menu

Setting the record straight about Waste-to-Energy

29.07.2025

In recent days, Politico.eu published yet another article filled with misconceptions about Waste-to-Energy (WtE) in Europe, echoing the same claims that ESWET has addressed time and again. As representatives of the sector, we feel compelled to set the record straight by responding to the article’s allegations against WtE with science-based facts.

  • Pollution: science vs. sensationalism

Politico claims that WtE is a “dirty headache”, but decades of independent research and EU monitoring show otherwise. Referring to WtE as a “trash-burning experiment” is not just misleading; it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the topic. WtE is not an experiment; it is a well-established, highly regulated technology that has safely managed Europe’s residual waste for decades. The use of such terminology by Politico only underscores that the authors do not fully grasp the realities of modern waste management. According to the European Environment Agency and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, modern WtE plants operate under the world’s strictest emission standards, with continuous monitoring and public reporting. Peer-reviewed studies confirm that emissions of dioxins, heavy metals, and particulates from compliant WtE plants are negligible and pose no measurable health risk to nearby communities. The World Health Organisation and European academics have repeatedly found no evidence of increased cancer or respiratory disease near modern WtE facilities. A detailed evidence review by the UK Health Security Agency updated as of 9 June 2025 concludes that “modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health”.

  • Waste-to-Energy is a waste management solution for residual waste

Waste-to-Energy, meaning waste incineration with energy recovery, is not an energy plant in disguise. It is a necessary waste management solution for residual, non-recyclable waste. Even with ambitious recycling targets, a fraction of waste remains that cannot be safely or economically recycled. Without WtE, this waste would at best end up in landfills, with far greater environmental and climate impacts. WtE is strictly regulated, with emissions continuously monitored and kept well below EU limits. Air pollution resulting from the combustion process done in these facilities is significantly mitigated thanks to the solid technical background provided by the Best Available Techniques (BAT) Reference Document for Waste Incineration (BREF) document, the available technologies and the state-of-the-art flue gas cleaning systems.

  • WtE’s Climate Mitigation Potential: energy & material recovery, landfill diversion

The Politico article downplays the energy and climate benefits of WtE. Yet, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself explicitly acknowledged the role of WtE in reducing GHG emissions in their 2022 report: “When WtE technologies are equipped with proper air pollution reduction facilities, they can contribute to clean electricity production and reduction of GHG emissions.” By diverting millions of tonnes of non-recyclable waste from landfills, WtE prevents methane emissions from landfills, greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO₂ over 20 years.

A 2025 European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing on methane emissions explicitly acknowledges WtE’s role in mitigating methane emissions from the waste sector.

WtE also recovers energy in the form of heat and electricity. In 2019, in Europe, WtE generated 43 billion kWh of electricity and 99 billion kWh of heat, supplying 20 million citizens with electricity and 17 million citizens with heat and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Additionally, WtE recovers metals and minerals from bottom and fly ash, returning valuable materials to the economy and further reducing the need for virgin resources. All these render the sector climate-neutral.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe recognised WtE’s benefits. In a 2022 report, the UN body defined WtE as “the most sustainable solution for non-recyclable waste as it recovers energy and materials while providing an alternative to highly polluting landfills and waste exports.”

  • Comparing landfills to Waste-to-Energy: sweeping waste under the rug was never a solution

The alternative to Waste-to-Energy is not a world without waste, but a return to landfilling, by far the most damaging option for people and the environment. Landfills are the largest source of methane emissions in the EU waste sector. Landfills also risk to contaminate air, soil, and groundwater with persistent organic pollutants (including PFAS) and heavy metals, create long-term risks for public health, and lock communities into decades of environmental liability. As highlighted repeatedly by the scientific community, landfills are a major source of fires, odours, and vermin, and are responsible for the uncontrolled release of microplastics and toxic leachate into the environment. Landfilling is not a sustainable or responsible long-term solution for Europe’s residual waste. WtE diverts millions of tonnes of non-recyclable waste from landfills every year, not just avoiding methane emissions, but preventing huge environmental risks and hazards in the way.

  • Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: complementary roles in the service of the waste hierarchy

The idea that WtE undermines recycling is contradicted by the facts. The countries with the highest recycling rates – such as Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands – also have the highest WtE use, as Eurostat data show. Not all waste is recyclable: composite materials, items contaminated with food or hazardous substances, and products containing persistent pollutants like PFAS are routinely rejected by recycling systems. In these cases, WtE is not just a fallback, but a true solution. Modern WtE plants are proven to achieve high destruction efficiencies for PFAS and other persistent organic pollutants, preventing their accumulation in landfills and the wider environment. WtE thus enables higher recycling rates by offering a safe outlet for recycling rejects and protecting public health and the environment from substances that recycling cannot address, fully in line with the waste hierarchy.

  • EU Funding: already limited, now under attack

It’s important to clarify that Waste-to-Energy projects already have limited and highly conditional access to EU financial support. Over the past years, the European Commission and the European Investment Bank have tightened criteria, ensuring that only the most efficient and environmentally sound projects complying with the most stringent EU rules and best available techniques receive funding. The narrative pushed by Politico seems intent on closing the door entirely, disregarding the essential role that WtE plays in meeting EU landfill reduction and climate targets, and environmental objectives. Removing all access to financial support would undermine the EU’s own waste hierarchy and climate ambitions, especially in countries still struggling to move away from landfilling.

  • The voice of the sector is missing in the article

Politico did not interview a single operator, expert, or association from the WtE sector, despite receving detailed input from ESWET in recent months. In contrast, the Politico article includes at least one direct quote from an anti-WtE group. This is not balanced journalism. It is a missed opportunity for real debate.

  • A pattern of one-sided coverage

Every few months, Politico seems to recycle the same case studies and arguments from anti-WtE campaign groups, while ignoring the data, the science, and the people working to make Europe’s waste system safer and more sustainable.

The Waste-to-Energy sector welcomes dialogue with all stakeholders on its role in managing waste as part of a sustainable system in Europe. However, it is essential that this conversation is grounded in science rather than bias, and that the industry’s perspective is given appropriate consideration.

Other news