Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

Pollution

PDI: Green groups in QC hit council bid to lift incinerator ban

by Jeannette I. Andrade of the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

Quezon City-based environmentalists are up in arms over a local council resolution asking Congress to lift the ban on incinerators to pave the way for the setup of waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities in the city.

Green advocacy leaders and Quezon City residents Von Hernandez, Sonia Mendoza, Joey Papa and Shally Vitan—who represent different groups—denounced the councilors’ move as a “death blow” to waste prevention and recycling initiatives, pointing out that incineration is a “lazy man’s dangerous technology.”

They warned that lifting the ban by amending two laws—the Clean Air Act of 1999 and the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000—would lead to further ecological degradation.

Hernandez, EcoWaste Coalition president and Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director, said the resolution was “a regressive and despicable move on the part of the city council. Not only does it betray the Quezon City government’s utter inability to implement real solutions already prescribed in law, it also shows that these politicians would not hesitate to burn and waste taxpayers’ money on polluting facilities.”

“What is being presented as a ‘quick fix’ is actually a scheme to increase the already stratospheric costs of waste management and disposal in Quezon City,” Hernandez said, pointing out that the public should ask who stands to benefit from the setup of a WTE facility.

Papa, president of Bangon Kalikasan Movement, stressed that incineration as a means to dispose of solid waste would only compete with recycling which is environmentally and economically beneficial.

Instead of being fixated with this lazy man’s dangerous technology, our city officials should focus on optimizing recycling and providing incentives for households to separate their discards at source, to recycle and to compost,” he said.

These “burn proponents,” Papa said, would “negate the best practices of a good number of Quezon City residents,” like those in barangays that had succeeded in reducing their waste output through segregation and recycling.

Vitan said a quick-fix measure such as the WTE facility would only compound the city’s waste-management problem and add health hazards to the mix.

“What Quezon City needs to do is to aggressively reduce the garbage it produces by securing the cooperation of residents,” said Vitan, Asia-Pacific coordinator for Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. “It may be long and slow but it is sustainable.”

Mother Earth Foundation president Sonia Mendoza reminded the city councilors of the danger of incinerators which, she said, emit cancer-causing dioxins.

“Incinerator peddlers would always say there’s ‘nothing to worry about, it’s zero emission.’ But even the most technologically advanced waste burners with expensive, high-tech emission-control devices still emit various contaminants, often failing emission standards.”

The council recently asked the House of Representatives, through former Quezon City mayor and now Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., to amend the two laws and lift the ban.

The councilors maintained that a WTE facility would be necessary in view of the city’s growing population and economic development which had increased solid waste generation and posed trash disposal problems.

Last year, the city government held exploratory talks with the group of businessman Manny V. Pangilinan for a possible joint venture, wherein the city would be supplying the trash while the MVP group would construct and run a WTE facility.

China Daily: Incinerating Paradise

by Doug Meigs, writing for China Daily (Asia Weekly):

Shek Kwu Chau is an idyllic, almost pristine island on the southern edge of Hong Kong waters. Few people actually live there, though the island provides a quiet retreat for recovering substance abusers. But the tranquility of the place is soon to disappear. The island has been chosen as the site for a new waste incinerator.

It’s 20 minutes by ferry from Cheung Chau to Shek Kwu Chau, a picturesque island in the southernmost part of Hong Kong territory. It’s off-limits to most people. Visitors need special permission from SARDA — the group that operates a big drug rehab center on the island. So, I felt privileged to have been invited to the island now swept up in a battle over government plans to build a giant waste incinerator.

Most of those on the ferry are staff and recovering addicts.

Among our fellow passengers is longtime Cheung Chau resident Martin Williams, He’s an avid naturalist, writer and an opponent of the incinerator. He wears a field scientist getup, floppy safari hat and hiking sandals.

Williams had visited Shek Kwu Chau a few times before, tagging along with US biologist James Lazell, who had discovered two snakes known to exist only on the island — Hollinrake’s Racer and a subspecies of Jade Vine Snake.

“The island has some unique wildlife. Lots of things: bugs, snakes, lizards, sea eagle nests, and the big one is the finless porpoise, which uses Shek Kwu Chau for breeding,” he says.

Upon arriving at the island, Williams steps onto the pier and immediately admires the clarity of the water— “much better than Cheung Chau,” he says, pointing at small schools of corral fish.

The island’s superintendent, Patrick Wu, is waiting. He offers a hearty greeting at the pier. He is a retired corrections officer, dressed in casual business attire-short-sleeved shirt and khakis.

Shek Kwu Chau is laden with intriguing relics of the past.

At the end of the pier we pass through a giant Chinese city gate, past a mural depicting a scene of Qing Dynasty officials dumping opium, and then a menagerie filled with peacocks. Buildings fashioned with Neoclassical and Baroque facades give way to pagodas and shrines. There is a Roman bath, a Taoist temple, a Buddhist temple and a Christian Church. There are white statues of martial artists striking kung fu poses, standing in contrast to emotive female and male nudes reminiscent of Renaissance masters.

The air here is notably fresh.

Tourists would love the place, if it weren’t restricted.

Only family members of recovering addicts, and a few locals from Cheung Chau who visit the graves of ancestors buried here, make occasional trips on the twice-daily ferry.

The island is part of Hong Kong’s largest drug rehab facility, managed by the government-funded Society for the Aid and Rehabilitation of Drug Users (SARDA).

The superintendent ushers us into his white SUV with the license plate “SKC 1”. He cruises the narrow road meandering up and around Shek Kwu Chau’s dual peaks.

More than 10 buildings appear scattered throughout the thick trees and overgrowth. A total population of nearly 250 lives on the island — that’s 50 staff and 200 rehab clients.

Compared to the island’s residents, we are all overdressed, in the sweltering heat. Most of the rehab clients are half-naked and barefoot. All are men, aged from their early-20s through middle-aged. There’s a work crew deepening the reservoir. Some are walking dogs, part of an animal therapy program. Everybody is sweating profusely.

What has drawn the scientist and superintendent together in common cause was the decision of the Town Planning Board, rezoning adjacent waters to allow construction of a massive grate incinerator. Hong Kong, hard pressed to find a solution to its massive waste problems, plans to burn 3,000 tons of waste here every day. A 150-meter-tall tower is planned to be built on an artificial island. The reclaimed land on which the tower will sit, will cover over the habitat of the finless porpoise, a species that the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List identifies as “vulnerable”.

The isolation of the island is helpful for the therapy of recovering addicts. Some may experience withdrawal pangs. They can suffer here amid the quiet and solitude, away from the distractions of the busy city.

It was the isolation of the island that drew the attention of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), when staff began seeking a site to build a waste incinerator.

Environmentalists responded with fierce opposition to the Shek Kwu Chau plan.

While most criticism for the incinerator hinges on environmental concern. SARDA’s position is different. The organization is more worried about its clients, the recovering addicts.

“Drug abusers tend to be quite passive and don’t think very highly of their own status. If you move an incinerator there, they might feel like it’s because they’re rubbish. I’ve heard that sentiment expressed,” says May Cho, a SARDA assistant superintendent of social service, who joined China Daily on the fast ferry from Central to Cheung Chau for the connecting boat.

Today, amid legal challenges, the incinerator project has been “officially” stalled for months.

In favor of Shek Kwu Chau, an alternative site for the incinerator had been passed over — at the Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoons — a barren part of Tuen Mun, situated beside a power station, landfill and existing infrastructure. According to the EPD’s Environmental Impact Assessment, the more-expensive island reclamation option carried more ecological risks, but lower risk of damaging air quality of the neighbors.

The Legislative Council on Environmental Affairs rejected funding for the proposed Integrated Waste Management Facilities in April, and the Court of First Instance accepted an application for a Judicial Review of the EPD’s Environmental Impact Assessment in June.

While the legal battle drags on, management of Shek Kwu Chau’s rehabilitation center hangs in limbo. They await a decision of the judicial review, which will open hearings on November 14. The island’s superintendent says his organization has shared its concerns with the EPD, only to receive assurances that the incinerator technology does not pose a health hazard.

May Cho is a former social worker for SARDA. She used to commute to the island daily and fondly remembers walking past the island’s dragonflies, before she took a promotion to SARDA’s Wan Chai headquarters. Williams says a nearby incinerator would disrupt the island’s insect life, too.

Wu explains SARDA’s concerns while continuing our tour of the island: “There could be air pollution, the smell of garbage, noise pollution, and even light pollution when the plant is lit up at night.”

The EPD actually predicted the incinerator would become a tourist attraction, drawing about 300 visitors a day to the artificial island. Wu bristles at the prospects, “That’s the last thing I want.” After all, the island is restricted.

Incinerator construction is estimated at five years. Once it goes into operation, the disruption of the island’s peaceful serenity would be even greater.

“The noise would be terrible,” says Wu. “Even the motor of a small boat passing nearby is very clear. Who knows how noisy five years of construction will be. They say, ‘Oh, it’s all right, (the construction crews) won’t do it at night time.’ So they will only do it in the daytime? Well, most our clients sleep during the daytime when they are undergoing detoxification, then they suffer insomnia and walk around at night.”

Wu says SARDA communicated its concerns to the EPD, and the department went ahead with obtaining rezoning permission anyway.

SARDA began operating in Hong Kong in 1961. It opened the Shek Kwu Chau facility in 1963. It has three additional rehab centers around Hong Kong.

Before SARDA began managing the island, Wu said it was like the uninhabited “backyard” of Cheung Chau. It also contains the grave of a British captain’s wife who died at sea in 1845.

Wu gives credit to JB Hollinrake (a superintendent from 1972-1990) for defining the peculiar flavor of the architecture, which appears a surreal hodgepodge of classic Western and Chinese influences.

The late Princess Diana of Wales even visited Shek Kwu Chau twice while in Hong Kong. Wu says he believes the princess’ parents had some relation to Hollinrake’s family. A free standing archway, with plaques and photos on either side, commemorates her visit near the sculpture garden.

Wu laments that no drug rehab facilities are comparable to Shek Kwu Chau in Hong Kong or abroad. He once visited Bath in England just to see their ancient Roman baths. “I think ours are more spectacular,” he says with a big grin. He knows the island’s kitsch is only part of Shek Kwu Chau’s irreplaceable formula for success.

“You are a free man on the island,” he beams. “Unlike other rehab facilities — where the client will be locked up in a building, here, you can walk along the trail, or go to other houses to visit. This is a community, and it would be very difficult to find a replacement.”

We continue driving and stop at the buildings nearest to where the incinerator island would appear.

Laundry is hung up outside a small white-washed dormitory building. A herd of goats is rummaging for scraps. Some of the men come outside to say hello.

Samuel, a 35-year-old from Mei Foo, says he has four months left on the island. “It’s not good to destroy the environment here. It’s hard to find air as fresh as this.”

Williams points at some small boats and construction workers. “That drilling platform is doing a seabed exploration ready for the incinerator island.” The ocean opens before us. The Soko Islands appear small on the horizon.

The EPD proposed a 300-acre marine reserve across the waters to mitigate the loss of porpoise habitat. He wonders if the artificial island construction and subsequent waste-laden barge traffic would have already ruined the area for the marine mammals.

Wu is interested in conserving the local natural environment, but his professional obligation is ensuring the center maintains its ability to rehabilitate drug addicts.

SARDA has served as custodian of Shek Kwu Chau for half a century. He says they don’t have any plans to abandon their work on the island now.

He drives us down the mountain and we board a ferry headed back to Cheung Chau. The boat departs, and after a moment, the remote island has shrunk back onto the horizon, off-limits once again.

24 Aug 2012

Standard: Team to liaise with public on landfill issues

from Hillary Wong of the Standard:

A public liaison team has been set up to help ease concerns over landfill expansion, Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing said.

“The issue has been dragging for a long time and needs to be dealt with, or it will affect the hygiene of the community,” Wong said. “We also understand the people are affected in this issue. So we’ve set up a public liaison team, with the government officers to negotiate with citizens so as to relieve their anxiety over the issue,” he told TVB talk show On the Record.

Wong also said his visit to Europe to observe relevant infrastructure will help enhance “everyone’s understanding of the issue.”

Wong and nine legislators visited Europe earlier this month to learn about waste management strategies in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.

Wong said giving subsidies to people living near landfills was rarely done overseas.

“For example, having an established incinerator, there might be some community education center nearby. For infrastructure that produces heat, some relevant facilities will be built like a heated pool,” he said.

Subsidies need further discussion with the public liaison team, he added.

Residents living within 300 meters of landfills in South Korea were given a subsidy, however.

“This mechanism was also controversial in South Korea because there were no subsidies for residents outside 300 meters,” Wong said.

But he added that in Hong Kong, the nearest residents are about three kilometers away.

He said that while the government is open-minded, the question should be studied carefully.

“For our case in Shek Kwu Chau [incinerator], its distance to Cheung Chau reaches three to five kilometers – 10 times more than in South Korea. Also, ships will mainly be used to transport refuse from Island East and West, and Kowloon West to Shek Kwu Chau, which does not make a great impact on the environment,” he said.

Wong also said he remained open-minded about suggestions by the Council for Sustainable Development’s Bernard Charnwut Chan on plans to give some assistance to nearby residents.

Wong said expanding the landfill in phases is not feasible as it involves tender and technical issues. He added public money would not be put to good use.

24 Mar 2014

IPS: Dioxin Levels Soar on Icelandic Farms (2011)

by Lowana Veal, for the Inter Press Service:

In the northwestern Icelandic town of Isafjordur, milk is causing pandemonium. A local milk marketing board recently tested one farm’s milk for the presence of harmful chemicals. Dioxin, and dioxin-like compounds, were found to be present in amounts higher than the recommended maximum levels, threatening the future of local farmers, and angering residents.

Dioxins are highly toxic compounds produced as a byproduct in some manufacturing processes, notably herbicide production and paper bleaching. They are a serious and persistent environmental pollutant.

The milk that was tested came from a farm called Efri-Engidalur, located in a valley only 1.5 kilometres from a waste-burning incinerator that was closed by the authorities last year due to consistently high levels of pollutants.

“Usually, measurements are done by the authorities, but we decided to test for dioxin because we were concerned about the incinerator,” said Einar Sigurdsson, of MS Iceland Dairies.

As a result of the findings, the Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority (IFVA) decided to test samples of milk, meat, and hay from several farms in the surrounding area.

The findings revealed increased levels of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in the majority of the samples. Dioxin-like compounds are polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as dioxin-like PCBs, which behave like dioxin, so are generally classified with it in terms of toxicity.

(more…)

China Digital Times: The Dirty Truth About China’s Incinerators

by Josh Rudolph, posted on the China Digital Times:

A heated debate burns around the topic of waste incineration, the flames of which are stoked when the practice turns mountains of trash into usable energy through a toxic transformation. An article from China Dialogue outlines the practice and politics of garbage-incineration and the use of waste-to-energy technology in China, and how it will continue through the 12th five-year-plan:

Most of China’s garbage meets with one of three fates: around half is placed in landfill, 12% is burned and a little under 10% used for fertiliser. The rest is mostly left untreated, much of it simply dumped. However, plants that burn waste – and in the process generate electricity –are on their way to playing a significant role in the disposal of Chinese refuse.

[…]China is set to increase its daily waste-processing capacity by 400,000 tonnes over that five-year period, said Shi. New investment of 140 billion yuan (US$22 billion) will be pumped into the sector, bringing total spending on waste-disposal to 260 billion yuan (US$41 billion).

[…]Evidently, China is gearing up for a Great Leap Forward in garbage incineration.

The path China has chosen will not be smooth. Local governments find themselves squeezed between mountains of rubbish piled around their cities on one side, and residents’ objections to on the other.

(more…)

Miami New Times: Toxic Ash Closes Douglas Park

by David Milano of Miami New Times:

Miami-Dade’s newest toxic playground is the City of Miami’s Douglas Park. City officials say arsenic, lead, barium, and other hazardous substances have been found at levels far above the threshold considered safe for human exposure.

The park will be fenced off and closed to all visitors, says assistant city manager Alice Bravo. No clean-up plan has been announced.

Douglas Park is a former quarry that was acquired by the city in the 1930s to be used as a dump site for incinerator ash and other hazardous materials. It is less than a mile from Coconut Grove’s former Old Smokey municipal trash incinerator. The park was tested for toxic soil in August as part of a wider study to gauge the residual fallout from decades of pollution. The incinerator closed in 1970, but soil in the immediate vicinity is highly contaminated, county files reveal.

Even after the incinerator has been closed for 40 years, the landfilled toxic ash continues to contaminate the soil at what is now Douglas Park in Miami. (CBS4)

Initially, city and county officials overseeing the cleanup and monitoring efforts said the soil readings at Douglas Park remained in the normal range for arsenic and other contaminants — consistent with other areas in a dense, urban setting. But a follow-up inspection, explains Bravo, revealed melted glass and other debris visually similar to the toxic soil found at other ash dump sites. Subsequent soil analysis confirmed the suspicions of county environmental regulators, prompting the park’s closure.

Early Friday morning, city workers began turning away visitors from the multiuse facility at Douglas Road and SW 28th Street. A parks department employee, who declined to provide her name, said she and other workers had not been told the cause of the closure but added that work crews were arriving soon to fence off the ten-acre park.

Bravo said the soil test results coincided with the discovery of historical records that indentified the park as a former ash dump site. The city and Miami-Dade’s Department of Environmental Resources Management will work in tandem on the cleanup.

Coconut Grove’s Blanche Park and Merrie Christmas Park were closed in September after officials discovered buried incinerator ash. The City of Miami’s Melreese Golf Course and adjacent Grapeland Park are also former dump sites for ash, though they remain open. Earlier this year, a private, multimillion-dollar, waterfront estate in Coconut Grove was found to contain more than 100,000 tons of soil tainted with incinerator ash. Bravo says city officials are searching records for other former dump sites.

Incinerator ash — a grainy mix of carcinogens such as arsenic, barium, lead, antimony, and PCBs — is often detected by the telltale presence of melted glass and metal. The chemicals can easily leach into groundwater, contaminating the drinking supply.

22 Nov 2013

SCMP Letters: Decision on incinerator technology driven by vested interests

From Tom Yau, Lantau Island resident:

Environmental Protection Department assistant director Elvis Au’s claim (“Why Shek Kwu Chau incinerator is still the best option [1]”, November 5) obscures the fact that the decision on incinerator technology was driven by vested interests, and the decision on the incinerator’s location by political pressure. Neither decision is “the best option” for Hong Kong.

The department has fixated on building a moving-grate incinerator since Edward Yau Tang-wah became environment secretary in July 2007. Au refuses to acknowledge the advances in incinerator technology over the past six years, ignoring the decreasing installation of moving-grate incinerators worldwide and the increasing use of plasma gasification for municipal solid waste. Nor has Au addressed the growing evidence on the health hazards of the older technology.

In 2009, before any decision was made on incinerator technology, the department engaged Aecom to hold “public consultations” making the case for a moving-grate incinerator. In November 2011, the department appointed Aecom the prime contractor for the project; this was before it sought approval from the Legislative Council’s environment panel in April 2012. The intersection of Aecom’s interest in a sunset technology and the department’s predisposition to this technology was evident from early in Yau’s tenure.

On the choice of location, the department clearly yielded to political pressure. Reports by its two consultants, Camp, Dresser & McKee International and Aecom, show Tsang Tsui in Tuen Mun as the better location under five criteria: engineering, technical, economic, less ecological impact and more efficient land use. One factor favours Shek Kwu Chau: lower transportation cost.

Constructing an incinerator in Tsang Tsui would cost 26 per cent less than in Shek Kwu Chau (September 2011 prices reported by Au in 2012) and be completed two years earlier. Reclamation, seabed dredging and cable laying to create the Shek Kwu Chau infrastructure will have an impact on fisheries and wildlife habitats. The Tsang Tsui site is ready in situ amid existing waste-treatment facilities.

However, Tuen Mun district councillor Lau Wong-fat was reported in January 2008 as saying Tuen Mun already has a power plant and landfill, hence the government should pick another site for the incinerator. Since then, the department has promoted Shek Kwu Chau, introducing the specious criterion of “balanced spatial distribution” of waste treatment facilities.

The choice of incinerator technology and its location will affect Hong Kong far into the future. It should not be driven by vested interests and political pressure.

12 Nov 2013

Euractiv: Incineration causes more problems than it solves

An interview with Ariadna Rodrigo, Resource Use Campaigner with Friends of the Earth Europe, published on Euractiv:

Touted by some as a two-fold solution to the EU’s energy and waste problems, incineration is not the answer the EU looking for as it debates changes to its waste and landfill rules, argues Ariadna Rodrigo.

There have been reports that incineration, the practice of burning waste, is inhibiting the development of recycling. Is this the case in the EU?

Yes, unfortunately this is the case. Incinerators come with a 20 or 30 year contract – a period in which municipalities are locked in to provide waste. This means municipalities have very little incentive to reduce, reuse or recycle waste. Europe already has too many incinerators and plans to build more will further hinder our chances of improving our waste management.

The price of materials has risen by 150% over the past ten years and it is estimated that we are throwing away over 5 billion euros annually. Our waste is wealth.

However, our policies allow these valuable materials to escape the economic cycle by being burned or buried. According to the latest Eurostat figures, we still landfill and incinerate 60% of our waste. We need to reverse this trend and ensure that we keep the materials in the economic cycle, through reuse and recycling, for as long as possible.

(more…)

Book excerpt: Incineration: The Biggest Obstacle to Zero Waste

by Paul Connett, posted on Earth Island Journal:

It is hard to understand why any rational official living in the twenty-first century and facing the critical need to develop sustainable solutions would countenance the squandering of finite material and huge financial resources on a nonsustainable practice like incineration. One European report has estimated that a combination of recycling and composting lowers greenhouse gas production forty-six times more than an incinerator producing electricity.

Incineration might make sense if we had another planet to go to, but without that sci-fi escape it must be resisted in favor of more down-to-earth solutions that we can live with – both within our local communities and on the planet as a whole. Both incineration and landfilling attempt to bury the evidence of an unacceptable throwaway lifestyle. Every incinerator built delays this fundamental realization by at least twenty-five years – about the time it takes to pay back the huge capital costs involved in building the facility, and during that time it has to be fed, leaving little room to allow for more sustainable solutions to coexist.

Ten Arguments Against Incineration
Argument 1: Incinerators Are Very Expensive

Incinerators remain formidably expensive, but that expense is often hidden from public view with giant public subsidies. To pay for the capital and operating costs, as well as the operators’ profit margins, the community or region will have to sign put-or-pay agreements, which trap them for twenty-five years or more. As the industry has struggled to make incineration safe, it has priced itself out of the market – or it would have if the market was applied on a level playing field.

Over half the capital cost of an incinerator built today goes into air pollution control equipment. Ironically, if the waste were not burned in the first place this hugely expensive equipment would not be necessary, nor would the toxic ash collected in these devices have to be sent to an expensive hazardous waste landfill, nor would the air emissions be subjected to very costly monitoring. But the public is being kept ill informed about the poor economics of incineration. Instead, they are being told that incineration is going to save their communities money.

(more…)

GAIA: Incinerators – Myths vs Facts about “Waste to Energy”

from GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives), February 2012 issue

INCINERATION is a waste treatment technology that involves burning commercial, residential and hazardous waste. Incineration converts discarded materials, including paper, plastics, metals and food scraps into bottom ash, fly ash, combustion gases, air pollutants, wastewater, wastewater treatment sludge and heat. There are 113 waste incinerators in the U.S. and 86 of these are used to generate electricity. No new incinerators have been built in the U.S. after 1997, due to public opposition, identified health risks, high costs, and the increase of practices such as recycling and composting. In recent years, the incinerator industry has tried to expand their sector by marketing their facilities as “Waste to Energy” (WTE), using misleading claims.

MYTH 1: Waste incineration is a source of renewable energy.
FACT: Municipal waste is non-renewable, consisting of discarded materials such as paper, plastic and glass that are derived from finite natural resources such as forests that are being depleted at unsustainable rates. Burning these materials in order to generate electricity creates a demand for “waste” and discourages much-needed efforts to conserve resources, reduce packaging and waste and encourage recycling and composting. More than 90% of materials currently disposed of in incinerators and landfills can be reused, recycled and composted.1 Providing subsidies or incentives for incineration encourages local governments to destroy these materials, rather than investing in environmentally sound and energy conserving practices such as recycling and composting.

(more…)