Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
In the mid-1980’s, Detroit thought it had found the miracle cure to its garbage crisis. With the city’s toxic, leaking landfill nearing capacity, Detroit sunk $440 million into the largest municipal waste incinerator in the country. The new plant would take care of the city’s garbage problem well into the future and in return provide millions of dollars in civic revenue from steam and electricity sales. It sounded like a good arrangement at the time.
Detroit waste-to-energy incinerator. Photo: Flickr Creative Commons
The reality turned out to be a spectacular financial debacle that continues to haunt the city today.
“It’s been an economic and environmental sinkhole for the city,” said Ahmina Maxey with the Zero Waste Detroit Coalition.
Within five years of first lighting the incinerator burners, the State of Michigan environment department stepped in and ordered Detroit to invest millions of dollars into better pollution equipment after discovering an alarming amount of dioxins and mercury drifting over the city from the smoke stacks.
Already in financial straits, the city was forced to sell its incinerator to private investors. But the bonds issued to build the incinerator continue to plague the city and its angry taxpayers, many of whom began demanding better garbage recycling rates and jobs instead of burning garbage.
Under the deal with the new operator, the city was required to provide 780,000 tons of trash to the incinerator per year. With a declining population, the city rarely met that goal but still had to pay.
“The city, by agreement, is committed to provide trash to the incinerator through to 2021,” said Detroit deputy mayor Anthony Adams, to jeers and boosfrom an angry audience at a public meeting in 2008.”You have to understand the contract.”
In 2009, the incinerator was sold to another company, and under the new 11-year contract, there is no garbage-tonnage requirement. However, in a depressed city like Detroit, with a net outflow of residents, the city’s declining population is still trying to pay annual long-term debt payments in the millions of dollars.
“The city has spent over $1.2 billion on the incinerator,” said Maxey. “If they had not built the incinerator and had gone with another waste disposal method, they would have saved more than a billion dollars.”
“We've had a legacy of being financially indebted to the Detroit incinerator which has contributed to our current economic status. The $1.2 billion that we have spent over the years could have been money that would be in the pocket of the City of Detroit but instead the money went elsewhere.”
Detroit may be the poster child of good civic intentions that turned into a financial nightmare, but it is by no means the only city that has run into major financial trouble with its incinerator plan.
Seven hours south-east of Detroit, historic Harrisburg, Pennsylvania is another American city with a serious incinerator financial hangover.
Harrisburg, PA
“That city’s just screwed. I warned them in 2003 about bankruptcy and years, later I got to say ‘I told you so’”, said Mike Ewall, executive director of the Energy Justice Network in Washington, DC. “They’ve had to privatize everything, sell off the assets they have, raise taxes. They are just screwed.”
Mike Ewall, Director, Energy Justice Network
Harrisburg, like Detroit, started with good intentions to deal with its garbage. But as state government’s started cracking down on toxic emissions, the city was forced to spend millions in pollution-equipment upgrades.
The city poured $120 million into a failed retrofit of the municipal incinerator and eventually handed the job over to Covanta, who successfully operated the incinerator until it was sold for $130 million, according to an official with Covanta.
For half a billion dollars, Metro Vancouver could build the world's premier zero waste program, rather than build a $480 million incinarator, a San Francisco environmental advocate said. The Vancouver Observer went to North America's "Greenest City" to find out how waste is managed there. Video by Zack Embree and Linda Solomon Wood.
Today, Harrisburg owes more than $280 million on the project and the city of 49,000 has amassed a per capital debt burden more than three times then Philadelphia. Mike Ewall says he personally knows people who fled to city to avoid the financial collapse. Even though some argue that a multitude of bad decisions led the city into its current crisis, media reports have pointed to the incinerator as a key cause. The debacle ended the 28-year career of Harrisburg mayor Stephen Reed in 2010 but his incinerator legacy continues to live on.
“Harrisburg has been on the brink of bankruptcy but the people of Harrisburg are still financially responsible for paying for the incinerator,” said Ewall. "The company that financed this and the incinerator operators are still getting their money."
It isn't just Harrisburg. Around North America local battles against incinerators have been underway for more than a decade, mainly in the US.
In Claremont, New Hampshire, citizen activists took credit for shutting down a Wheelabrator garbage incinerator that was burning waste from local communities for more than 25 years. Wheelabrator cited financial reasons for the closure last year.
Last month the Hennepin County, Minnesota council voted against a plan to increase the amount of garbage being burned in the local incinerator. The mayor and two councillors said zero waste is now the goal, not burning waste.
And the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), which has been actively involved in many of battles, says incinerator proposals have been stopped in Rockbridge, Virginia, Las Vegas, New York, North Carolina and seven other states.
“The grassroots opposition and public advocacy that has built opposition to waste burning since the 1990s has really succeeded in stopping many new incinerators from being built,” said Ananda Tan, the North American organizer with GAIA. “Only two have moved forward, in Palm Beach, Florida and Durham, Ontario.
When complete, the $280 million Durham project will burn 140,000 tonnes of waste and generate enough electricity to power 14,000 homes. Covanta has signed a 20-year contract to operate the plant, prompting local opposition groups to suggest there will not be enough waste to keep the incinerator running.
Overseas, Ireland has also faced a massive financial debacle over an incineration plan for the city of Dublin. That city spent $155 million (Cdn) on an incineration plan, including millions for consultants, land purchase, relocations and legal costs. The operating deal with Covanta included a controversial “Put or Pay” clause that eventually scuttled the whole plan “without a single brick being laid.”
In Detroit, Ahmina Maxey has a word of advice for residents of greater Vancouver.
“Fight the incinerator to keep from being built. Once it’s built, it becomes a much greater struggle. The solution is recycling."
In video below: Vancouver Observer goes to North America's "Greenest City" to see how it handles garbage:
Comments