composting vs. waste-to-energy facility

Hi, looking for some guidance. I'm trying to come up with a good argument for why the Pennsylvania township I live in should adopt township-wide composting, instead of continuing to send organic wastes to a Covanta waste-to-energy facility (https://www.covanta.com/where-we-are/our-facilities/delaware-valley).

Per https://drawdown.org/solutions/composting, composting organic wastes produces >50% fewer methane emissions compared to landfilling these wastes. "The practice has other benefits as well, including potential carbon biosequestration benefits from the use of compost as a soil amendment and potential savings from reducing demand for nitrogen fertilizers." This makes composting a much better approach than landfilling.

However, waste-to-energy facilities presumably produce far fewer methane emissions compared to landfills, since (I'm assuming) their operations are enclosed. In addition, composting is not free of GHG emissions, and, as far as I know, it's possible that waste-to-energy facilities may produce fewer GHG emissions. I understand that in the United States some of these energy-to-waste facilities are placed in environmental justice communities, but I've been told that the one our township uses is not in such a community.

I like composting and burning waste feels wrong to me. Burning organic wastes for energy feels like waste of resources that could otherwise be transmuted into soil fertility. That said, I would like to make the argument to myself and the township that there's a substantial win here in terms of climate change mitigation, but I don't see such an argument right now. If anyone can help me get there, maybe point me at relevant research they're aware of, etc. I would be greatly appreciative.

If you used a digester to compost any methane can be captured as well.

Waste to energy creates plenty of greenhouse gas emissions.
The first website you shared had emissions data.
They point out that most of what they produce is stuff like water vapor.
Water vapor also contributes to the greenhouse effect, but it isn't considered a greenhouse gas, because of the predictable push back.
Measuring the opacity of what leaves the stacks might be an attempt to address this.

What is not mentioned at all is particulates.
There are filters in places, but they do not catch everything.
Plus, the materials caught in those filters still must be dealt with.
A lot of these particals are nano-scale, and they have a different effect on our bodies than mere dust.

Your local government is only contributing waste.
The plants don't run on waste alone.
They tend to use processed wood pellets.
The demand for this fuel has predictable outcomes.
Forests that would otherwise be left to grow are razed and the wood exported.
The process is not clean or efficient.
To make an equivalent amount of energy waste to energy creates more greenhouse gasses than burning coal.


Here is an article that makes the case against waste to energy.
It's focused on the EU, but simular forces are in play in North America :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-climate-energy-crisis-renewable-energy-must-stop-burning-trees/amp/

Everything that William said.

Eric