Duke of Kent officially opens Billingham incinerator

energy-from-waste

His Royal Highness, the Duke of Kent yesterday (8 October) officially opened SITA consortium’s energy-from-waste (EfW) facility at Billingham, Teesside.

Built as part of the SITA UK, Lend Lease Infrastructure (EMEA) Ltd, and I-Environment Investments Ltd (ITOCHU Corporation), the facility forms part of the consortium’s 25-year waste management contract with the South Tyne & Wear Waste Management Partnership (STWWMP), which comprises Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland councils. Construction of the facility at took three years and was completed in April of this year.

Aerial view of the Billingham site. The new facility (comprising lines four and five) is situated on the left.

Situated adjacent to SITA’s existing three-line EfW facility in Billingham, the two-line plant (pictured, bottom left) can process up to 256,000-tonnes of residual waste per annum, of which, 190,000 tonnes will come from the STWWMP. After being filtered of recyclables, the residual waste will be burnt at high temperatures to produce sufficient electricity to power around 30,000 homes.
It is hoped the facility, which is operated by 42 full-time staff, will allow the three councils to reduce their reliance on landfill and boost their recycling rates. (A further 24 jobs have been created in the operation of three new waste transfer stations developed at Wrekenton in Gateshead, Middlefields in South Tyneside, and Hendon in Sunderland. These allow the waste to be sorted for recycling before loading the residual waste into larger vehicles for transport to Teesside.)

‘Delivering a sustainable source of energy’

Edward Campbell-Preston, SITA UK Graduate Engineer, shows HRH The Duke of Kent the furnace

Speaking of the visit, David Palmer-Jones, Chief Executive Officer for SITA UK, said: “The South Tyne & Wear Waste Management Partnership’s investment in this new infrastructure shows how local authorities can meet their commitments to divert waste material from landfill and, at the same time, deliver a sustainable source of energy. SITA UK is delighted to play a part in helping the North East put its waste to good use.

“On behalf of SITA UK and the South Tyne & Wear Waste Management Partnership, I am delighted and honoured to welcome His Royal Highness to formally open our new energy-from-waste facility.”

Councillor Peter Mole MBE, Chair of the STWWMP’s Joint Executive Committee, added: “These new developments are the realisation of our very ambitious plans to significantly reduce our reliance on landfill and provide our residents with a greener waste management service. Thanks to these new facilities, we are proud to be able to say that we now divert over 95 per cent of our waste away from landfill and, instead, put it to good use – either by recycling it into new products and compost or treating it to produce electricity. In fact, even the ash that comes from burning the waste is recycled into building materials.”

The opening of the new facility was welcomed by Resource Minister Dan Rogerson, who said: “We are diverting more waste from landfill year on year and I am pleased that South Tyne & Wear Management Partnership’s energy from waste facility is officially up and running.

“As we continue to move towards a more circular economy it is good to see Gateshead, South Tyneside and Sunderland local authorities working together to deliver this commendable example of effective, efficient waste management.”

The £727-million contract was one of the first waste private finance initiative (PFI) projects funded by banks to reach financial close under the competitive dialogue process. The funders include the Green Investment Bank, Credit Agricole, BBVA and Natixis.

SITA has recently submitted planning permission to build a sixth processing line at the same site, and is in the process of building a separate EfW facility in nearby Wilton, as part of SITA Sembcorp’s 30-year Public Private Partnership (PPP) contract with the Merseyside Waste Disposal Authority (MWDA).

Bulgarians Blockade Road to Protest Proposed Biomass Incinerator

Residents of the southern Bulgarian city of Smolyan have staged a brief road block to oppose plans to build a biomass-fired thermal power plant.

Residents of the Ustovo district of Smolyan blocked traffic along the Smolyan – Madan road for some 10 minutes on Monday, according to reports of the Bulgarian Telegraph Agency and Capital Daily.

The protesters demand a clarification by the municipality and the respective competent authorities on the environmental impact of the project and the legality of the permits issued so far.

Nikolay Melemov, Mayor of Smolyan, announced Monday that the permit for the designing of the site had been issued by the Smolyan Municipality in 2011 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the plant had been approved after that.

He vowed to review the paperwork surrounding the project and to appeal the EIA in the case of detecting irregularities.

Ebola Waste Under Guard, Awaiting Incineration

Some 140 barrels of Ebola-related waste taken from the North Dallas apartment where Thomas Eric Duncan stayed with his fiancée and three children has been moved to a different, undisclosed location, according to leaders in North Texas.

Video from Chopper 5 showed Dallas County sheriff’s deputies providing security at the site until the barrels can be taken away for incineration at a separate, unnamed location.


Dallas Ebola Patient Treated With Experimental Drug

The U.S. Department of Transportation granted a special permit last Friday which allows one company, Stericycle of Illinois, the exclusive right to transport any and all Ebola-related waste in Texas through the end of November.

Stericycle is the largest transport and treatment company in the country, according to the company’s website.

Dallas Ebola Patient Treated With Experimental Drug

[DFW] Dallas Ebola Patient Treated With Experimental Drug
The Liberian man being treated for Ebola virus at a Dallas hospital is being given an experimental drug, according to Texas Health Presbyterian in Dallas.

In late September, the governor of Utah called for a criminal investigation into alleged emissions violations at a medical waste incinerator Stericycle owns and operates north of Salt Lake City.

The criminal investigation is one of three the state of Utah is conducting on the Stericycle incinerator. An investigation by the Department of Environmental Quality is looking into possible regulatory violations relating to Stericycle’s permits, and the Utah Labor Commission is looking into potential violations of occupational safety and health standards that would endanger workers at the site, according to a statement on the official website for Utah Gov. Frank Herbert.


Health Officials Battle Growing Ebola Concern

“The governor has directed the investigations to be completed as soon as possible. If any of the allegations are ultimately substantiated, he intends to use his full authority take swift and aggressive corrective action,” said a statement from Herbert.

As of this writing, a Stericycle spokesperson has not returned a request for comment regarding the investigations. The company had told other news organizations late last month that the allegations were “inaccurate and unfounded.”

Ebola Apartment Now Safe for Tenants: Hazmat Crew

[DFW] Ebola Apartment Now Safe for Tenants: Hazmat Crew
A decontamination crew has completed its work at a Dallas apartment where an Ebola patient stayed before being hospitalized and says the home is now safe for tenants.

A Department of Transportation spokesperson told NBC 5 the agency is aware of the Utah allegations, but added that the DOT did not select Stericycle for the handling of Ebola waste.

Instead, according to the agency, the DOT only reviewed and approved Stericycle’s permit application.


Ebola Hazmat Crew Finishes Work at Dallas Apartment

The DOT referred any questions to the selection of Stericycle for the contract to Texas Health Resources, which runs Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, where Duncan is receiving treatment.

Texas Health Resources has yet to respond to a request for comment.

Stericycle has had recent, prior experience handling Ebola-contaminated medical waste. The company holds a medical waste removal and disposal contract with Emory University’s Hospital in Atlanta, the same hospital where Dr. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol, the two American missionaries who were among the first to contract Ebola, were taken for treatment in August.

The Reuters news agency reported in September that Stericycle initially refused to honor its waste hauling contract, specifically in regard to Ebola waste. It wasn’t until the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stepped in after nearly a week that Stericycle ultimately complied, according to that report.

SIC opts for new mix of burning and recycling

SHETLAND Islands Council is to introduce “door-to-door” recycling of glass and cans next summer – but paper, card and plastic will be burned in the Gremista incinerator after that was found to be the “best practicable environmental option”.
The Gremista waste to energy plant
While the notion of burning garbage may seem counterintuitive to those seeking to make the planet greener, the local authority’s stance is backed up – at least in the short term – by Zero Waste Scotland.

The waste-to-energy plant burns material from Shetland, Orkney and occasionally the Highlands, and its output then powers SHEAP’s district heating scheme for homes in Lerwick.

Because Shetland is not connected to the national grid, SHEAP has to make up any shortfall in energy using power generated by oil-fired plants. As a result, the council says, it is less environmentally damaging to incinerate material rather than recycle it.

In April 2013 the council abandoned kerbside collection of recycled material in Lerwick and Scalloway – leaving householders to take plastic, glass, newspapers and cans to collection points instead.

The latest recycling rethink is the upshot of two studies commissioned by Zero Waste Scotland, and will cost the local authority £40,000 more than it presently spends on collecting waste and recyclable materials.

Meanwhile, opening hours for the local authority’s Gremista waste management site are to be cut to allow staff to spend more time sorting industrial waste prior to incineration.

It is to switch to opening between 1pm and 6pm on weekdays and from 11am to 3pm at weekends. That is a significant reduction on the current opening hours of 8am-8pm from Monday to Friday and 9am-5pm on Saturdays and Sundays.

It is expected a charge will be levied on commercial and business premises – accounting for an estimated 20 per cent of waste – for recycling glass and cans.

Infrastructure director Maggie Sandison said changes in legislation left the SIC with no option but to change tack. The situation remains in flux, with further legislative changes expected, and she suspects that in the long term the council will be “recycling more and incinerating less”.

Collecting glass and cans “at least” once a month from every islands household will raise the local authority’s overall recycling rate to around 12 per cent, compared to six per cent at present.

SIC infrastructure director Maggie Sandison.  SIC infrastructure director Maggie Sandison.  Shetland will continue to recycle the lowest percentage of material anywhere in Scotland, trailing far behind the SNP Government’s target of recycling 70 per cent of waste by 2025.

But Sandison’s report pointed out that Zero Waste Scotland recognised that –until an alternative heat source to the energy recovery plant is found – “environmental benefits of waste incineration to heat the district heating scheme outweigh the environmental benefits of recycling combustible materials in Shetland”.

A special derogation from environmental regulator SEPA will be required to allow the energy recovery plant to continue burning hard plastics.

She told members of the environment and transport committee on Monday that the plan was to begin the new recycling collection next summer.

Door-to-door collections will help sort municipal waste, but more staff resources will be required to ensure industrial waste is properly sifted through prior to incineration.

“It will require different staffing,” she told environment and transport committee members. “We’re looking to change the opening hours of the waste management facility in order to redeploy staff to sorting waste rather than just accepting it through the gates.”

Sandison said staff would spend the remainder of 2014 looking at the best way to collect recycling, with an eye to Orkney where a similar door-to-door service was recently rolled out.

While “bring sites” for recycling will no longer be used by the council, Sandison said talks were being held about putting in place more textile banks for the Salvation Army “and they can choose what ones they want to use”.

The committee backed the report’s recommendations without objection on Monday, a move welcomed by chairman Michael Stout.

“There are many, many threads to this,” he said, “and I think from my perspective this gives us the best way out of the particular set of circumstances that we find ourselves in.”

Councillor Steven Coutts said he felt there was an opportunity for the council to be “proactive” in encouraging folk to minimise the amount of waste they generate, meaning there would be less material to recycle or burn in the first place.

Sandison agreed, saying the council should also promote reuse, while government regulations should reduce the extent to which things like fruit and vegetables are “wrapped in vast amounts of plastic”.

“We’ll see less and less [waste] when charges incurred in the manufacture of waste start to make that unattractive,” she said. “There are going to be big changes in waste generation as well as recycling as legislation proceeds.”

Getting a grip on our garbage

SUN0925 Incinerators

Nobody likes to be thought of as a garbage factory but — like it or not — that is what cities have always been and will continue to be, despite our sense of sophisticated entitlement. While only the most narrow-minded would dismiss the enormous cultural, social and economic contribution of the city to human development, there is a sobering reminder of the cost in the fact that we are also perceived as perpetual-motion refuse machines in the surrounding hinterlands to which we increasingly export our rubbish while importing their resources and young people.

In Vancouver, for example, just over 600,000 inhabitants generated 557,334 tonnes of waste last year. Sort that into commercial, demolition and residential waste and it turns out that the average citizen produces about half a tonne of garbage a year. Put another way — because fooling around with dimensional statistics is always fun — some amusing calculations for converting residential waste to volume that were developed in California show Vancouverites produce roughly enough garbage to bury Library Square to the depth of a 37 storey building, which is about four times higher than the present library. Our garbage tower would rank as the 22nd tallest building in the city. That’s just for 2013. Add another one, likely taller, each year.

Statistics Canada reports that between 2001 and 2006, population growth in the country’s 33 main metropolitan areas grew at a rate which was seven times that for small towns and rural areas. Most Canadians now live in just six of those metropolitan areas — 10 million of us in the regions surrounding Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. And even though there have been dramatic improvements in recapturing both materials for recycling and for energy from the urban garbage stream, the actual volume is obviously going to continue to be a problem with which we must wrestle.

If we are living examples of American writer Mason Cooley’s aphorism that human society sustains itself by transforming nature into garbage, it behooves us all to stop thinking about garbage simply as something useless to throw away. Start thinking about it instead as a resource we can exploit for all kinds of added value. In fairness, municipal waste managers, particularly across the Metro Vancouver region but in many other cities, too, have been among the most progressive thinkers in this. They have launched campaigns urging us to reuse, recycle and repurpose while developing practical and pragmatic ways to extract genuine economic value from the garbage stream.

As a result, we have effective programs for diverting organic waste — from kitchen scraps to lawn cuttings into compost — which can be reinvested in the natural landscape. Across Canada, more than 60 facilities — including here — now recover methane gas from landfills. Not only is gas used to generate energy, the extraction process reduces greenhouse emissions from urban landfills equivalent to almost seven million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. In Edmonton, a new plant converts municipal garbage to cleaner-burning biofuels to further reduce carbon footprints. Others mine discarded computer and electronic parts. And so on.

The success of these strategies has been remarkable. In Vancouver, for example, per capita waste generation has been trending downward with satisfying consistency since 2007. Overall, the diversion rate for municipal waste has improved from 37 per cent in 1994 to almost 60 per cent in 2014.

No direct incinerator cash bonanza for Runcorn residents along lines of shale gas fund

An aerial view of the energy-from-waste plant in Runcorn.

A CHEMICAL firm has said it will not be dishing out an energy cash bonanza to Runcorn residents after the company pledged to share 6% of its shale gas revenues with households in ‘fracking’ zones.

Ineos said an environmental fund is already in place whereby Halton Borough Council receives 60p of public project cash per ton of fuel burned in the incinerator – something that could be worth about £500,000 a year.

A company spokesman commented after the Weekly News asked it whether the inhabitants of Weston Point and further afield could expect a windfall funded by the energy-from-waste plant.

Last week Ineos announced a ‘£2.5bn shale gas giveaway’ to residents living in 100 sqkm areas where the company fracks.

Jim Ratcliffe, Ineos chairman, said the payments would give neighbourhoods ‘a real stake’ in the project.

Backers of fracking say the process could drive down energy prices, boost the economy and slash reliance on supplies from unstable regions of the worlds.

Critics say it will damage the environment, cause earthquakes, accelerate climate change and benefit a tiny few.

Incinerator waste has been promoted as a renewable source of power and a means to secure the future of the Runcorn chemical works while slashing the amount of waste going to landfill, but it too has sparked controversy from those who claim the Weston Point plant is too big, causes too much pollution, noise and bad smells.

An Ineos spokesman said: “There is already an environmental fund in place for the Runcorn EfW facility, which was agreed as part of the planning process.

“Ineos’s approach on shale gas applies to individuals and communities that would be situated directly above horizontal gas wells.

“It would not be appropriate to apply this to all projects, including Ineos’s share of the Runcorn EfW facility.”

Allentown, PA Kills Controversial Waste Incinerator Proposal

More than two years after the deal’s controversial approval, Allentown has terminated its contract with Delta Thermo Energy, ending speculation about whether the company would ever build a proposed waste-to-energy facility in the city.

In a letter dated Sept. 26, Allentown solicitor Jerry Snyder wrote that Bucks County-based Delta Thermo Energy had “consistently failed to advance” plans for a 48,000-square-foot facility on Kline’s Island that would have burned pulverized municipal waste and sewage sludge to generate electricity.

While Delta Thermo received approval for two permits from the state Department of Environmental Protection in May 2014, the company repeatedly failed to meet extended deadlines to acquire financing for the $49 million project, the letter states. It became clear that Delta Thermo could not meet a deadline of Jan. 1, 2016, to complete construction of the plant, according to the letter.

“Under the circumstances, the city has no reasonable alternative than to declare the agreement terminated,” Snyder wrote.

Asked Tuesday if he had a response to the letter, Robert Van Naarden, president of Delta Thermo, said he would have a formal statement in the next several days. He then said he did not know what a reporter was asking about.

“I don’t need to speak to you,” Van Naarden said.

Mayor Ed Pawlowski said he was disappointed that the contract had to be terminated, but it was a financing issue, not a problem with the company’s technology that killed the deal.

“At this point in time, we need to move on,” he said.

From the time it was first discussed in 2010, the proposed plant was a highly contentious issue for members of Allentown City Council and the public. The project was panned by local environmentalists, and the components used in the proposed waste-to-energy process have never been used in combination in the United States.

Developers initially failed to convince council members of the merits of the project. The plan failed after a 3-3 vote in February 2012. One month later, developers managed to sway Councilwoman Cynthia Mota, who cast the deciding vote in favor of the proposal during a raucous March 2012 council meeting attended by more than 400 people.

Since then, Delta Thermo has had difficulty finding private financing for the experimental plan, fueling rumors that it would never be built. The city’s agreement with the company paid for up to $500,000 in consulting fees to explore the project — to be reimbursed if the plant was built — but put the burden of acquiring financing on the company.

In December 2012, Van Naarden told The Morning Call that there was “zero concern” about not finding a financial backer. The city’s letter states otherwise.

Delta Thermo “consistently failed to satisfy the financing requirement” in the agreement, Snyder states in the letter. An initial financing deadline of Jan. 31, 2013, was not met, and multiple extensions were granted, including the most recent extension that expired April 1 of this year.

Shortly before that date, Delta Thermo requested an additional extension for financing, the letter states, but city officials asked for additional assurances that the project could be completed by Jan. 1, 2016. Letters were exchanged throughout the summer between the city and Delta Thermo. In August, city officials denied a request from Delta Thermo for access to the Kline’s Island site to begin preliminary work.

In September, Delta Thermo officials told the city that they were no longer working with their previous financial backer, and planned to have the financing underwritten by Stern Bros. A letter from Stern Bros. to the city stated its “confidence” in financing the project if the deadline were extended to June 1, 2016, according to Snyder’s letter.

Allentown’s garbage contract will be rebid in 2015, Pawlowski said. There was no way the plant was going to be operational in time for that process.

“We provided every opportunity for them to make the deal; there were a number of extensions,” Pawlowski said. “We got to a point where we couldn’t move any further. I have to have some sort of a commitment in place before I bid out this contract in 2015.”

Pawlowski said he is committed to the idea of finding an alternative place for Allentown’s trash. It may still be possible to find another company that could build a waste-to-energy facility in the city, he said.

“I see this as one of the most critical issues for us, and we’re going to work for it,” Pawlowski said. “We’ve set the groundwork and a platform for us to continue to look for technologies for solve our garbage problem.”

The termination of the contract means Allentown will have to eat the nearly $500,000 it spent on consultants to vet the financial and technological aspects of the waste-to-energy plan. Two consultants provided conflicting reports to city officials about the technology needed, one saying he was confident the plan would work, the other stating there were “a number of technological, performance, operating and environmental risks.”

Pawlowski said he didn’t view the money as wasted. The city now has a “template” that can work for a potential contract moving forward, he said.

“I would have been criticized highly if I didn’t bring in the best professionals,” Pawlowski said.

Council Vice President Ray O’Connell, who cast one of the two no votes on the proposal in 2012, said it became clear in recent months that the company was never going to be able to build the facility on time. The city should try to recoup consulting fees, he said.

“My bottom line, No. 1, is that I’m extremely happy that it’s not going to be built,” he said. “No. 2, let’s go after the $500,000 that was spent.”

In addition to public outcry, Delta Thermo’s controversial proposal prompted a failed ballot question in 2013. The question, which would have asked voters if they wanted real-time monitoring of new air-polluting facilities and live disclosure of emissions data, was thrown out by the Lehigh County Board of Elections for lacking DEP approval. The decision was upheld by Lehigh County Court, and an appeal was later dismissed by Commonwealth Court.

Dan Poresky, one of the activists who opposed the plan and helped organize the ballot question, said a group of activists was working on raising $25,000 to pay two attorneys to take further legal action challenging a previous court ruling and the DEP for issuing permits to Delta Thermo. Despite rumors that financing was not in place, organizers did not want to take a chance that the plant would be built, he said.

“The city has been saved both environmentally and financially from a major mistake,” Poresky said when asked about the termination. “This is not the way to handle trash and sewage sludge.”

Councilwoman Jeanette Eichenwald, who voted against the proposal, said Delta Thermo’s proposed technology was unproven and environmentally unsafe. It was not surprising that investors could not be found, she said.

City officials should treat the experience as a lesson, Eichenwald said, and take a closer look at how the city spends money on consultants.

“I’m gratified that this phase of Allentown city life has come to an end,” she said. “I feel vindicated.”

Going up in smoke

RUBBISH disposal is a lucrative business in urban areas, so much so that we have companies that are eager to propose incinerators to help us deal with the problem.

After all, Japan and Germany are big-time users of this technology, so it has to be good right?

In 2004, the Kuantan Municipal Council built an incinerator for research and development purpose.

That incinerator design consumed about 120 litres of diesel to incinerate only one tonne of waste, due to the high water content of local waste.

That is essentially the difference between Japan and us when it comes to incinerator technology — Japan does not waste good diesel to burn rubbish like we would.

In order to utilise this technology properly, we really need to separate our rubbish first. Otherwise, burning wet rubbish requires adding fuel to the waste and that means we are burning money to dispose of waste.

It should be no problem to force Malaysians to start separating their rubbish, as a provision has been included under the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act for this purpose.

The clause just has not been activated by the Urban Wellbeing, Housing and Local Government Minister.

However, rubbish separation is not just a responsibility for households but markets, restaurants, factories, shopping malls and office towers too.

Most businesses would not have the means to enforce rubbish separation, and there is that tricky issue about being held responsible for the mess if someone decides to dump unsorted rubbish into your wastebin.

This is a headache our Government will have no answer for because there are only so many things laws can deal with.

People’s attitudes need to be changed for rubbish separation to work, and we just do not have that sort of civic consciousness in our society.

So, we have a problem separating rubbish at source but our Government is still keen on incinerators. Will that be a problem?

Well, we already have several incinerators operating in Malaysia — located in Langkawi, Pangkor, Tioman, Labuan and Cameron Highlands, to name a few.

According to a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) study on incinerators done in 2013, incinerators “had failed due to faulty design, improper operation, poor maintenance, high diesel usage and waste characteristics, due to high moisture content of 60% to 70%.”

The existing incinerator operators know this is a huge problem and seek to mitigate it by separating the rubbish as best they can.

For example, the Pangkor incinerator operator segregates moist food waste and dispose of it at an adjacent landfill but the process is not perfect as the waste is already mixed by the time it gets to the incinerator.

This in turn causes the burning to be imperfect and smog is released into the air.

When it comes to incinerators in general, of equal concern is the residual ash from the burning process with possible by-products of toxins depending on what sort of rubbish got burnt (we would not know since rubbish segregation does not happen here). Does our Government have a programme to store and contain such waste in a safe area?

The same UKM study actually notes the following: “research has shown that in communities where incinerator plants are built, its long-term effects come in the form of reproductive dysfunction, neurological damage and other health effects are known to occur at very low exposures to many of the metals, and other pollutants released by incineration facilities.”

Are the authorities and all the proponents for incinerators really sure this sort of technology is suitable for the Klang Valley given the problem we have of even separating and sorting our rubbish?

What do we do when the incinerator has reached its capacity and unable to cater to escalating waste due to population growth?

Do we build more incinerators or do we advocate a sustainable method of reducing waste through Zero Waste Management when the amount of waste is reduced significantly and substantially?

There are private companies that are eager to explore such methods of turning our waste into useful products if they are given the chance.

Example technology includes anaerobic digestion that is a simple, natural breakdown of organic matter, which produces biogas — a fuel that can be burned to produce both heat and electricity — and methane, a substance that can be used as vehicle fuel.

The process produces a by-product called digestate, which can be used as fertiliser as it is rich in nutrients.

Indeed a whole new industry can be spawned from such recycling initiatives, which can be equally lucrative, as the by-products are actually useful.

But such possibilities are being overlooked in favour of implementing incinerator technology where we will be using fuel to burn away the rubbish.

Whatever it is, so long as the process is not looked at in detail and the issues I have highlighted not resolved, our Government can expect to face resistance from each and every resident group where the project is proposed next.

> Mak Khuin Weng cannot afford to send our politicians overseas for ‘lawatan sambil belajar’ trips, so he hopes this article would suffice in terms of his advocacy for recycling.