Convoy of cars to drive through Dublin opposing incinerator

by Jolly Green Giant Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:52

This is not a very clever way to protest against an Incinerator. Cars cause a lot of pollution as well. You would be better off having a Crtical Mass Cycle or march against the Incinerator. Your car rally will very likely cause inconvenience to and endanger cylcists and civilians.

by cyclist around town. Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:05

Agreed, this is a terrible advertisement for a community campaigning for a cleaner environment - and at worst hypocritical. Cycling around allows you to stop in places and talk to people without having to cram up a street looking for parking spaces for all the cars. Fighting against the pollution by adding to it with noise and petrol fumes will win you no support - and this writer certainly wont be there to support your 'motorcade for a cleaner suburb'. Very, very short sighted thinking by the organisers.

by Starstruck - In USA Sat Aug 19, 2006 00:42

What the fuck??
Agree with the issue but this tactic is very shortsighted,is this even for real??
On yer bikes!!

by D'other Sat Aug 19, 2006 01:40

You see hypocrisy, I see common sense. Protesting in convoys is a widely used tactic, used in the fuel protests in the UK a number of years ago, by the IFA and the taxi drivers more recently. Therefore, unlike critical mass, it is in the repoitoire of resistance models readily availible to people planning campaigns and actions. I suppose if I put up a few glamour shots of the burning tyres used on barricades by the Piqueteros in the Argentinian uprising a number of years ago you'd criticise them as well?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piquetero

by maire Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:16

While there may be added pollution from the cars it is nothing to the pollution emissions from an incinerator, neither will it be anything like the traffic conjestion if an incinerator of the capacity envisaged ever comes to that area. Remember this is an industry that needs raw material to be viable. Your health is important, more important than wealth. If this makes people aware it is just for one day, not for 24/7/365. Best of luck, you will need it.

by cyclist around town Sat Aug 19, 2006 14:13

In answer to your question, yes I would criticise the picketeros for burning tyres, they're toxic.

Incinerators and cars are both bad for this city, and the residents in Ringsend should/must be aware of that. Using one polluter to protest against another - you dont have my support. I dont like you driving around clogging up my lungs with your car fumes, and you expect me to support your fight for a cleaner living environment? Your questionable methods make me think this is more about NIMBYism than a fight for a greener future.

by Phuq Hedd Sun Aug 20, 2006 01:17

I suppose if I put up a few glamour shots of the burning tyres used on barricades by the Piqueteros in the Argentinian uprising a number of years ago you'd criticise them as well?

The Piqueteros weren't burning tyres in order to attempt to protest the toxic fumes in their neighbourhood were they? If they were then they'd definitely be open to criticism for being complete idiots, rather like the people that propose to drive around spewing out carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and even worse, nanoparticles of chromium, cadmium and lead (whose health effects are largely unresearched but are speculated to be highly deleterious). This protest is incredibly poorly planned and leaves the protestors looking like know-nothing NIMBYs. They'll score a massive own goal if they go ahead with it.

by John Sun Aug 20, 2006 13:16

There is nothing new in this sort of hypocrisy. One of the Rossport protests last year consisted of a cavalcade of motor-cars around the roads of Mayo. It could only happen in Ireland. A protest against an oil company that involved driving hundreds of motor-cars around the back roads stopping only to re-fuel at petrol stations owned or supplied by that same oil company. At the time I likened this to animal rights groups orgainising a burgerfest at McDonald's to protest against the killing of animals. As some of the posters have pointed out, this anti-incinerator protest is pure NIMBYism and equally hypocritical. A few environmentalists in Ireland live very frugal lives so as to produce zero waste. They go without motor-cars, tvs, packaged food, cans of soft drinks etc etc. I respect these people although I think they're bonkers. However, they are NOT hypocrites. Hypocrites are people who produce large amounts of waste but who oppose every method for getting rid of it. Everyone is agreed that re-cycling can solve part of the problem. However, no country in the world is even close to one hundred per cent re-cycling and never will be. One hundred per cent re-cycling is a pipedream. For the foreseeable future every country in the world has the problem of disposing of waste that can not be re-cycled and which is produced, not only by companies, but by ordinary people like me and you (and certainly these protestors) in their daily lives. There are in fact only two ways of disposing of that waste which can not be re-cycled, either bury it in land dumps or burn it in incinerators. If the green lobby knows of a third method, could they please specify it. In some countries they opt for land dumps. In other countries they opt for incinerators. In most countries the green lobby supports incinerators and environmentally-progressive countries such as Austria and the Nordic countries are full of incinerators. Ireland is unique in that the green lobby in Ireland opposes BOTH land dumps AND incinerators. They simply think waste can be wished away and they prattle on about 'zero waste' and 'one hundred per cent re-cycling', targets which NO country in the world is remotely close to achieving or likely to achieve in our lifetimes. Cound the green lobby simply state once and for all how they would dispose of waste that can not be re-cycled? Until they do that they should be considered as a joke.

by maire Sun Aug 20, 2006 23:05

Hello John,

The sustainable way to deal with waste is:

Prevention principle - limit waste production at the source.This is the top priority in the Waste Hierarchy on which EU and Ireland’s waste management strategies are based.

Polluter pays principle - cost of dealing with waste to be met by the waste producer.

Precautionary principle – One definition goes as follows: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of the proof. “

Proximity principle - waste should be dealt with as close as possible to its source.
What are the alternatives? Log onto www.chaseireland.org

by John Mon Aug 21, 2006 01:40

Hello Maire. You haven't actually answered my question as to HOW waste that can not be re-cycled should be disposed of. You've said WHERE it should be disposed of, i.e. the proximity principle (dispose of it as close as possible to where its produced). This would mean waste produced in Ringsend, Sandymount and Irishtown should be disposed of in Ringsend, Sandymount and Irishtown. I hope you tell them that at your protest. You've said WHO should pay for its disposal, i.e. those who produce it should pay for disposing of it (the principle behind the Bin Tax incidentally). This would mean people in Ringsend, Sandymount and Irishtown should pay for the disposal of any waste they produce. I hope you tell them that at your protest. Even accepting the proximity principle and the polluter pays principle and doing everything possible to limit waste at source, there is still going to be lots of waste to dispose of in Ringsend, Sandymount and Irishtown (and in every other locality in every other country in the world) for as far ahead as the eye can see, but yet you have nothing to say about HOW that waste should be disposed of.

by maire Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:04

John
You ask for solutions and how to.
You do not seem to be impressed with prevention, but this also prevents transport problems bringing the feed to these insatiable incinerations, remember they have to be fed 24/7/365 - incineration as a sustainable waste solution it is not.

Sustainable development calls for alternative approaches to waste management. These begin by attempting to prevent waste in an effort to conserve natural resources which are precious and will be needed by future generations. The next step in the process is to promote policies that reduce waste to a minimum. This will involve working with people who create waste, especially those in the manufacturing, building and retailing sections of the economy. Waste that cannot be prevented or minimized should be reused, repaired, recycled or composted.
Animal carcasses can be dealt with through a technology known as alkaline hydrolysis which reduces the animal carcasses to residue bones and a sterile liquid effluent. Other alternatives can be found on www.chaseireland.org.

Once waste is burned it can no longer be used. Over the next decade or so public attitudes and hopefully policy, will change towards waste production. Legislation from Europe and the national governments will, most probably, insist that companies assume responsibility for the whole life-cycle of their products, then it will not be our corcern or even yours and no doubt when that happened there would be so little waste that could not be recycled.
We are a small country with an "overcapacity of landfill" as one John Aherne has said so lets have a moritorium on incineration while we get our act together, we are also clever, so clever that we need not live as if we are the last generation to inherit this beautiful earth.

by Andrew McGrath - The Tara Foundation Mon Aug 21, 2006 13:25

I suggest that the State mouths who seem to lie in wait to defend every aspect of State policy that falls under scrutiny ask themselves a simple question: why are the proposed incinerators being designed to cope with a waste tonnage so much in excess of requirements?

There is a simple answer: these incinerators are so expensive to build and to run, leaving aside the huge amounts of State social welfare which will go to the private concerns who will build and operate them, that in order to make a profit on their "investment", waste must be imported from abroad to ensure that the vast negative cost will be justified.

We are expected to applaud this.

by John Mon Aug 21, 2006 18:57

According to the Eurostat database which I just checked, the following countries have the following numbers of incineration plants:

Denmark: 32
Finland: 26
Netherlands: 17
Norway: 65

These are countries which the green lobby in Ireland is always extolling as being far more concerned about the environment
than Ireland. So, how come they have so many incinerators? Is everybody out of step except Ireland?

by toe-tape Mon Aug 21, 2006 20:15

Why don't you drive around for a little while and just abandon the cars somewhere like the access road to the poolbeg peninsula. They are going to be carrying massive loads of taxic waste through
residential areas. If you must use cars then apply them in a logical sense. Though it's a 120 euros to get them out of the pound....

by Noel Hogan Mon Aug 21, 2006 22:09

Thus it is stupid to be driving around in a mobile incinerator protesting against an immobile one.

And no incinerator has ever tried to knock me down when I'm on my bike.
You don't hear about a massive pile up of incinerators on the M50.
Incinerators do not cause traffic congestion in our towns and cities.

If I was forced to choose, if I had to choose between a city with a few incinerators or a city choked with cars, I'd take the former every time.

by Andrew McGrath Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:54

And I think the last comment is absolutely typical of the misdirection and distraction directed against every attempt to protest State mismanagement. If you are so in favour of State policy, say so and stop hiding behind bogus debating points. Shame on you.

by torch Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:59

I think we all deserve an honest answer to this one from the Ringsend protestors.

Dublin is currently generating approximately 40% of the entire domestic waste produced in the Republic of Ireland and approximately 35% of the hazardous waste created in Ireland.

While efforts are being made to minimize both categories of waste, it is a fact that the Dublin area will, irrespective of what efforts are made to introduce green technologies in the medium term, continue for the forseeable future to generate large quantities of hazardous and domestic waste. Every attempt to provide new landfill in the Dublin region to deal with Dublin waste has been vehemently opposed by the people creating that waste and benefiting from the employment created by the waste-producing industries.

Do the Ringsend protestors propose in the interim:
1. That all the hazardous-waste producing industries be shut down (and their employees thrown out of work)
2, Dublin people be made individually liable for disposing of their domestic waste in an environmentally friendly manner (horrendously expensive)
2. That this waste be exported to the Third World
3. That the waste should be dumped or incinerated somewhere else in Ireland
4. That green-technologies be introduced asap (With waste stockpiled in the interim), and that the population of Dublin that created the waste and benefited from its creation should be levied for the cost of the new technologies. (Doubling the local charges that a small but significant percentage of Dublin people won't pay anyway - Btw, if you try to pass on the cost to the producers they will just move elsewhere).
5. Don't care as long as it isn't incinerated or landfilled in Dublin and the population of Dublin doesn't have to pay for it.

Honest and realistic answers please.

by Noel Hogan Tue Aug 22, 2006 14:44

I'm just less in favour of the type of traffic congestion we have in this country.

The Government's policy is up it's arse and indeed very much profit driven.

But protesting against the traffic congestion and pollution caused by an incinerator by, er, causing traffic congestion and pollution in your cars is idiotic.

It's like protesting against the M£ going through Tara by driving a bulldozer over the hill.

by Terence Tue Aug 22, 2006 15:44

There are a lot of mis-truths here in the above comment

>While efforts are being made to minimize both categories of waste
I don't see much of that happening. In the retail & food sector, over the years I see more and more excessive packaging on everything and a much greater use of plastic bottles. Also promotion of bottle types that are less recycable.

>Every attempt to provide new landfill in the Dublin region to deal with Dublin waste has been >vehemently opposed by the people creating that waste and benefiting from the employment created by >the waste-producing industries.
So it is only the waste companies opposing them and industry that produces our waste?? However I suspect you are pointing your finger at ordinary folk. They don't generate waste in the manner that you suggest. They consume materials with excessive packaging over which they have no control or input. Then when they dispose of them there is little or no take-back or recycling of such materials. And lastly of course who wants a landfill behind or in front of their house. The objections show that people are finally realizing that these dumps are toxic and bad for health and the environment.

And now onto your proposals......
>1. That all the hazardous-waste producing industries be shut down (and their employees thrown out of work)
Nobody is suggesting that. Besides the incinerator is supposed to take domestic waste, so not sure what industry will be closed down. Also presumes there are no other solutions. Good trick that.

>2, Dublin people be made individually liable for disposing of their domestic waste in an environmentally friendly manner (horrendously expensive)
No, its not up to the people to put in place a proper recycling and composting, and re-use and reduce infrastructure. That is what we elect governments for. But clearly representative democracy does not work and is bought out by private interests as it is only they who seem to call the shots and who the government serve.

>2. That this waste be exported to the Third World
Nobody is suggesting this. Its private companies doing that. The government did nothing to prevent the closure of the only glass bottle recycling plants in the country which ironically was not only in Ringsend, but on the very site of the proposed incinerator.

>3. That the waste should be dumped or incinerated somewhere else in Ireland
No, that the government brings in a tax levy on excessive packaging, brings in return-deposit system on cans and bottles, bans use of plastic bottles, gives a free composting bin to every houshold, massively encourages more paper, cardboard, plastic, waste wood, rubble, batteries and other material recycling. Not the token farce that we have. I'm sure there is more.

>4. That green-technologies be introduced asap (With waste stockpiled in the interim), and that the population of Dublin that created the waste and benefited from its creation should be levied for the cost of the new technologies. (Doubling the local charges that a small but significant percentage of Dublin people won't pay anyway - Btw, if you try to pass on the cost to the producers they will just move elsewhere).
No, that industry which created the waste, much of it through excessive packaging over which we have little control payes for it. That all those found to have dumped illegally all around the country, being fined and that money used. That the money paid out in bribes for all the planning corruption that this be collected and used for this purpose. That the surplus tax collected in all the tax amnesty and the bank charges fraud being used for this.

>5. Don't care as long as it isn't incinerated or landfilled in Dublin and the population of Dublin doesn't have to pay for it.
People do care thats why they are protesting and this is despite a near media blackout on the issue and a near media blackout on any discussion of the harm chemicals in general do to the enviroment. It seems the media only permits us to say smoking and bad diet are the cause of all our ills. Virtually no mention of the huge array of literally hundreds of thousands chemicals.

Finally. It's quite clear you are trying to discredit the campaign and anyone who objects. Your arguments are deceptive and full of distraction and contain multiple efforts to frame the debate especially in terms of solutions that are clearly in favour of the status quo and those who wish to further to poison the environment and people and continue with the wholly wasteful and destructive practices of ever more consumption and waste.

by Maire Tue Aug 22, 2006 17:49

The car protest must be effective to have got such hysterical reaction.

Such loathing for traffic congestion in the capital city, caused by this protest and the resulting emissions from these cars over a maximum of 5 hours - what was mentioned? -lead cadmium, mercury etc?-

Be concerned about the traffic congestion from truck travelling to an incinerator demanding 600.000 tons of waste a year. Anyone good at figures can work out the extra traffic on the roads to feed Ringsend. Your daily diet of dioxins will be enhanced not just to those living nearby but the fine now truly fine particulates can get distributed to a radius far in excess of 40 miles.
Let us not mention health, neither the government, the planning Dept, or the EPA wish to mention it either.
Why all the fuss? Can it be that communities forced to live beside these proposed incinerators are selfish enough to insist their safety, health and well-being is paramount to any set up of an industry which they believe is injurious to society as a whole, and is not sustainable, because it encourages the growth of waste instead of prevention.

by Noel Hogan Tue Aug 22, 2006 22:00

I (and I think many others) have no problems with the aim of your protest (removing the threat of an incinerator in Ringsend) but have a problem with the tactics being used (a convoy of cars driving around dublin). Show me a petition calling for the incinerator to be refused planning or whatever and I'll sign it. But I won't support a protest like this.

Cars are strangling the city and the country - that's why many of us have attended Reclaim the Streets protests in the past. Strangling it even further to cause a point won't help. Nor will it help to gain public interest. How are you going to give someone a leaflet explaining your cause from a passing car?

Better off having a march or a critical mass cycle. Or a picket.

by Andrew McGrath Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:57

US: Waste Incinerators Making a Comeback

Copied and pasted text removed and replaced with source URL.
Usually such posts are just hidden -ed

by anon Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:07

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/09/16/story277005.html
will set off from Star of the Sea church in Sandymount at 1230

“An Bord Pleanala, decided that a similar site in Poolbeg was unsuitable for an incinerator in 1996 on a number on grounds, one of which was the lack of infrastructure – the road network in the immediate area could not cater for the proposed increase in traffic,” said Frances Corr of Combined Residents Against Incineration (CRAI).

“What has changed? There is no new road network, traffic usage has increased on our roads and the planned incinerator is six times the size of the last proposal. If it was unsuitable then, it is unsuitable now.”