The Oxford Mail today reports (City chief 'may back the burn') that:

Oxford City Council's new leader John Goddard has controversially not ruled out backing incineration to get rid of the city's waste in the future.

Now this argument is getting tired, with the so called "constructive opposition" folk from the city's Labour and Green groups being consistent only in their disingenuousness and spin.

I went to a conference in spring 2005 organised by the Oxford Inspires group - obviously they were already so knowledgeable that these political stalwarts of the environmental movement didn't need to go but hey. A young lady from the county council outlined a desire on their part to become a "zero waste county". Which is, of course, pretty much everyone's Elysian ideal I suppose.

On the other hand, there are practicalities to face. What if...

...oil goes to £300 a barrel inside the next decade as many of those same environmental activists claim will happen - at least the ones who fervently believe we are past peak oil?

...we find a technology that allows certain bulk waste to be used to create a local source of energy more cheaply than oil, or its less attractive alternatives such as shale, in a way that is clean and manageable and still gets the most from recycling what can be recycled economically?

Are you all going to thumb your noses at it?

I can understand the political gamesmanship that might make you want to rule a particular option out, an option that we all know has proven controversial almost anywhere it's been tried. Does it mean you rule out incineration specifically and uniquely? What about other mechanisms for getting energy from waste using heat, such as pyrolysis - which, to most people, one suspects, will actually mean the same as "incineration" even if it is subtly different?

Technorati Tags: oxford, politics