Can a plan to treat Portugal 20 fail due to an excess of garbage3? | urban waste
The plan that will determine, over the next eight years, the destination given to all the waste we produce is very “ambitious”. The announcement was used both by the inter-municipal waste management company and by the environmental association Zero to qualify the Strategic Plan for Urban Waste (PERSU 2030), a national document that will continue waste management. The public consultation ended on Thursday and resulted in 32 participations. The PUBLIC had access to two of these collaborators – Lipor and Zero –, opinions that, despite not converging on the idea that PERSU 2030 wants to do a lot in time, move away from other points.
“PERSU 2030 in itself seems like a good plan, it is very ambitious. It presents Portugal as a country that will meet prevention and recycling goals. The problem is that the investments are delayed, detailed and not even detailed, that the document does not find the investments for the objectives and makes the structure very suitable for reality. – it is generates apprehension”, Susana Fonseca, vice president of Zero, told PUBLIC. The important environmentalist considers that mistakes are a positive characteristic, but it will be precisely because the challenge is great, she will learn new things from the past and the past. An example: PERSU 2030 should “divest in recycling bins” and fervently embrace door-to-door selective collection.
“The challenges that will be implemented in Portugal will be enormous, so it is necessary to do more than the same, or with small increments, we will never be able to reach a goal of reuse and recycling of urban waste at 60%, when we have as a base 19% in 2019, more than 20 years since the beginning of the process”, reads in the opinion that Zero submitted to the public consultation.
PERSU 2030 defines prevention as a “priority objective”, followed by selective collection. When it comes to garbage, it means all the effort made so that an object is not reused outside, either by prolonging its useful life. Everything for Portugal to comply with the legislation, reaching up to 203 a recycling rate of 6.00% European, now falls on urban waste and the entire rate of volume deposited in landfill. 13 years old, 0% did not enter more than 1 everything we discarded.
In the area of prevention, for example, Zero stresses the importance of finding out why it has not gone well until now. Having a reflection like this one of failures, “until we arrive at new alternatives that could be more than 2000, referring to the opinion of Zero.
The contribution sent by Lipor, in turn, highlights that “the decisive role” of prevention is important, which is accompanied by graphic objects “to operationalize the measures, fulfilling the expected impact”. On the same page, the inter-municipal company describes the “scenarios and goals of prevention and preparation for reuse and recycling” as “this, it strongly believes that “success depends on the involvement of the entire value chain in a systemic and innovation logic, from the producer to the consumer; with political/economic and financial instruments”. In short, to achieve so much in so little time for production including means and participation of all – citizens.
And the burning of garbage?
Lipor is responsible for the management, recovery and treatment of urban waste in Greater Porto and has an energy management center that incinerates waste. Every year, a company that manages about 5 tons of municipal waste from Espinho per one million inhabitants Gondomar, Ma, Matosinhos, Porto, Póvoa de Varzim, Valongo, Valongo do Conde. For the elaboration of the opinion, Lipor relied on data from an analysis commissioned to specialist João de Quinhones Levy, professor at the Instituto Superior Técnico of the University of Lisbon.
In an opinion article, Levy suggested that “capture rates and treatment efficiency should be revised”, which admits “slower production growth, but not production values”. [de resíduos] to the current ones” and that as energy recovery plants were not included in the solutions. PERSU 2030 does not provide for investment in burning waste in line with Brussels’ decision not to finance new incinerators.
“We have to decide whether we want to design a plan based on behavior or based on reality,” he told PÚBLICO Quinhones Levy, who confesses that he has little regard for the ability of opinions to have an impact on the final PERSU 2030 document. minister [do Ambiente e da Acção Climática, Duarte Cordeiro] and secretary of state [João Galamba] than in this consultation, because since they took office they have already made reference to energy recovery. comes from decision-makers the possibility of PERSU reconsidering this route [a da incineração com recuperação de energia]”, said the IST professor. Levy believes that excellence deserves investment, since the volume of waste will not decrease overnight, in parallel, since power plants are not limited in capacity.
Susana Fábrica believes that there are two energy recovery centers that have a function on the continent, but that PERSU 2030 makes a sure bet on their recovery in energy recovery. “Incinerators don’t help us meet the target [até 2030]. They fulfill their function, but they cannot increase [em número]”, says the leader of Zero. For the environmentalist, the way forward is prevention and then recycling. For this, explains Susana Fonseca, “we need to stop blaming consumers” and find solutions that make recycling simpler – including biological waste, which PERSU 2030 also pays attention to.
Door-to-door garbage collection
Making the withdrawal at the door of the houses, for example, the most convenient and effective separation. “Hold on that the remnants of consciousness that separate are more resistant, especially in the warmer ones”, warns Susana Fonse. So, to motivate citizens to separate organic waste from the so-called “undifferentiated garbage”, selective collection “can’t demand” for people to travel to ecopoints. “It has to be door-to-door and carried out regularly, also promoting this contact [entre quem separa e quem recolhe] – this is also important [para a sensibilização]”, says one environmentalist.
“PERSUA continues to suggest a continuation of the apostate, when it is already proven that this approach is not as effective in achieving that this approach is effective. At first it worked, but that was three decades ago. To reach 60%, we will bet on door-to-door collection. The plan refers to this option, but does not treat it as the main bet”, evaluates Susana Fonseca, who still considers the investment map “is not very detailed”, as well as prevention strategies. Ensuring door collection also pave the way for, “fairly”prepare with the so-called PAYT system (which rewards those who separate the garbage and penalizes those who do not yet).
The area selection system with portability characteristics contemplated in PERSU 2030, but only in specific areas. “Perhaps that is why5 door-to-door systems are only used in towns with more than 000 inhabitants. At first glance, it seems like an excellent measure, which will target 60% of the municipalities covered. But the reality is quite different. It’s just that villages with more than 50 thousand inhabitants only have about 20 and only 12 of those are intended to be reached! Therefore, a significant part of the published Portuguese population”, reads the opinion presented by Zero during the public consultation period. Lipor’s contribution also refers to the importance of investing in selective collection, including the door-to-door modality.