NAMED after the mineral mined from its depths, Batu Arang – literally, lumps of coal – was once the second biggest town in Selangor. At its height, there were almost 25,000 workers and their family members who called this town in Gombak some 50km from Kuala Lumpur their home. Working in three shifts, the miners kept operations going for 24 hours a day, churning out so much of the mineral that the British built a rail line to connect the town to the rest of the peninsula.
Recently, though, its name has been in the news again; this time, as a battleground between local residents and authorities with plans for a Waste-to-Energy plant.
On July 1, 2024, it was reported that residents from Rawang, some 17km away by road, submitted over 4,000 objection forms to the Selayang Municipal Council opposing its plan to rezone land for the proposed RM4.5bil incinerator project in Batu Arang (see report here). They cited safety, health, environment, and traffic concerns, as well as the proximity of underground mines. Among the health worries is the emission of highly toxic dioxins, a byproduct of waste incineration.
Batu Arang is not the first – and certainly won’t be the last – site to be involved in the wave of protests against such facilities.
On July 1, Housing and Local Government Minister Nga Kor Ming told the Dewan Rakyat that the ministry planned to modernise the country’s solid waste management by setting up 18 such plants by 2040.
The sites are Jabi and Padang Cina in Kedah; Bukit Payung, Seelong, and Sedili in Johor; Jabor-Jerangau and Belenggu in Pahang; Sungai Udang in Melaka; Rawang in Kuala Lumpur; Jeram, Tanjung Dua Belas, and Rawang Dua in Selangor; Pulau Burung in Penang; Lahat, Taiping, and Manjung in Perak; Tertak Batu in Terengganu; and Jedok in Kelantan.
Commonly known as an incinerator, Waste-to-Energy (WtE) technology is widely used in other countries, where it is considered to be a proven and safe technology.
WtE plants burn solid waste to produce steam in a boiler, which is then used to power an electric generator turbine.
For example, in Germany, municipalities transport residual waste – which is no longer recyclable and which, in the absence of this technology, would head for the landfill – to a WtE plant.
The calorific value of German residual waste is 10,000 to 12,000 kilojoules per kg, which means that both heat and electricity can be generated from it. In contrast, the coal once mined in Batu Arang would have produced around 8,000 kilojoules per kg.
It is estimated that one tonne of waste can produce between 550 and 700-kilowatt hours energy – enough to power a home for almost a month.
According to Greenpeace South-East Asia’s senior programme manager Thing Siew Shuen, the government is making Malaysians choose between WtE and landfills.
“However, neither are environmentally-sound solutions; they are costly and not climate solutions,” she says.
Residents in the recent protest against a WtE, says Thing, were reportedly not properly consulted during the planning phase.
“Similarly, residents of Broga and Kepong also reported there was no proper local consultation when incinerators were proposed,” she says in a recent interview.
In the early 2000s, the project in Broga near Semenyih in Negri Sembilan planned by the then Federal Government had met with protests from local residents, as did the more recent proposal in 2021 for a site in Kepong in Kuala Lumpur.
Ironically, the protests for the site in Broga were spearheaded by members of the Opposition then, many of whom now make up the Federal Government.
Thing hopes that with the recent announcement of the 18 proposed WtE sites, the Federal Government is not merely locating them on the map but also looking into the consent, well-being, and welfare of the surrounding communities.
“To ensure environmental justice, public consultation should be conducted, not just at the 18 proposed sites but also in every local authority,” she says.
Without local government elections, waste management, Thing points out, is a centralised issue and a mechanism without the participation of the local people and with no inclusive consultation in many areas.
If the Batu Arang WtE plant goes ahead, the site is going to receive 2,400 tonnes of municipal solid waste from at least seven districts upon completion, Thing claims.
“What makes the decision- makers in those districts think that they have the right to pollute Batu Arang? Do they even know that they are imposing an injustice on people by sending away their waste to a remote area where local residents might be harmed?”
Thing urges the government to provide answers to questions about, among others, the status of the country’s landfills and their lifespan, how the 18 WtE locations were identified, how much waste is generated in each district, how much waste the country is estimated to generate in the next 10 to 30 years, and what is the worst case scenario of not building WtE plants versus rehabilitating existing landfills.
“If the government is unable to provide answers to all these questions, then the proposed WtE plants are not justifiable,” she says.
The WtE plant proposals by the Federal Government are coming at a time when Malaysia is finding it hard to stomach more rubbish, what with an average of some 39,000 tonnes of waste being sent to landfills daily.
Adding to the urgent need to deal with mounting waste is the low national recycling rate: after recording a rate of 35.38% last year, we look set to miss the aim of hitting 40% by 2025.
Population growth, of course, is another factor, along with the perennial headache of illegally imported waste that is dealt with in various unsanctioned and environmentally harmful ways.
Worse, food makes up the biggest component of domestic waste at 30.6%, and its decomposition in landfills emits the greenhouse gas methane, which is 80 times more harmful than carbon dioxide, according to the United Nations Environment Programme.
While the government has either adopted or has in the pipeline measures such as waste separation and an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiative, the construction of WtE plants is expected to help manage solid waste in a better way than relying on landfills.
EPR holds producers accountable for the environmental impact of their products throughout their entire lifecycle, including disposal and recycling.
Many experts believe that WtE facilities are an integral part of a circular economy, which Malaysia is trying to embrace.
There are now over 130 landfills in operation across the country, including 21 sanitary landfills. (A sanitary landfill uses engineering strategies to deal with leachate and other environmentally harmful byproducts of decomposing waste.)
Almost all developed countries and semi-developed countries have WtE plants, says Prof Dr P. Agamutu of the Jeffrey Sachs Center on Sustainable Development at Sunway University. “Japan has 1,400 plants and soon, China will overtake Japan,” he adds.
In a reply to queries over email, Prof Agamutu explains there are various safety guidelines developed by the United Nations Environment Programme and the US Environmental Protection Agency for where to site WtE plants – “Ideally, one to two kilometres away from a residential area.”
“But in Japan, I have seen WtE plants within the compound of a hospital too. In Vienna, there is a plant in the city centre. The flue gas is cleaner than our air in Kuala Lumpur,” he says. (Flue is a mixture of gases produced by the burning of fuel or other materials in power stations and industrial plants.)
All technologies, declares Prof Agamutu, will have some side effects but some are not visible.
“For example, landfill gas is very damaging for climate change and global warming but it is not visible. The WtE flue gas is comparatively less damaging since it is cleaned to the national standard.
“In my opinion, there should not be any side effects affecting the local population if the guidelines are followed strictly,” he says.
Asked if it is true that the existence of such WTE facilities will in fact discourage recycling among local residents, as often highlighted by those opposing such facilities, Prof Agamutu says, “Not necessarily”.
“It depends on the local guidelines and regulations. Singapore has a 60% recycling rate and only waste that cannot be recycled goes to their WtE plants,” he says.
Besides WtE facilities and landfills, Prof Agamutu says Malaysia could also consider other means of anaerobic fermentation or digestion to produce biogas, and then composting to produce fertiliser.
“Nowadays, waste to hydrogen is coming up as clean energy, too.”
The government, says Thing, must first acknowledge that Malaysians live in a waste-driven society that prioritises consumerism and has a mindset of over-consumption that relies on false solutions.
“Otherwise, the government will never fix the underlying problem, primarily caused by single-use or buy-and-throw-away culture,” says Thing, whose organisation advocates a zero waste national strategy.
Malaysia, she says, needs regulatory provisions that hold polluting corporations accountable through national EPR schemes.
“Although businesses fear the initial costs, case studies show reusable packaging can be profitable even without wide-scale [recycling] infrastructure, and collaborative systems can further reduce investment burdens,” she says, adding that success depends on factors like packaging design, material choice, tracking technology, and consumer engagement.
In his answer to a question raised in Parliament on July 1, Nga explained that the ministry would continue to raise public awareness about the viability of using WtE plants as opposed to creating more landfills.
A large-scale landfill, he pointed out, would require several tens of thousands of acres of land; and the surrounding area, ranging from 5km to 10km, cannot be developed.
“This new technology does not require a large area of land and does not produce leachate, foul smells, or methane gas that has a negative impact on public health and the environment,” he said, calling the WtE concept one of the best options for the environment and people’s well-being.
While the push for a zero waste strategy to resolve Malaysia’s overwhelming waste problem is a good long-term proposal, implementing it effectively is going to take time – can the country afford to wait years for this habit to take hold among the people?
After all, the message about the 3Rs – reduce, reuse and recycle – has been around since the 1990s, and the government has held campaign after campaign about it, but the recycling rate has only inched up each year while piles of garbage continue to lay waste to our quality of life.
Even now, not all states have adopted the Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Management Act 2007 that mandates separating household waste.
At the same time, more should be done to hike public awareness about modern incinerator technology and its effects and advantages as well as disadvantages.
Whatever decision is made, there has to be a compromise because there’s no time to waste.