Two words stand out to describe the government's position on the Broga incinerator project: Impudence and inanity. That may sound harsh and disrespectful, but I think if the shoe fits; then the government has to admit to wearing them.

Impudence because the government simply will not listen to reason, avoids the citizens' committees; and refuses to level with the press. It seems it will stake the safety and well-being of the citizens on an untried and controversial technology in a country with no track record of a mature environmental maintenance discipline.

In short, it plans to have its way no matter what the affected citizens say. Inanity, I say, because there are better ways to handle household solid waste than burning it.

If the government truly wants a plan for reducing the burden a consumption society makes on the solid waste disposal problem, it should first study the many classes of household waste and determine:

a) The ability to separate recyclable dry waste from wet food waste in the home. One good method of controlling wet food waste is by in-sink grinders ('insinkerators') that grind food waste and send it down the sewer for the natural process of bio-degrading.

These devices have been around for over 50 years. They should be part of the requirement for the all-important certificate of fitness (CF). Manufacturing 'insinkerators' is easily done in Malaysia and eureka! ... a new product suitable for export is at hand too.

b) Recyclable dry waste

i) There are two classes - direct recyclables (paper, poly ethylene, glass, etc.) and recyclables that require some work and cost to handle (electronics, motor vehicles, 'eco-unfriendly packaging', etc).

ii) There is a quick way to make direct recyclables more valuable to the public. Simply add a refundable deposit value to them redeemable at the recycling center. There are many creative ways the government can handle these deposits to make direct recyclables more valuable and thus, worth the time and energy to recycle in an environmentally friendly way.

iii) Other recyclables may require a different kind of deposit as they do not normally wind up in landfills. Computers, motor vehicles, etc. should have a 'return deposit' paid separately like sales tax (say, a 'scrap value tax') but refunded when the owner returns the goods to proper recycling centres.

And also think of the new businesses that a working recycling culture can create. Hypermarkets with recycling centers for bottles, paper and aluminum can now have these centres automated. Western countries have machines that take in all sorts of returnable bottles, cans, etc. and return cash money.

Local firms like Giant, Tesco, Carrefour, etc, could issue vouchers for recyclable in-store purchases and further make it a 'bonus' item to encourage more in-store shopping.

The government can also have something to say about packaging that is not easily recycled if it wants to. This may take some research but many consumer items are not packaged in easily recycled containers i.e. aerosol cans and cookie tins.

Where possible, manufacturers should change. Where not possible, manufacturers should be made to pay fo not using environmentally-friendly packaging. The government should not be shy about imposing environmental taxes that will help reduce waste destined for the landfills or incineration so as to encourage recycling for a healthier environment.

In short, burning solid waste simply to avoid burying is foolish. The large amount of money required to build and operate the Broga incinerator will be better spent on more creative ideas to inculcate a recycling mindset among the rakyat.

Think of the many positive aspects that a recycling culture can bring versus the angst, worry and expense of a giant incinerator.