We usually talk about the benefits for the environment brought about by us recycling waste, but how much are we talking about? Is recycling really good for the environment? Sometimes it’s important to know how much we mean exactly, to put it in “black on white,” with concrete cases and data.
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 …
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 …
The main arguments against incinerators focus mainly on the drawbacks implied for the environment and people. These drawbacks are caused by the different types of waste generated in an incinerator: slag, ashes, and emissions (dioxins).
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.