MODERN cities need modern solutions. As I write, some  35,000 tonnes of rubbish, which are generated daily in Malaysia, are being disposed in the landfills, because some people are dead set against incinerators.

This is why the KL Tak Nak Incinerator (KTI) movement should study the potential benefits of the incinerator instead of dismissing it out of hand just because it is new technology. They should try to help the residents and not show opposition to the government in what seems to be a personal mission backed by certain quarters.

The problem is trash, and more and more trash. 

My concern grew after reading about the landfill in Ayer Hitam, Puchong over the weekend. The landfill is being turned into a recreational park. This is not because the company wants to help us enjoy more recreational activities, but because a full landfill is not suitable for residential or commercial development as it can sink over time. Agriculture is also out of the question because of the trash buried in the land.

In fact, there is not much use for a used-up landfill.  

Obviously, it will also require money and expertise to rehabilitate the land.

Which is why I am pointing your attention to the incinerator.

Objections that have been raised against it have been centred on logistics, and not on the incinerator itself.

And concerns about emission and location can be overcome, such as by building the emission pipe higher to address the first, and setting up the facility away from residential and commercial areas.

KTI and its ilk are focusing on the problems that mini-incinerators have had in the past and refusing take recognise the failure of the landfill as a solution.

All technologies have problems, but the landfills use up space. This is a big problem in a city with a growing population. Long term and cheaper solutions are necessary and Waste to Energy (WTE) plants can do the job if done right. 

We are wasting our time objecting when we can work with the contractors, City Hall and other authorities to ensure a better incinerator.

KTI says it is speaking for the city, but there are many like me who are curious to know the reason for its undying devotion to landfills. 

There is a moral argument against landfills.

Our trash is taken from the city to be buried in landfills in the outskirts. This passed our problem to other people. Waste disposal will produce some level of pollution, which can be managed, but why should the people outside KL suffer the smelly garbage of city residents?

A proper incinerator means dealing with our trash problem ourselves.
 
As time passes and the objections become more desperate, it is clear that the opposers that using as their man weapon.

I am afraid they have frightened local residents into thinking that the incinerator is a dangerous thing, and that the landfill is good and safe.

They are making people believe that to support the incinerator is to reject recycling.  

This is not the case. Recycling should always happen and the 35,000 tonnes of trash per day must be reduced. But today, the city has to choose between the landfill and the incinerator. 

Ten incinerators would be enough to dispose of most of the trash in Malaysia. There will be fewer landfills, and more land for the community. Homes can be built on the land for young Malaysians who need a place to live.

* Sharifah Danisah Syed Ibrahim reads The Malaysian Insight.
 

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.