Sign In / Register
Landfills aren’t the answer
The recent withdrawal of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua’s opposition to the proposed Dome Valley landfill has been met with understandable disappointment.
I acknowledge the deep hurt and frustration felt by the many in our community who have fought tirelessly against this proposal. This fight should never have rested solely on the shoulders of the community. It should have been front and centre for our national and local politicians, advisors, and the Ministry for the Environment.
But for far too long, they have chosen to bury their heads in the sand when it comes to confronting the reality of our waste management system, particularly when it involves outdated, environmentally destructive solutions.
Let’s be blunt: This proposal is the use of third-world methods to poison our land and waters. And it’s being sold to us with a stunning level of misinformation. One claim by the landfill applicant states that 90 per cent of landfill gas will be captured. A figure above 55 per cent capture is considered highly optimistic in the real world.
More concerning is the lack of attention to the internationally recognised effects of the emissions of PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) from both leachates and air emissions. Internationally these forever chemicals are emerging as major pollution sources from landfilling that find their way to air, soil and waterbodies.
However, New Zealand continues to emit them by dumping over 13 million tonnes of waste into landfills every year.
In contrast, modern waste-to-energy (WtE) technology, embraced by many of our trading partners, is being dismissed here with outdated arguments. Critics claim that WtE undermines recycling. Yet the international evidence tells a different story. Singapore recycles 67 per cent of its waste, with the remaining third processed through WtE and only one per cent going to landfill. Germany matches that 67 per cent recycling rate, all while operating over 150 WtE plants. These countries aren’t sacrificing recycling – they’re complementing it with smart, clean energy solutions.
Concerns about public health impacts from WtE plants may have been valid decades ago, but technology has moved on. The emissions standards for modern WtE facilities are among the most stringent in the world, and the technology has evolved dramatically. Unfortunately, some voices in this debate fail to acknowledge this progress or compare it against the known and ongoing harms of landfill emissions and leachate.
It seems ironic that there is a proposal to extend Redvale, one of New Zealand’s largest landfills, beyond its consent of 2028 to 2036, extending the use of outdated practices. Neither this extension or the proposal to construct a 1.4 million-tonne-a-year landfill in Dome Valley, feeding into a tributary of the Kaipara Harbour – our nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem – should not proceed without a rigorous, science-based comparison to modern alternatives.
New Zealand deserves an informed, future-focused discussion about how we deal with the waste that we cannot reduce, recycle or reuse. Our trading partners have already moved on from the blunt instrument of landfill. It’s time we did the same.
Let’s stop pretending that landfilling waste in sensitive environments is acceptable, and start demanding accountability and innovation from those entrusted with our environmental future.
Craig Jepson, Mangawhai
Another back-flip by kaitiaki
It’s devastating to read (MF May 19) of the back-flip by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua on the Dome Valley Tip proposal. There’s an element of hypocrisy here given their statements of strong opposition and their earlier reaction to the Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust’s back-flip on the same issue.
We now have two iwi/hapu with the strongest connection to the affected areas supporting the tip, both having back-flipped on previous positions of vehement opposition.
If the tip fails, and the Hōteo River and Kaipara Harbour become polluted with leachate, it’s iwi we should look to be held accountable in failing in their self-proclaimed role of kaitiaki.
Iwi have a very privileged role in the RMA and this demonstrates that perhaps that privilege isn’t always justified, which is even more reason to amend the RMA.
Sure, they have every right to make these decisions, but to do so after strongly opposing it as kaitiaki is unacceptable.
It now concerns me that the equally privileged role of iwi in the FastTrack approvals process is not something we can rely on to counter McCallum Bros in their application for a license to mine sand in Bream Bay over the next 35 years, given several iwi have applied for a Customary Marine Title that will not only give them ownership of the sand, but also rights to any royalties levied on the miners. The back-flip by Ngāti Wai in 2001 on the Pakiri sand-mining licence is worryingly portentous and it would be extremely disappointing to see a similar “accommodation” by iwi on the current proposal.
Glenn Clark, Waipu
This letter was referred to Ngāti Whātua for response, but the Focus did not hear back from them before the paper went to press.
