“Win-win solution”: Zero Waste Europe calls for European incineration adoption to slash emissions
27 Jun 2024 --- Zero Waste Europe (ZWE) is urging the European Commission (EC) to include waste incineration in the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to lower cross-industry GHG emissions. Including incinerators in the EU ETS will penalize the burning of fossil-based materials such as plastics and synthetic textiles.
ZWE has published a report developed by Equnimator offering advice on how to introduce incinerators in the EU ETS to achieve the “best GHG emission reductions.”
The guidelines are shared ahead of the EC’s feasibility study, which is due by mid-2026.
“We estimate that this will result in an average of €8 million (US$8.5 million) annually in additional costs per facility. This financial pressure is likely to incentivize more sustainable waste management practices, such as recycling and waste prevention. One of the low-hanging fruits is sorting waste before incineration,” Janek Vahk, zero pollution manager at Zero Waste Europe (ZWE), tells Packaging Insights.
Working against status-quo
The cost of the EU ETS will make waste sorting very competitive, says Vahk.
“Experience shows that this alone could substantially reduce emissions, as most plastics can be sorted out with modern sorting technologies. This is particularly relevant for the packaging sector, as much of the packaging, especially plastics, ends up in the mixed waste stream.”
Vahk hopes the proposed changes will incentivize better separate collections and packaging design.ZWE also found that most countries would not meet the packaging recycling targets without mixed waste sorting, meaning its inclusion would help meet the targets.
“In the long term, we hope that this will also incentivize better separate collections and improved design of packaging that is difficult to recycle,” says Vahk.
“On the other hand, the non-inclusion of incinerators in the EU ETS will just maintain the status quo, meaning that most materials are increasingly incinerated, especially as there are no penalties for burning them under the current EU law.”
Calls for broader assessments
ZWE’s report contains seven main recommendations. It places emphasis on including both electricity and heat from incinerators in the EU ETS without giving free allowances for heat generation.
Additionally, Vahk stresses the EC study should look at how this inclusion will affect other waste management activities.
“We recommend assessing not only the impact on landfills but also on activities like waste prevention and recycling. This is important to ensure that waste is used in the most efficient way,” he says.
The report suggests that any analysis of incineration and other waste management options should consider how well they perform relative to each other. This includes assessing how benefits and impacts are already addressed by current policies like the EU ETS.
A win-win solution?
Vahk recommends that the packaging and waste industries should consider investing in advanced sorting facilities to recover the many materials currently ending up incinerated.
“It’s truly a win-win solution: not only would they avoid penalties, but they would also gain more feedstock for recycled content needed to meet the new PPWR targets,” he asserts.
“We know that many organizations are already looking into it, such as CEFLEX and Flexible Packaging Europe. Additionally, Plastics Europe has recommended mandatory measures to promote mixed waste sorting.”
The report is forward-looking, as ZWE has developed recommendations for the current revision and future revisions of the directive.
“We strongly advocate for the inclusion of biogenic emissions, emphasizing that CO2 is CO2, regardless of whether it originates from the burning of fossil or biogenic materials,” says Vahk.
“Additionally, we recommend lowering the threshold for facilities to be included in the EU ETS from the current 20 MW to 10 MW. This change would prevent smaller facilities from emerging specifically to avoid inclusion within the EU ETS.”
“Furthermore, we suggest that some of the directive’s language needs to be clarified for better implementation and understanding.”
By Natalie Schwertheim
