Is London's Waste Management System fit for purpose?

Our first debate - on London's waste management has closed - a system built in the 20th century which is at odds with the economic, social & environmental needs of the 21st.

Our debaters have taken the advice of ‘Deep Throat’, the whistleblower in the Watergate scandal which brought down President Nixon. He told Washington Post journalists to ‘ follow the money’. This is what our debaters have done.

Debaters confirmed the central themes of many debates on this issue but were strong on the economic value of waste. They see waste as a key component of the move towards a ‘green’ or ‘low carbon’ economy. It looks like thinking has shifted.

It is suggested that we need to understand more about the supply, management and costs of water and energy if we want to make significant improvement to waste management. On its own the cost of waste to businesses and households is small enough not to worry us and we can be profligate.

London Waste & Recycling Board member Peter Jones summed up our problem: “There is no single entity capable of covering the disparate risks of land, technology, feedstock, exit markets and funding”. Peter Jones argued that we need to create special organisations to combine these activities - special purpose vehicles (SPVs) in the jargon.

Contributors warned against funding mechanisms which ‘lock us in’ to solutions which become outdated before they are paid for. Financial Times feature writer John Kay argues that Government should renegotiate or buy back many existing PFIs and adopt simpler structures. This makes sense.

Slowly we are beginning to understand the effect on the world economy and other countries of our demand for materials and products. However we know very little about what the effect on the world economy and other countries of our waste materials. We need to know more.

The original essays: Essay by Kit Strange, Essay by Professor David C Wilson, Essay by Dr Julian Parfitt, Essay by David Fell

The report on this debate: First Provocation Synthesis

You can comment below on the debate.