At a time when public opposition against incinerators is being incorporated into local, national and international laws, Malaysia seems to be doing the reverse.

The controversial multi-billion ringgit project proposed in Broga is the most glaring example. The 1,500-tonne mammoth plant was first proposed in Kampung Bohol, Puchong a few years ago.

But almost overnight, it was relocated to Broga when things got too hot for the government to handle. It had to choose between losing thousands of votes, not to mention some parliamentary and state seats, or moving the plant elsewhere.

And just when things seemed to be going smoothly, Broga residents started raising hell. Only this time, the campaign focused on challenging prevailing good governance and sustainable development practices at the local and federal levels.

One can't help but wonder why Malaysia is being so hardheaded about building one of the biggest plants at an exorbitant price, with the proposal shrouded in secrecy, and with emerging scientific findings against it.

Global protest

Last Monday, hundreds of anti-incinerator activists in 62 countries celebrated the 2nd Global Day of Action against Waste Incineration, and reminded their respective governments that time is running out on the controversial technology.

The activists, who are members of the Manila-based Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives/Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), said the industry was desperately trying to repackage incinerators as a green and renewable energy source.

GAIA coordinator Ann Leonard said the combined observance and simultaneous protest actions around the world to mark the action day was "the most massive demonstration of public opposition to incinerators on a global scale".

The campaign highlights waste-related health, social, environmental and economic problems, and at the same time promotes safe and sustainable alternatives for preventing waste and managing society's discards, she said in a statement issued on Monday.

But why the obstinacy? What makes Malaysia think that it can get away unscathed when grassroots movements and governments elsewhere have understood the risks involved?

Communities in India, South America, Britain, Japan, the US and in Europe are fighting tooth-and-nail to stop their governments from building such 'camouflaged' plants.

Not only that, they are also providing possible and practical solutions in return. What happened to public education and participation in Malaysia?

The government has maintained the same tune over the years - on the pressing need for incinerators because the trash volume is increasing rapidly - and since no better alternatives are available, why not just burn them 'safely'.

If desperation should dictate the day, the government might as well build a mega-incinerator in Putrajaya, the country's new administrative capital. The environmental impact would be minimal, there are comparatively fewer people with large tracts of barren land readily available.

In fact, this idea was repeated during the Puchong campaign and continues to echo in Broga.

Unreliable technology

SM Mohd Idris, president of the Consumers Association of Penang - a GAIA member - said Monday's actions were clear manifestations of the growing global resistance against incinerators.

"Incineration is an unreliable technology that produces a secondary waste stream more toxic than the original," he said.

"With the possible exception of nuclear power, no other technology has stirred up such inflamed defiance from citizens and communities the world over.

"For this and other good reasons, governments should pay heed and start implementing safe and sustainable alternatives to incineration."

GAIA statistics show that public opposition managed to kill off many proposed and existing plants such as 300 municipal waste incinerators in the US over the last 15 years.

In Japan, which has the most number of incinerators in the world totaling some 4,000 hazardous, industrial and household waste treatment plants, public pressure had led to the closure of over 500 in recent years.

According to GAIA, 15 governments have passed partial bans and thus far, only the Philippines has imposed a total ban on all incineration.

Monday also coincided with the start of the 7th Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee meeting of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which Malaysia is a signatory to.

The convention aims to eliminate the most-known persistent toxic substances, including the cancer-causing dioxins and furans. In fact, the United Nations Environment Programme revealed that incinerators accounted for 69 percent of dioxin emissions worldwide.

The dangers

In the executive summary of a report entitled 'Waste Incineration: A Dying Technology' released on Monday, a GAIA member said incinerators were the main culprits producing dioxins, mercury and other heavy metal pollutants.

Neil Tangri of US-based grassroots movement Essential Action, said that incinerator operators often claimed that air emissions were under control but evidence suggested otherwise.

Firstly, he said, for many pollutants such as dioxins, any additional emissions are unacceptable. Then there is the issue of monitoring which is "uneven and deeply flawed", followed by data indicating that existing plants are incapable of meeting present regulatory standards.

Debunking claims that newer incinerator technology are safer because they incorporate air pollution control equipment, Tangri, who prepared the report, said such devices only serve to exacerbate the danger because the pollutants are now concentrated in the fly ash.

"Therefore, the problem of polluting emissions is not solved but simply moved from one medium (air) to another (solid or water)."

He said the highly toxic incinerator ash is often poorly regulated and in some places, left exposed to the elements or even spread in residential or food-producing areas.

"Incinerators are often deliberately sited in low-income neighbourhoods with minority populations based on the theory that a politically-weak community will offer less resistance.

"This is a violation of the basic tenets of environmental justice," said Tangri.

Scientific research have implicated incineration emissions and ash residues to severe environmental contamination, ending up in the food supply and even breast milk.

It has also been associated with a growing litany of health problems, including various cancers, reproductive disorders, immune system dysfunction and birth defects.

The report also stated that modern incinerators are the most expensive approach to waste management, with the total cost inevitably borne by the public, not to mention local governments who fall into the trap of complicated financing schemes offered by incinerator companies.

Waste minimisation

Debunking another claim that incinerators generate electricity, the report said a detailed life-cycle analysis would proved otherwise.

"Incinerators waste more energy than they produce because the products that are burnt have to be replaced with new products through extraction and processing of raw materials, causing more environmental damage than recycling," said Tangri in the summary.

He also stressed that for countries in the south, the overall risk is higher due to a lack of monitoring capability, fluctuating budgets and corruption as well as different weather conditions than in developed countries of the north.

Tangri said instead of assuming that society will produce ever-increasing quantities of waste, governments should give waste minimisation top priority.

He added that municipal waste programmes should be successfully tailored to local conditions, such as the informal sector of scavengers in some South countries whose employment conditions could be improved.

"One such successful model is Cairo's zabbaleen community, a marginalised group of people who have self-organised a waste collection and recycling system that diverts 85 percent of collected waste and employs 40,000 people."

The report also attributed existing 'unfriendly' product design as the greatest barrier to recycling.

This involves a policy change to impose an extended producer responsibility where manufacturers would have monetary incentive to improve on the design for end-of-life recycling.

"International law is also starting to bear upon incineration. Three principles of international - precaution, prevention and limiting trans-boundary effects - conflict with incineration," the report stated.

Malaysians in general, and Broga residents in particular, should know by now that the ball has always been in their court. Power is in the people's hands.

And the government, as the mandated caretaker, should carefully and thoroughly weigh all risk factors in determining what is good for the future of their charges.