Martin Kirby (19/04/04) correctly notes that filtration of incinerators is much improved. However it is far from true to say they emit "little more than steam." Incinerators emit dioxin and other harmful substances that are associated with cancer, hormonal effects, and reduced immune system capacity. The 'precautionary principle' should be applied and no more avoidable dioxin should be added to the environment. However even if new filters could remove dioxins then they are still not the way forward. Incinerators undermine recycling schemes by demanding long-term waste delivery; destroy valuable resources; produce toxic ash which still has to be landfilled; exacerbate climate change when materials are burned and more fossil fuel energy is used to replace the products through mining, manufacturing, and transportation; it is a much more capital-intensive and increasingly costly approach with significantly fewer jobs than recycling and finally they are eyesores that create more noise and traffic. Martin Kirby is wrong to say we need incinerators to cope with our waste. Western Australia, for example, is aiming to achieve zero waste by 2020, Canberra by 2010, and Massachusetts aims to reduce its municipal solid waste by 70% by 2010. Many businesses already have zero waste schemes in place, most notably Toyota, Xerox and Hewlett Packard. A Green Party report shows that the UK could create 50,000 jobs by 2020 in Green waste management if we pursued a zero waste strategy. It is time for stronger leadership from Government on waste.

Bryan Meloy Gloucester Green Party