CAP and SAM Submit Memorandum Demanding Transition to Zero Waste and Scrapping Waste-to-Energy Incineration Proposals

The Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM) have jointly submitted a memorandum titled “Malaysia Must Move Towards Zero Waste: The Case Against Waste-to-Energy Incineration” to the Prime Minister, relevant Ministries and agencies on 14 August 2024. The memorandum urges cancellation of the proposed waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration projects in Malaysia and calls for a transition to Zero Waste.

The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) had announced plans to build 18 WTE plants in Malaysia by 2040. Bernama report dated 1 July 2024 quoted KPKT Minister Nga Kor Ming that the 18 proposed WTE plants will be built in Kedah (Jabi and Padang Cina); Johor (Bukit Payung, Seelong and Sedili); Pahang (Jabor-Jerangau and Belenggu); Melaka (Sungai Udang); Kuala Lumpur (Rawang); Selangor (Jeram, Tanjung 12 and Rawang 2); Penang (Pulau Burung); Perak (Lahat, Taiping and Manjung), Terengganu (Tertak Batu) and Kelantan (Jedok). We strongly oppose the proposed development of these WTE plants.

The memorandum submitted by CAP and SAM underscores the environmental, economic, and health impacts of WTE facilities which the Malaysian government has not seriously considered.  In summary, the disadvantages of WTE incineration highlighted are:

1. Waste Is Not A Renewable Fuel: Municipal waste is non-renewable, consisting of finite resources like paper, plastic, and glass. Incinerators burn valuable materials that could otherwise be recycled or composted, competing with reuse and refilling programmes.

2. Diverts Investments From Real Solutions: Over 90% of materials incinerated can be reused, recycled, or composted. Incineration discourages resource conservation, releases toxic chemicals, and misallocates funds from zero-waste solutions.

3. Consumes More Energy Than Produced: WTE incinerators convert less than 25% of the energy in waste to electricity, making them inefficient and costly. They require significant investment, negatively impacting local economies without contributing substantially to the energy grid.

4. Toxic Emissions And Health Risks: WTE incinerators emissions include cancer-causing dioxins and furans, mercury, particulate matters, and other toxic gases that pose significant health risks and environmental contamination.

5. Climate Change Contribution: WTE incinerators emit greenhouse gas emissions, disrupt the natural carbon cycle and exacerbate climate change by promoting unsustainable waste disposal practices.

6. Job Loss: Incinerators provide fewer jobs compared to other waste management options such as composting and recycling. They take away employment opportunities from informal waste workers and recyclers.

7. Incompatibility With Circular Economy: Incinerators are fundamentally incompatible with a circular economy. They also transform waste into hazardous ash, increasing toxicity and waste disposal issues, rather than eliminating waste.

Several recommendations to address the increasing challenge of waste management instead of relying on WTE incinerators proposed in the memorandum are:

1. The Zero Waste Approach has been proven effective in ensuring resource efficiency, resource recovery, and protection of scarce resources. The goal is to end waste disposal. The plan encompasses waste reduction, composting, recycling, reuse, changes in consumption habits, and industrial redesign.

2. Composting organic waste like food scraps and garden waste reduces landfill waste of up to 50%, lowers hauling costs, and decreases carbon emissions.

3. Enhance Waste Collection and Sorting Infrastructure: Advanced sorting can increase recovery rates and reduce contamination, while better-designed recycling bins and more frequent pickups can enhance participation by waste generators.

4. Supporting Circular Economy practices such as reducing, reusing, repairing, and recycling products can extend their lifecycle, conserve resources, and minimise waste generation. Involving local businesses in circular economy networks fosters resource sharing and collaboration, promoting a more sustainable local economy.

5. Mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) will hold manufacturers accountable for product lifecycle management, encouraging designs for easy and safe recycling, and reducing environmental impact.

6. Establishing a dedicated e-waste collection and recycling programme is crucial for managing discarded electronic devices and reducing environmental impact.

7. A Deposit-Refund System can be implemented to promote recycling, encourage public participation and reduce environmental pollution.

8. Implement reuse and refill programmes. Install refill stations at public areas and retail stores, making it easier for people to adopt sustainable practices in their daily lives.

In conclusion, WTE incinerators, despite being promoted as a solution to the waste crisis, merely transform waste into more hazardous by-products without addressing the core issue. CAP and SAM reiterate that WTE incinerators are false solutions and we strongly urge the government to focus on Zero Waste approaches that are cost-effective, safer, generate jobs, protect the environment, and contribute to resilient and sustainable communities.

Read the memorandum here:
https://consumer.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ENG-Memorandum_-Waste-to-Energy-Incinerators.pdf