The truth behind language: The real impact of ‘turbocharging’ and ‘incineration’
Language plays a powerful role in shaping our understanding of the world, but it can also be used to obscure the truth. When Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, says he wants to “turbocharge the mining sector,” what he really means is expanding climate-wrecking coal and gas projects. It’s language designed to soften the reality of continuing to exploit fossil fuels at a time when the climate crisis is undeniable.
Similarly, the term “natural gas” sounds harmless because it contains the word “natural.” But there is nothing natural about the damage it causes to our climate, leading to extreme weather events, rising sea levels, crop failures, and a mounting cost-of-living crisis that impacts us all. Calling destructive climate-induced weather events “natural disasters” also removes the human influence on these catastrophes. It’s time we stop accepting the comforting terms and call these events for what they are: man-made disasters.
Plastic burner
The same goes for the term “incinerator,” which is often used to conceal the harsh reality of what’s really happening. To incinerate means to burn. In the case of the proposed ‘energy-to-waste’ incinerator facility in Lara, it is a plastic burner – so why hide this under the fancy-sounding label of ‘incineration’?
This is an important distinction. What a business is proposing here is to burn plastics, hundred of thousand of tonnes of it, and that comes with severe environmental and health consequences.
A towering 80-meter chimney at the Lara facility is intended to send toxic smoke away from the worksite. But this doesn’t make the air any less toxic. The pollution released by burning plastics contributes to climate change and creates serious health risks for the people who live nearby. Even worse, facilities like this encourage more production and consumption of plastic, instead of addressing the real issue: reducing plastic use in the first place.
Incinerators depend on a continuous supply of plastic waste to keep running. Instead of burning it, we should focus on not producing that plastic at all. We need to rethink our waste strategies and hold corporations accountable for designing products that can be reused, repaired, or recycled. Incineration is not a solution – it is a surrender to a broken business model that prioritises profit over safety and health.
Zero waste
For more insights into the fight against plastic waste and incineration, tune in to The Sustainable Hour today on 94.7 The Pulse at 11am, where we’ll be talking to Kirsty Bishop-Fox, founder of Zero Waste Victoria, ahead of this weekend’s Zero Waste Festival at Federation Square.
Next week, Geelong will host an important online meeting featuring independent Senator David Pocock. Elected on a platform of integrity and environmental responsibility, Pocock has become a pivotal figure in Canberra. His Duty of Care bill, currently under consideration, would legally require politicians to factor in the well-being of future generations when making decisions, especially those concerning coal and gas projects. In a world where our leaders often prioritise short-term gains, Pocock’s proposal is a breath of fresh air, offering a glimmer of hope for a sustainable future.
You can play your part too by visiting Letition.org, where a campaign is underway to prevent the construction of more large incinerators in Victoria. Together, we can say, “No thanks” to plastic burners and work towards a cleaner, more sustainable future.
The flawed plastic-burning business model
Beyond the climate crisis, plastic pollution is one of the most significant environmental challenges of our time. Governments must mandate businesses to keep plastics within the circular economy, where waste is minimised, and materials are reused or recycled. However, incinerators present a dangerous alternative. While slightly better than landfill, they still produce toxic chemicals and perpetuate the overproduction of plastic.
Burning plastic is not a solution. It only encourages more consumption. The real path forward involves reducing plastic at the source, promoting awareness, and supporting waste management strategies that prioritise recycling and reuse. Every day, our oceans are filled with more plastic, further polluting our environment. Technologies exist to help clean up some of this plastic, but unless we stop producing it, the problem will continue to grow.
Single-use plastics, in particular, are toxic and unnecessary. They must be phased out with a sense of urgency, unimpeded by the interests of big business. This is what we should expect of our politicians: that they will not only represent us in parliament, but that they will legislate and make decisions in our best interest – with care for our health, our climate and our future.
Australia consumes one million tonnes of single-use plastic every year. This is unsustainable. We need to shift away from plastic dependency and towards a future where waste is eliminated, and our environment is protected.