CHINA

• Guangzhou to Start Garbage Classification (China Daily)
• China Deluged by Toxic Sludge (China Dialogue)
• Chinese Company Setting up New Shipbreaking Yard (Recycling International)
• SIMS Looks for More Chinese Investment Opportunities (Scrap-Ex)
• Co-processing Cement with MSW Incineration Growing in China (China Daily)

US

• Cutting Food Waste Increases Corporate Profits and Consumer Savings, Says Report (Forbes)
• Waste Plastic to Oil Firm Permitted to Double Capacity in New York (Waste Management World)
• Pennsylvania Prepares for Tougher E-Waste Recycling Law (Examiner)
• MTA to Yank Trash Cans from 10 Stations in an Effort to Reduce Garbage (NY Daily News)
• Old W. Va Landfill Could Be New Solar Farm (Waste Recycling News)

INTERNATIONAL

• Eco-Communities: Cleaning up Bolivia’s Cities (Waste Management World)
• Egypt’s Garbage Crisis Bedevils Morsi (Washington Post)
• Pilot Recycling and Composting Projects in Pakistani Cities (Waste Management World)
• Recycling in Yemen a Double-Edged Sword (Yemen Times)
• How the World’s Trash Problem Presents Profit Opportunity (GreenBiz.com)

CHINA

• Guangzhou’s Rubbish Charge Struggle (China Dialogue)
• Waste Project is Abandoned Following Protests in China (NYTimes)
• Shenzhen Tests Waste Classification (China Daily)
• KLM to Fly on China Gutter Oil (International Business Times)
• Landfill in Xi’an Attracts Treasure Hunters (China Daily)
• China Cracks Down on Imports of Poor Quality Paper (Let’s Recycle)
• Company Puts Unwanted Clothes to Good Use (China Daily)

US

• New York City Breaks up Cardboard Recycling Theft Operation (Waste 360)
• Apple: Leaving EPEAT a Big Mistake, Products back on Green Registry (LA Times)
• Microbes that Treat Waste and Produce Power (Renewable Energy World)
• MTA Plan Would Add MetroCard “Green” Surcharge to Encourage Recycling (Wall Street Journal)
• NYC’s East River Transfer Station Receives Federal Permit (NY Times)
• Ekocycle: Will.i.am, Coca-Cola Take Recycling High End (Huffington Post)

INTERNATIONAL

• The UK’s Industrial-Scale Illegal Tyre Dumps (BBC)
• Waste-to-Energy: The Boom Continues, Led by Europe and China (Waste Management World)
• UK Boosts Gasification, Cuts Support for Biomass (Businessweek)
• Cities Will Convert 260 Million Tons of Waste to Energy (Smart Planet)
• Worldwatch Institute Report Predicts Huge Trash Increases in Years Ahead (Waste & Recycling News)
• Plastic Bag Use “Up for Second Year Running” in the UK (The Guardian)
• Welcome to the Age of Urban Mining (Forbes)
• How Green Will the London Olympics Really Be? Organizers Have Set Goal of Zero Landfill Waste (The Independent)
• Indian City Aims for “Zero Waste” Status by 2015 (Times of India)

China’s “clean” trash-burning plants have a dark underside. Stuffed with coal, many operate like fossil-fired power stations, only more laxly governed.

Xie Yong could be called a pioneer. He is one of very few to date to sue a Chinese government agency over its unlawful refusal of requested data. His crusade for change has little to do with civic altruism, however. Xie’s struggle is personal in nature, his actions forced by desperation. He has been battling his son’s paralysis-causing epileptic seizures and mounting health care costs since 2010. His son’s condition, Xie believes, is the result of toxic emissions from an incineration plant near his home.

Xie and his wife, Ma Hongmei, lived in Nantong, Jiangsu province, when Ma gave birth to their son, Yongkang, in 2008. Even before they could celebrate his first 100 days of life, Yongkang’s parents noticed he was not developing normally. He did not laugh like other babies and had trouble seeing and hearing. Most disturbing, he twitched incessantly and could not be placated. Shortly after, he became paralysed. Doctors eventually diagnosed him with cerebral palsy.

During Ma’s pregnancy and in her son’s first two months of life, the family lived a short distance from the local trash incineration plant. The facility’s odorous emissions were constant, but neither Ma nor Xie understood what risks they might be facing. Shanghai Xinhua Hospital determined that Yongkang’s disease was not genetic, but caused by environmental factors during Ma’s pregancy.

Xie researched the science behind incineration emissions and health defects, spoke with experts, and learned that other couples in the village had experienced premature births and stillbirths. The couple concluded that their proximity to the plant, and the constant pollution it spewed, were to blame.

In 2010, Xie sought the assistance of the Center for Legal Assistance to Pollution Victims (CLAPV), a China-based legal aid NGO that provides assistance to citizens and wages legal battles in the name of environmental justice. The centre felt that his story justified legal action and, with Xie’s help, began collecting the evidence needed to build a case against the company that owned the plant, Jiangsu Tianying Saite Environmental Protection Energy Group.

In China’s first personal health-related legal case against a waste incinerator, the Hai’an local court heard the case in September 2010. Xie submitted analysis revealing dioxin concentrations in nearby air that grossly exceeded legal limits; reports documenting the physical condition of plant workers and other children living near the plant; and scientific papers demonstrating a link between dioxin and birth defects. The local judge rejected Xie’s claims, prompting him to appeal to the county court. A county-level trial took place May 2011, with similar results. The court deemed the evidence insufficient and issued a verdict against Xie.

In response to these blows, Xie turned directly to the authorities. He filed a request for emissions data for the plant in question from the local environmental protection bureau, to which he had legal entitlement (read more about China’s open government information laws here and here). His request was denied, on the grounds that releasing data would compromise the company’s business secrets. Xie next asked the provincial level Ministry of Environmental Protection, one administrative level higher, to release emissions reports to him. They, too, turned him down. But he is determined to continue his fight.

Activists like CLAPV’s Liu Jinmei believe that Xie’s efforts “indicate a growing awareness of safeguarding the rights of victims of pollutants”. However, it is hard to know how many individuals with situations similar to Xie’s, but completely unaware of the potentially serious health risks they face, are out there. This is because conditions at Chinese waste-to-energy facilities are by and large shrouded in mystery.

The incineration boom

China did not commission its first waste-to-energy plant until little more than a decade ago. Before 1990, public waste-treatment infrastructure handled less than 2% of the country’s household waste. At the same time, output of inorganic rubbish was marginal.

Rapid change in waste production and management trends occurred in China over the last two decades. China now generates over a quarter of the world’s garbage, at least 250 million tonnes annually. With municipal solid waste (MSW) growing 8% to10% annually, cities are under great pressure to deliver advanced waste-management solutions.

Landfills currently handle roughly half of China’s MSW, while only about 10% is incinerated. Official credo suggests that landfills will continue to play a dominant role. But Beijing’s push to increase the share of burned waste is unmistakable: a central target calls for 30% of MSW to be treated by waste-to-energy incineration by 2030.

Presently, incineration is growing at a feverish pace. Industry insiders and state-run media routinely declare 300 plants will be operational by the time the 12th Five-Year Plan runs its course in 2015. A 2009 study by banking group Standard Chartered found that over one-half of global orders for new waste-incineration facilities came from China.

Information on the number of waste-to-energy plants in China is scarce and, when available, difficult to unpack. Interviews with experts and policymakers rarely converge on a single number, but their guesses routinely fall somewhere between 100 and 200. In an independent, verified assessment I conducted in 2011, I detected at least 155 plants currently operating or under construction. I would not be surprised if plans for new plants have been announced in the three months during which my data has aged.

China’s earliest incineration plants deployed imported grate burn technology common in developed economies. Plant operators quickly found that Chinese MSW generally makes poor feedstock. This is because China’s vast informal sector extracts the most easily burned trash, like paper, wood and plastic. The remaining composition is largely organic waste, too wet to burn without costly pre-treatment or fuel supplements. Technological barriers aside, the price of these technologies also puts them out of reach for China’s second and third-tier cities.

Combined with these practical obstacles, Beijing’s drive to localise environmental technologies helped catalyse (state-funded) development of domestic incineration technologies suited to Chinese conditions. Newer plants prominently feature domestically developed equipment, including both grate and circular fluidised-bed (CFB) type incinerators. Though smaller in terms of capacity, CFB incinerators generate similar amounts of electricity to stoke grates. They are also more flexible in terms of feedstock, permitting coal to be added for easier ignition. For these reasons, CFB incinerators enjoy considerable popularity in the market and now account for about half of China’s MSW treatment capacity.

Early central-level legislation on municipal waste management – passed almost a decade ago – sanctioned private-sector involvement. These measures, intended to encourage growth in waste-to-energy installations, relaxed state control in a way that has yet to take place in the energy sector. However, the primary catalyst for growth in the sector has been generous government incentives.

Waste-to-energy incineration is classified as a renewable energy form in China, meaning that plants receive a feed-in tariff for every kilowatt hour of electricity they generate. Only two months ago, Beijing announced a fixed subsidised price for power purchased from waste-to-energy plants, which is about double that from coal-powered plants.

The results of these subsidies are dramatic. Both foreign and local waste-to-energy players have rushed to stake their claims, in some cases submitting loss-making tender offers just to get a foothold. Many waste-management experts suspect that Chinese city officials are among the most eager investors; using public infrastructure and tax revenue to profit personally.

Peeling back a green facade

The ongoing justification for favourable waste-to-energy policies in China is simple: cities stem the problem of growing waste while getting much needed electricity in the process. That formula, however appealing, appears too good to be true.

China’s incinerators, though canonised as a “clean energy,” have a dirty underside. Thermal waste treatment plants are subject to emissions regulations considerably looser than those for power plants. Legally, they can emit nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide at, respectively, four and five times the levels of power plants in China.

Newer facilities are installed with air-pollution control systems, but these are costly to use and maintain. Thus, many plants operate without the required flue gas filtering equipment. Likewise, treatment of other highly toxic byproducts – such as wastewater removed before incineration and fly ash created during burning – tends to be either poor or non-existent. This follows partly from the lack of regulations on how waste-to-energy plants should treat wastewater.

The company which operates the facility near where Xie Yong’s family lived boasts on its website that it uses an advanced pollution control system which meets European emissions standards, but no details are given. This is a common claim among waste-to-energy developers. On the other hand, air and water pollution in waste-to-energy plants in China has been well-documented. According to some reports, some plants emit dioxins at levels 24 times higher than those from American waste-to-energy facilities.

Making matters worse, plant operators regularly add coal to the burning waste. In private interviews, Waste-to-energy plant operators admitted to using a feedstock mix comprising equal parts coal and rubbish, which far exceeds the 20% coal limit mandated by the central government. It is not unheard of for the share of coal to be as high as 70%. Under these conditions, plants are operating essentially as small coal-fired power stations – exactly the kind of facility that Beijing is trying to eliminate on public health grounds.

Finally, while incineration plants in Europe charge rubbish haulers “tipping fees” that may reach US$132 (840 yuan) per tonne of waste, these fees rarely exceed US$16 (100 yuan) per tonne in China, and usually hover around US$8 (50 yuan). When Xie’s son was born, the plant near his house was making US$10 (64 yuan) for each tonne of trash they accepted. Many experts say that environmentally sound performance, and the costs it requires, is not technologically feasible with such low tipping fees.

Light beyond the haze

Weak regulation and misaligned policies, combined with an absence of public emissions data, make for a truly toxic incineration sector. Xie Yong is not the only one who has noticed.

Beginning a few years ago, communities near existing plants, offended by odorous emissions and worried about possible health risks, began protesting against new projects. In one incident, which took place in Xie’s Jiangsu province, as many as 10,000 residents gathered and clashed with police over a waste incinerator in their village. According to Chinese media reports, by mid-2010 construction of at least six new plants had been postponed due to public opposition.

By some accounts, China’s leadership has heeded the warnings. In interviews, city officials have said that some Chinese mayors are blocking new projects, concerned they could trigger unrest, thereby marring their reputations and chances of promotion.

Alongside these grassroots efforts, NGOs like Beijing-based Green Beagle are working to substantiate public opposition to incineration with actual emissions performance data. Having campaigned for, and been denied, credible figures for almost five years, the organisation is exploring the possibility of establishing independent waste-to-energy emissions monitoring stations.

As for Xie Yong, it is too early to say whether he can navigate a way through China’s legal system and extract the data he is so desperate to get his hands on, in the belief it will demonstrate a more direct relationship between the plant’s operations and his son’s crippling illness. With every other option exhausted, Xie decided early this year to sue the provincial-level Ministry of Environmental Protection at the Jiangsu provincial court. The trial is expected to take place later this year.

“Taking the ministry to court is my last choice,” Xie has said. “It’s the only way I can get justice.” Though his case is still unresolved, growing numbers of onlookers await the outcome.

Xie’s legal fight – the first of its kind – highlights the pressing need for greater transparency and accountability in the incineration sector. At the same time, growing popular opposition suggests that persistent, and public, resistance may be China’s best bet for achieving meaningful regulatory reform in the waste-to-energy sector.

Originally published in China Dialogue.

中国“清洁”的垃圾焚烧发电厂有着黑暗的另一面，这里大量烧煤，许多工厂的运作方式和化石燃料的发电厂差不多，只不过管理更松懈。

谢勇堪称为一名先锋，因为他是中国为数不多的因为政府机构拒绝提供数据而将政府告上法庭的人。然而，他要求改变现状的行动却并非出于为了公众的利他主义， 而是出于个人原因，是一种由绝望而导致的抗争。自从2010年以来，谢勇一直在为儿子的脑瘫而奔走，这种病不仅让孩子的癫痫不断发作，随之而来的医疗费用 也在不断攀升 。谢勇坚信，儿子的病症是他家附近的一家垃圾焚烧发电厂的有毒排放造成的。

谢勇和妻子马红梅家住江苏南通。 2008年他们的儿子谢永康降生，然而，孩子还未满百天，谢勇夫妇就发现儿子发育异常。小永康不能像其他婴儿那样笑，连听力和视力都有问题，最让人担心的是，他不断痉挛，无法缓解 。不久之后，小永康出现了瘫痪症状，最终被医生诊断为脑瘫。

在马红梅怀孕期间以及小永康出生后的头两个月，他们一家人就住在离当地垃圾焚烧发电厂很近的地方。焚烧厂持续不断地排放着难闻的气体，但无论马红梅还是谢 勇都没有意识到他们正面临着巨大的危险。上海新华医院诊断说，小永康的脑瘫并不是遗传因素造成的，而是在母体怀孕期间由环境因素造成的。

谢勇研究了焚烧排放和健康缺陷之间的关系，咨询了有关专家，并且了解到村子里其他夫妇也出现了早产以及死胎现象。在此基础上，夫妻俩得出结论，认为造成小永康脑瘫的罪魁祸首就是附近的垃圾焚烧厂及其持续不断的污染排放。

2010年，谢勇向污染受害者法律帮助中心(CLAPV)寻求帮助，这是一家立足于中国的非政府组织，主要工作是为公民提供帮助，运用法律手段维护环境公平。该中心认为谢勇的遭遇应该采取法律行动，并在谢勇的协助下开始搜集证据，将垃圾焚烧发电厂的所有者——江苏天楹赛特环保能源集团有限公司告上法庭。

这是中国第一宗因个人健康原因起诉垃圾焚烧厂的案例。2010年9月，案件的初审在当地法庭进行。谢勇提交的诉讼材料包括：表明附近空气中二恶英浓度远远 超过规定标准的分析；记录焚烧厂工人和附近居住儿童身体状况的报告；以及体现二恶英和先天缺陷之间因果联系的科学论文等。然而，法庭驳回了谢勇的诉讼请 求，让他到县法院起诉。海安县法院的审判在2011年5月进行，但结果是一样的。法院认为谢勇的诉讼证据不足，裁定其败诉。

败诉后，谢勇直接向有关部门寻求帮助。他首先向海安县环保局递交了一份申请，要求公开工厂的排放数据，他的根据是相关的法定权利（中国的政府信息公开法律请参见此处及 此处）。然而，环保局拒绝了他的申请，理由是公开数据将泄漏天楹公司的商业机密。接着谢勇又向江苏省环保厅提出同样的要求，但同样遭到拒绝。但谢勇决心继续把维权进行到底。

污染受害者法律帮助中心的刘金梅等环保人士认为，谢勇的努力“表明污染受害者维权意识的日益提高”。但是，我们并不知道，有多少像谢勇这样的受害者对他们面临的危险还一无所知。这是因为，中国的垃圾焚烧发电设施总体上还笼罩着一层神秘的面纱。

垃圾焚烧发电热潮

中国的首家垃圾焚烧发电工厂直至十年前才出现。1990年之前，中国的公共废物处理设施处理的垃圾还不到全国生活垃圾总量的2%。但那时无机垃圾的比例也很低。

过去二十年中国废弃物生产和处理的总体趋势迅速变化。如今，中国产生的垃圾占世界总量的四分之一，每年达到2.5亿吨以上。城市固体废物(MSW)的年增长速度为8%到10%，中国各城市面临着巨大的压力，必须引入先进的废物处理办法。

在目前中国的城市固体废物中，填埋方法占到一半，而焚烧的只占10%。官方数据表明，填埋处理仍将占据主导地位，但北京提高垃圾焚烧比例的决心也是确定无疑的，中国政府已经制定了一个全国性目标：到2030年，城市固体废物的焚烧处理比例将达到30%。

目前，垃圾焚烧厂的建设在中国已呈白热化趋势。业界和媒体纷纷宣传到2015年“十二五”规划结束时，中国将有300座垃圾焚烧厂投入运行。渣打银行集团2009年的一份报告显示世界新建的垃圾焚烧设施中超过一半都在中国。

然而，关于中国垃圾焚烧发电工厂数量的信息却非常罕见，尽管可以找到，获取却非常困难。专家和决策者在采访中极少会提到工厂数量，但他们的估计通常都在 100座到200座之间。我在2011年进行了一次独立的严肃调查评估，我确定运行和在建的工厂 至少有155座。就在我整理数据的三个月中，很可能还有新的建设规划宣布。

中国最早的焚烧厂普遍采用从发达国家引进的炉排焚烧技术。 但是，工厂经营者们很快就发现中国的城市固体废物造成机械的给料很差，这是因为中国落后的垃圾处理方式事先把那些最容易燃烧的垃圾，如纸、木头和塑料都分 拣出去，剩下的主要是有机废物，又没有经过成本高昂的预处理或助燃。除了技术壁垒，这些技术的高昂价格也让它们难以普及到中国的二三线城市。

在克服这些实际障碍的同时，中国政府环境技术本土化的努力也有助于符合中国国情的自主垃圾焚烧发电技术的发展。新建的工厂主要采用了国内研发的设备，包括炉排和循环流化床(CFB)两个类型的焚烧炉。

尽管容量较小，但CFB焚烧炉的发电量与炉排炉差不多，而且在给料上更加灵活，还可以加煤助燃。因此，CBF焚烧炉在市场上很受欢迎，如今已经占据了中国城市固体废物处理的半壁江山。

中国有关城市废物处理的早期中央立法于十前通过，它是禁止私营部门参与的。这些措施旨在鼓励垃圾焚烧发电的发展，放松了国家控制，而同样的趋势已经在能源部门发生。但是，垃圾焚烧发电发展的主要催化剂还要算政府的慷慨鼓励。

垃圾焚烧发电在中国被列为可再生能源，这就意味着工厂产生的每一度电都能获得上网电价的照顾。就在两个月前，中国政府宣布执行全国统一垃圾发电标杆电价，几乎是煤电价格的两倍。

这些补贴的效果是戏剧性的。中外垃圾焚烧发电厂商蜂拥而上，有的甚至赔本也要上，只是为了在其中占据一席之地。许多废物处理专家怀疑中国政府官员们对此是否真正热心投入，担心他们只是要利用公用基础设施和财税收入来谋取私利。

绿色下的黑暗

中国大力推行垃圾焚烧发电政策的原因非常简单：城市既能消除日益严重的垃圾压力，同时又能获得亟需的电力。这个图景虽然很动人，却因为太美好而显得不那么真实。

中国的垃圾焚烧发电尽管被视为一种“清洁能源”，但实际上却有着黑暗的另一面。热废处理厂的排放法规要比发电厂宽松得多，按照法律规定，它们能够排放的二氧化氮和二氧化硫分别是电厂的四倍和五倍。

较新的工厂都安装了空气污染控制系统，但其使用和维护费用很高。因此，很多工厂都在没按规定安装废气过滤设备的情况下运行。与此类似，对其他高毒性副产品 （如焚烧前滤出的废水和焚烧中产生的飞灰）的处理也很少，或者根本没有处理。这种情况的部分原因在于对垃圾焚烧发电企业废物处理管理法规的缺失。

谢勇家附近的垃圾焚烧发电厂的经营企业在其网站上吹嘘说采用了符合欧洲排放标准的先进污染控制系统，然而却没有给出任何细节。这种做法在垃圾焚烧发电开发商中很普遍。另一方面，中国垃圾焚烧发电工厂的空气和水污染报道屡见不鲜。一些报道指出，某些工厂的二恶英排放量比美国的同类工厂高出24倍。

更糟糕的是，工厂的经营者们通常都要往焚烧的废物里加煤。在私下的采访中，垃圾焚烧发电厂的经营者们承认他们的给料中煤和垃圾各占一半，远远超过了中央政 府规定的20%的上限。甚至还有煤占到70%之多的，这样一来，这些工厂实际上就成了小型的燃煤电站，而这正是中国政府为了保护公众健康正在努力关停清理 的对象。

最后，欧洲向垃圾运输者征收的垃圾倾倒费高 达每吨132美元（840元），而中国每吨很少超过每吨16美元（100元），通常在每吨8美元（50元）上下。谢勇的儿子出生时，他家附近肇事工厂的垃 圾倾倒费每吨为10美元（64元）。许多专家说，依靠如此低廉的倾倒费来获得良好的环境效益及其所需的费用，从技术上看是根本行不通的。

阴霾后的阳光

法规的不健全，政策的不对称，加上公共排放数据的不透明，让垃圾焚烧发电在中国变成了一个真正“有毒”的产业。注意到这一点的并非只有谢勇一个。

现有垃圾焚烧发电厂附近的居民们深受恶臭排放之苦，担心可能存在的健康威胁，从几年前开始抗议新项目的建设。其中比较突出的一个事例也发生在江苏省，上万 名居民聚集起来抗议在他们村子里的一家垃圾焚烧发电厂，并与警察发生冲突。根据中国媒体的报道，截至2010年年中，至少有6家新工厂因公众反对而推迟建 设。

出于某些考虑，中国领导层已经注意到这一警示。在采访中，政府官员们说，现在中国的一些市长不批新项目，担心引发不稳，从而危及自己的名声和升迁的机会。

在上述草根努力的同时，北京的达尔问自然求知社等NGO也在致力于用确实的排放数据来强化对垃圾焚烧发电产业的公众反对力量。在历经要求公开可靠数据并遭到拒绝，反反复复五年之后，如今该组织正在探索建立独立垃圾焚烧发电排放监测站的可能性。

对谢勇来说，现在断言他是否能够在中国法律体系中找到出路、获得梦寐以求的确切数据还为时过早，尽管他坚信这些数据可以证明工厂运行和他儿子不治之症之间存在更直接的联系。在其他道路都断绝之后，谢勇今年初决定将江苏省环保厅告到江苏省高院。审判预计在年底进行。

“起诉环保厅是我的最后一条路，也是我要到公平的唯一一条路，”谢勇说。尽管他的官司还没有解决，但已经有越来越多的旁观者正拭目以待。

谢勇案是同类诉讼中的首例，凸显了中国垃圾焚烧发电部门亟需提高透明度和可问责性。与此同时，日益增多的群众反对也说明，持久的公众抗议或许是推动中国实现垃圾焚烧发电部门切实管理改革的最佳动力。

CHINA

• Tibet to Build First Resource Recycling Market (China Daily)
• Residents in Guangdong Say No to Garbage Incineration Plant (Global Times)
• China to Improve Ship Recycling Standards (Waste Management World)
• China Says Its Plastic Bag Ban Has Saved 4.8 Million Tonnes of Oil (Business Insider)
• Beijing Turns Garbage into Power (CRI)
• China Set to Produce Twice as much Waste as US by 2030 (Waste Management World)
  

US

• Vermont First State to Pass A Law Mandating Composting (Bennington Banner)
• California’s Roadmap to a 75% Recycling Rate (Waste Management World)
• What are We Throwing in the Trash? Food. Lots of Food. (Washington Post)

INTERNATIONAL

• Chennai Delegation Visits China in Search of Garbage Management Solutions (The Hindu)
• Composting Facilities Set for Nigerian State (Waste Management World)

Forbes’ David Ferris writes “China’s ‘Waste to Power’ Plants Burn More Coal than Trash”

Editor of Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy Ethan Goffman writes “China Leads the World…in Garbage”

Perhaps the issue will start to get more deserved attention. In the meantime, I’ll keep on trucking….

Some of the latest news from the wide world of waste: 3 – 16 May 2012.

CHINA

• Trash Hill Casts Shadow on Village (China Daily)

• China to Build 15 Waste Incineration Power Plants in Iran (Bernama)

• China Everbright’s IPO — It’s Back, and Much Smaller (WSJ)

• Restaurant Food Scraps Not Recycled in Beijing, Despite Changes in Regulatory System (China Daily)

US

• Plasma Gasification Contract Extended by US Air Force (Waste Management World)

• Group Plans to Open ‘Zero Waste’ Grocery Store this Summer (Statesman)

• Oil from Waste Plastics and Tyres Approved by Oil Company (Waste Management World)

• GE Partners with EPA on Appliance Recycling (Waste Management World)

• 3 MW Solar Farm Landfill in New Jersey Dedicated (Yahoo Finance)

INTERNATIONAL

• EU Investing in Toxic Waste Projects in Developing World, GAIA Claims (Guardian)

• Waste Paper Markets See Fall in Prices (letsrecycle.com)

• A Rough Patch for Plastics (Recycling Today)

• Waste Projects Get Rates Boost in UK (MRW)

• Recycling Up in England but London Still Lags Behind (MRW)

Some of the latest news from the wide world of waste: 19 April – 2 May 2012.

CHINA

• Bo Xilai’s Brother Quits China Everbright International (BBC)

• $32 Million Waste to Biofuel Contract in Northeast China (Waste Management World)

• Unused E-Waste Discarded in China Raises Questions (BBC)

• Waste to Energy Facilities to Receive 10cents / kWh in China (Waste Management World)

US

• Waste-to-Energy Industry at Crossroads in Maine (Kennebec Journal)

• New York’s Largest On-Farm Biogas Power Project Begins Operations, Generates Electricity for Nearly 1,000 Homes (WSJ)

• Carbon Emissions from Waste Measured in EPA Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Waste Management World)

• Johnson Controls South Carolina Battery Recycling Plant Nears Start-up (Automotive World)

• New York’s New Idea (Waste Management World)

INTERNATIONAL

• Following Garbage’s Long Journey Around the Earth (NPR’s Fresh Air)

• World Bank Arm Considers Funding Sri Lanka Waste-to-Energy Plant (Bloomberg)

• $3 billion Request for Hong Kong Waste Projects Rejected (eco-business.com)

• 1 MW Anaerobic Digestion Plant Awarded Contract in SW England (Waste Management World)

• EU Member States Still Landfilling Three-Quarters of Their Waste (Waste Management World)

Some of the latest news from the wide world of waste: 22 March — 4 April 2012

CHINA

• Where (And What) China Imports from U.S. (Forbes) — #3 is scrap metal!
• Over 100 Arrested for Making ‘Gutter Oil‘ (China Daily)
• Waste Plastic Factory Ablaze in East China (China Daily)
• Chinese Man to Sue Chinese Government Over Unreported Incinerator Emissions Data, Claims Pollution from the Plant Caused His Son’s Paralysis (China Daily)

US

• Waste Management Estimates Trash it Collects Worth $40 Billion (Bloomberg)
• LA Mulls 10-cent Fee for Each Paper Bag Taken at Checkout Line (LA Times)
• Minneapolis Turning Recycles Rooftops into Road Surfaces (Star Tribune)
• The Continuing Debate about Banning Plastic Bags (Triple Pundit)
• Oakland Unveils Industry-Leading Waste-to-Energy System (East Bay Express)

INTERNATIONAL

• UK Develops Prototype to Recycle Human Waste into Energy and Water (Waste Management World)
• EU Nonferrous Scrap Dealers Report Sharp Drops in Orders (Recycling Today)
• India’s E-Waste Output Jumps 8 Times in 7 Years (Times of India)
• A UK-Developed Fuel Cell that Runs on Food Scraps and Sewage (Forbes)

Some of the latest news from the wide world of waste: 8 – 21 March 2012

CHINA

• China Everbright Signs Wujiang Waste-to-Energy Project
• IBM Opens China’s First Factory to Refurbish Computers, Tapping a $2bn Market
• Chinese Sinoma Energy Signs Agreement to Build WtE Plant in the Philippines
• China Builds Home Made Nuclear Waste Processor

US

• Waste Heat Technology Developer Alphabet Energy Secures $2 million in Debt Financing
• Florida Legislature Passes Key Solid Waste Legislature
• New York Startup Converts Plastic to Oil
• In Santa Cruz, County Plastic Bag Ban Goes Into Effect
• NYC Considers Christmas Tree Disposal Fine

INTERNATIONAL

• Taiwan EPA Eyes Greener Use of Waste Disposal Facilities
• Tanzania: Turning Rubbish into Cooking Fuel
• Delhi Residents Fume over Trial Run of Incinerator
• UK Government to Boost Precious Metal Recycling
• Lagos to Generate Electricity from Landfills
• Seoul Recovers Energy from 730,000 Tonnes of Waste
  

CHINA

• GE Gas Technology to Power China’s Largest Landfill Gas Project

• China to Recycle More Industrial Waste

• Garbage Crisis to Bring Higher Residential Collection Fees in Beijing

• Chinese Government Offices Embark on Ambitious Recycling Program

• Capital to Lead Nation in Trash Burning

US

• Plasma Arc Waste Gasification Plant May Come to Ohio

• California to Develop Single Stream Recycling, Biofuel and Energy Facility

• US Responsible Electronics Recycling Act Sparks More Debate

• New, Higher CalRecycle Redemption Rates Take Effect in California

• New York City Seeks Waste to Energy Proposals

INTERNATIONAL

• 51 Million Cans and Counting for UK Recycling Program

• UK-developed Microbial Fuel Cell Produces Biogas and Energy from Waste

• Video: Biogas Facilities to Co-Digest Hanoi’s Organic Waste

• UK Anaerobic Industry on a Role, Says WRAP Report

• Energy Recovery from EU Waste Rose 13.5% in 2010
  

The post especially resonated with your’s truly, as it echoes much of what I attempted to convey in the “Dirty Side of China’s Clean Growth.” In particular the last point, referenced here:

Unintended consequences (适得其反): This refers to when companies do good things for the environment but still have a negative impact. The company named was Jinko Solar.

It is very encouraging to see this discussion gaining more traction in the mainstream, especially through the engagement of Chinese audiences.

China’s absent representative government makes the promise of enhanced corporate accountability all the more dependent upon Chinese behavior and demands, both as consumers and citizens. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is great potential in this area. You can count on my sustained cheerleading from the sidelines.

China’s leading waste-to-energy developer, China Everbright, has received more than US$200 million vis-a-vis Asian Development Bank’s commitment to funding companies with above average environmental goals. It’s a great idea on paper. However, flaccid environmental reporting standards in China and worrying trends in the incineration sector reveal a moral hazard in international institutions’ move to capitalize the private sector. Growing segments of China’s population are beginning to demand transparency and accountability from China’s cleantech sector. Will principled organizations like the Asian Development Bank follow their example?

Part 2 of 2: Benchmarks? What Benchmarks?

Voluntary Reporting Fills Some Gaps in Regulatory Compliance

Part 1 of 2 uncovered ADB’s lacking due diligence in the China Everbright deal. In the absence of robust monitoring on the part of ADB, what hope is there for environmental compliance in response to regulatory or market pressure?

Somewhat encouragingly, China’s central government has attached increased importance to environmental reporting obligations in recent years.

The 2007 “Guiding Opinion on Strengthening the Supervision and Management of Environment Protection of Listed Compan[ies]” (Chinese version here) outlines environmental reporting requirements for Chinese listed companies. Under these regulations, a company must disclose any violation of an environmental law, environmental lawsuits, new investments that have significant environmental impact, as well as environmental decisions that could impact a company’s share value.

A first foray into government-led corporate environmental oversight, the initiative got off to a sputtering start. Roughly a year after being launched, observers doubted the program’s efficacy. Even the Ministry of Environmental Protection’s own senior official Pan Yue noted on record

“of all listed companies on the mainland, only half included environment performance in their 2006 annual reports. Even for those which did touch on the issue, the quality of reporting was generally poor and cannot help shareholders.”

Without a forceful public watchdog, one might expect to see a listed company like Everbright pursuing external verification mechanisms – widely used in Europe and the US – to prove their environmental compliance.

Voluntary reporting schemes, like the Global Reporting Initiative, have seen considerable growth in China in recent years. By 2010, about 700 companies were producing sustainability reports, and at least 60 had applied GRI guidelines. Though not a massive move to pursue sustainability, the reporting trend is nevertheless on the horizon.

Everbright has followed this trend, adding a corporate social responsibility section to its 2010 report. However, details on its environmental performance are vague. For example, the report claims Everbright’s “emission standard of waste-to-energy projects is above the national standard” but contains no performance data or third party verification information.

Given the paucity of corporate disclosed information, one can turn to independent parties to see what they have to say about Everbright. Investment bank CLSA put out a Corporate Governance Report (pdf) in 2010 that examined listed companies across Asia. CLSA ranked China Everbright as one of worst performers in the category of corporate social responsibility.

The verdict is out on whether Everbright performs within its claims, or according to legal requirements, owing to a distressing lack of evidence to make a judgment one way or the other.

In light of its overall murky environmental record, ADB’s Everbright loan is that much more worrisome.

Dirty Growth “By Any Other Name” Is Not Necessarily Clean

In coming years, the story on the ground may well reveal what the reports do not. Since 2009, citizen groups have become more vocal in their opposition of waste-to-energy plants, which they view as dangerous to public health. In a handful of instances, protests have resulted in the postponement of new projects or plant expansions.

China’s solar sector also offers a powerful lesson in the potential environmental hazards of supposedly “green” cleantech industries. As early as 2008, reports suggested that Chinese manufacturers of solar panel components were dumping toxic byproducts on surrounding farmland. Unchecked operations continued, while neighboring communities stood by witnessing the degradation, their distrust mounting.

In the fall of 2011, simmering dissatisfaction finally erupted in violence during a four-day confrontation between Zhejiang-based Jinko Solar and local residents, who were tired of persistent air and water pollution. Days later, the local environmental protection bureau admitted to the state-run Xinhua news agency that the plant had failed to meet pollution standards for over six months. Eventually, the government halted the plant’s operations in a clear bow to public pressure, without which business as usual would likely have continued.

Amidst questionable lending mechanisms, weak government oversight, and flimsy voluntary reporting, growing public vigilance may well be the best shot China has at seeing that the promise of “clean growth” is more than just rhetoric, and differs significantly from the environmentally disastrous growth of the past thirty years.

Some of the latest news from the wide world of waste: 9 – 22 February 2012

CHINA

• Insurance Auto Auctions Paves the Way for Recycling US Salvage Vehicles in China

• China Issues New Electronics Industry Environmental Guidelines

• Chinese Waste-to-Energy Investors to Enter Lagos Market

• Difficult but Necessary: China’s Experience Exploring Biofuel

• Reverse Vending Machines Turn Cans into Cash
  

US

• LA’s Trash Industry Gets Ready to Rumble

• New York City Makes It Easier to Reuse Old Rags

• Hudson Clean Energy Takes Minority Stake in GSE Investment Corporation
  

• Plastics Recycling Rates Rise Significantly in the US

• The Business of Garbage and Recycling

• Mardi Gras Beads Cause Environmental Hangover

INTERNATIONAL

• Bed of China to Encourage Oysters in Dubai

• Africa: Domestic Consumption is Main Contributor to Growing E-Waste

• Jakarta Port Officials Seize 113 Containers of Illegal Hazardous Waste

• Fungus that Eats Plastic

• Rapid Food Waste Fermentation Developed at German University

China’s leading waste-to-energy developer, China Everbright, has received more than US$200 million vis-a-vis Asian Development Bank’s commitment to funding companies with above average environmental goals. It’s a great idea on paper. However, flaccid environmental reporting standards in China and worrying trends in the incineration sector reveal a moral hazard in international institutions’ move to capitalize the private sector. Growing segments of China’s population are beginning to demand transparency and accountability from China’s cleantech sector. Will principled organizations like the Asian Development Bank follow their example?

Part 1 of 2: Let’s Make a Deal

ADB Loan Signals Confidence in China Everbright’s Environmental Leadership

China Everbright International signed on to a US$100 million loan in January this year. It was the second one the environmental services company received through the ADB lending program. The first US$100 million installment, underwritten directly by the ADB, came in 2009. At that time, ADB also gave China Everbright US$653,000 in technical assistance.

According to the news, Hong Kong Stock Exchange-listed China Everbright International will use the loan “to build multiple [waste-to-energy] plants of varying sizes in provincial capitals across the PRC.”

On the face of things, this news makes great sense economically and environmentally. Injecting funds into the US$1.6 billion valued company, whose core businesses focus on “green environmental protection and alternative energy,” will both improve its financial standing while also benefiting China’s environment.

At the same time, the loan framework dovetails with the Asian Development Bank’s stated mission to “help developing member countries improve the living conditions and quality of life of their people,” and its commitment to invest 80% of funding into five core areas by 2012, of which the environment is one.

However, though intended to catalyze environmental progress in China, this deal may instead be facilitating continued opacity in the area of environmental performance. Like almost anything, the devil is in the details.

To date, none of China’s environmental companies, including China Everbright, have committed to environmentally responsible operations, verified through reporting. This fact raises several important questions. First, through what mechanism has the ADB awarded China Everbright and other companies funding for projects earmarked as ‘environmental?’ Also, to what extent do we give the environmental industry a(n undeserved) pass when it comes to corporate environmental reporting simply because they are purportedly in the business of “being green?”

Private Sector Lending On the Rise

Traditionally, sovereign lending dominated ADB’s and other international financial institutions’ loan activities. In recent years, however, ADB has committed to increasing non-sovereign lending. According to their most recent Strategy Paper, the ADB intends for non-sovereign loans to account for 50% of its total China commitments by 2020.

In 2010, the bank approved US$1.3 billion in sovereign loans to the PRC, and US$587 million to private sector loans, roughly a two-thirds one-third split. Though other international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, have also increased their private sector loans, none come close to ADB, either in terms of the monetary amount or as a percentage of total financing. In 2004, for example, the ADB already held a US$100 million non-sovereign lending portfolio, more than three times that of the WB.

The loan in question is ADB’s private sector funding deal in support of municipal waste-to-energy projects. So far, just about every international organization has steered clear of funding WtE projects, given the public’s growing distrust and opposition to them, as well as well-documented technical and environmental issues associated with the sector in China.

Some of those issues include: the use of coal as a fuel supplement in municipal solid waste feedstock; lacking wastewater treatment of sludge drained from the trash; insufficient pollution control and uncontained dumping of the hazardous fly ash produced in incineration (see here, here and here for more on those issues).

In fairness, the ADB is not altogether unaware of its responsibility to mitigate environmental hazard through due diligence. The bank makes documents detailing environmental impact assessments and technical requirements for projects associated with the Everbright financing deal available on its website.

One of these documents notes that funded projects will “not require supplemental fuel” and will “meet high environmental standards.” However, the documented audits the bank conducted were all done prior to the plants’ construction and operation. There are no documents on the website that disclose the plants’ actual operational performance. More troubling, perhaps, is the lacking indication that monitoring and reporting has even taken place, as initially planned.

Furthermore, the ADB appears to have washed its hands of the matter of environmental compliance, as per the project’s configuration. In the area of safeguards – the administrative mechanism for ensuring that the project, as a matter of policy, conforms to ADB’s strict environmental and social principles and requirements – responsibility for this project has been assigned to a financial intermediary.

In other words, it is the financial intermediary’s duty to develop and maintain an environmental and social management system, unchecked whatsoever by the ADB (despite their 50% stake in the deal).

In the absence of robust monitoring on the part of ADB, what hope is there for environmental compliance in response to regulatory or market pressure? That, as well as emerging trends in public opposition towards dirty growth, will be discussed in Part 2.