Brown: Why Ottawa should adapt a waste-to-energy plan
In 2019, Ottawa’s city council declared a climate emergency, arguing that urgent action is needed to reduce our city’s greenhouse gas emissions. A major source of emissions is our landfills, including the Trail Road Landfill that is in Ward 21, where I have the privilege to serve as councillor.
Landfills leach greenhouse gases, particularly methane, into the air, and harmful byproducts into their local environment; they are environmentally unsustainable. If the city is to take seriously its obligations to the environment, it must reduce waste and implement waste-to-energy incineration.
Trading our garbage for heat and energy makes some intuitive sense. But more importantly, the practice is also environmentally sensible.
These facilities reduce waste by up to 95 per cent when compared to landfills. While they do produce emissions, they produce significantly fewer greenhouse gas emissions than landfills when done responsibly. They also take up far less space, and do not produce the same kinds of harmful leachate that landfills do. The primary byproduct — incinerator ash — also has promising reuse potential.
These reasons explain why many cities in Europe have adopted waste-to-energy solutions. There is little reason Ottawa cannot do the same.
Some criticize the idea on the basis that it fails to tackle the root of the problem: human behaviour. So the logic goes, waste-to-energy creates a demand for waste. These critics argue that efforts are better spent on activities that would see our city produce less waste, recycle more efficiently and reuse products more actively.
Such well-intentioned assumptions do not stand up to scrutiny. The fact is that some of the countries with the best recycling records employ waste-to-energy solutions.
The city’s climate plan does not assume that landfills will cease being used in the near future; it instead aims to divert material as much as possible while increasing the effectiveness of landfill gas capture, which would eventually be burned for energy generation anyways, but is less environmentally friendly than waste-to-energy. It makes far more sense to reduce emissions while minimizing land use, as well as land and water pollutants, through a dedicated waste-to-energy facility.
It is incorrect to view waste-to-energy and waste reduction as mutually exclusive. We must reduce and better manage the waste we do produce while being serious about the fact that there will still be net waste.
As our city reduces its own waste output, we can reclaim landfills and take on waste from other municipalities, creating both energy and some revenue for the city. The business case for waste-to-energy becomes better, not worse, as our environmental practices improve.
The biggest challenge comes from costs. Upfront capital costs are significant, and operating costs are also worth considering. But these costs are modest, and the benefits are clear.
In the coming months, I will be working with my council colleagues and city staff to consider this option seriously as part of Ottawa’s Solid Waste Master Plan. I will propose strategies to find efficiencies so that we can afford this important investment in our city’s future.
If we want to manage waste better, reduce our environmental impact, and turn what is presently an ugly problem into an efficient solution, Ottawa must adopt a waste-to-energy system. In this term of council, I will lead the charge on that effort.
David Brown is the city councillor for Ward 21, Rideau-Jock.