of the garbage that we generate can be distributed in between different containers or bin types according to the garbage collection model of each city. However, once collected, waste can generally be disposed of in 3 different ways: recycling (including composting), landfill or incineration.