“If you read his original comments, he did say no old-style incinerators- they're illegal anyway, so several comments here are foolishly groundless. Some modern waste processes do have a burning stage nand it isn't a bad thing- burning methane from anaerobic digestion for instance. Better than burning coal, which is where 50% of our energy comes from at the moment.

Just like human beings to dig coal out of the ground while putting a cleaner burnable fuel back into the ground at landfills. Tut.

I don't know where the Greens are coming from with this- the fact incinerators built in the 70s are polluting is completely irrelevant. Technology moves on and the new ones barely emit any dioxins, especially compared to, saty, your car. The council aren't going to commission a polluting incinerator any more than they're going to start using 1989 RM Nimbus computers instead of their laptops, or LPs instead of CDs.

The fact that some of this will be medical waste is the funniest thing about the Green's reduce and reuse suggestion. I'll just check ebay to see what the going rate for 2nd hand medical waste is. I will also resolve to use fewer bandages if I end up in hospital, and will henceforth treat my diabetes using green tea.

It seems to me to be another dogmatic position from the Greens, who generally keep the full scope of their vision for Britain (and the world) quiet.

So they bang on about Iraq and buildings with chimneys, but not your car or holiday (much worse thana chimney) or the fact they would ban private residential property. It's part of a bigger vision where we all return to the stone age- the 80% carbon reduction the government wants to deliver doesn't have enough sackcloth for them because they're so rigidly attached to their dogma, rather than the logic of sustainability.

Fortunately, they'll never be in power, which is a good thing considering how weak their politices are. If you read the small print of their full manifesto you get some surprising implications, some of which are worthy of the BNP-

Forbid the purchase of corner shops by immigrants; protect traditional British lifestyles from incomers; stop urban families moving to country villages to prevent crime; grant citizenship only to children born here; restrict tourism from outside Europe; boycott food grown far away (Africa, S America); prohibit embryo research; stop lorry movements on the Lord¿s Day; ban national sports teams from competitions in unfriendly countries; disconnect Britain from the European electricity grid and establish an international ¿new order¿ to resolve world economic crises.

It sounds like a cross between Nick Griffin and Dr Evil.

Labour can p*ss off too. They fail to mention the SWLP has several Labour members working on it, just not from Croydon is all.”

“I think our local councillors from both main parties have so far behaved disgracefully on the matter of disposing of our waste. When the South London Waste Project was started by the Conservatives they and their partners first chose to have all their meeting in private, on the grounds of ¿commercial confidentiality¿. This is a nonsense and amounts to an abuse of their authority in banning members of the public from every minute of every meeting. SLWP, back in October 2008, started a six week public consultation period that was so poorly advertised that they had only 89 responses from over 1.25million people.
Conservative Councillor Newman now says that public consultation is a vital part of the process that SWLP are going through. With meetings held in private and such a woefully poorly advertised public consultation it seems that what he¿d prefer is for the whole business be kept as secret as possible.
Councillor Newman goes on to say that SWLP won¿t be considering any ¿old-fashioned incinerator technology¿. Well, too right ¿ he can¿t - for two reasons. Firstly, such a system would be illegal to build on the grounds of health and safety ¿ let alone the problems of gaining planning permission. Secondly, it is a condition of receiving the £113 million funding from the government that such technology is not used. However, whatever he says, any cost effective method of waste disposal will involve burning waste at some point. This may be in the form of a combined heat and power unit (like the one at Deptford), but the gains to be had from the sale of energy are modest in what is basically an incineration process.
As far as the Labour Councillors and spokesmen for the Green party are concerned it simply isn¿t any use in pretending that this is a party political issue. There is no alternative ¿ the SLWP must be successful ¿ over its 30 year life over £1.5 billion will be spent.
Finally, one must question the competence of all involved in SLWP. If after reviewing 170 potential waste disposal sites in 4 London boroughs they consider land at Purley Station currently being used by Day Aggregates to be the sixth most suitable, heaven help us all.”

“"There used to be a power station there so why not another one where the incinerator produces energy at the same time?"

Because we don't want to breathe in cancerous fumes 24/7, nor do we want the Council to give up on recycling by taking the most environmentally unfriendly way out - incineration.”

“The smell from it might overpower the smell of sewage usually prevailing around Ikea and Asda.

There used to be a power station there so why not another one where the incinerator produces energy at the same time?”

“We have once again lost trust in the disingenuous statements made by Councilors. It seems that the non elected Council Officers now dictate the direction and policies of the Council through their now institutionalised admisistration that does not respect public opinion and pays lip service to councillors. Perhaps it is the officers that the public should vote for and hire/fire. Where has the trust gone that we once had in our officers and councillors? Lets break up these monolithic centralised organisations and go back to localised concils working for local people and local interests”