I'm sure waste management is an EU competence. So the reason incineration doesn't occur will be because of having to meet a EU recycling target. I seriously doubt whether our 'government' has a say in the matter as the writer contends.

Peter C, Birmingham, UK

It's a blend of all of the above - incineration, land fill, recycling for tin/aluminium etc... but we have to focus much more on the production, the producer - the creators of the crap we throw away; less on penalising the consumer. Create less, throw away less. Start with them and it'll be easier.

Charlie, London, UK

Landfill paper and cardboard and it rots to produce methane. But the idea of carbon sequestation using these materials sustainably produced from trees strikes me as a good one. There are methods of pyrolysis that produce a relatively inert charcaol and also generate electricity. Recycling it is daf

Keith, Sturminster Newton, Dorset

Good article. Organic food is another environmental myth - uses up far more land than intensive agriculture - meaning less food is produced in total. Less supply means higher food prices for the worlds poor, when we should be trying to do the opposite.

stuart, dubai, uae

What about banning free newspapers?

Brian Yates, Herts

Brian Yates, St Albans, UK

Why are we so worried about EU fines? The French don't bother paying the ones they don't agree with, like the one for illegally banning British beef after the official ban was lifted (and it turned out they were hiding BSE of their own).

Why are we always the ones to meekly roll over and pay up?

Ryan, Pimlico,

If incinerators only burnt paper, no one would object - but they don't - they burn plastics and other manmade materials which burn to form complex toxins which are dispersed as an aerosol into the environment or collected on filters and landfilled. And few do district heating (unlike in Europe)...

Angela Jones, ABingo,

What's wrong with landfill? Only the fact that the average landfill doesn't capture 50% of the methane produced - and methane has 23 times the greenhouse gas potential of CO2. Environmentally, it's a very bad option. [Not to mention its other considerable environmental impacts.]

Ade Jones, Lydney, UK

Rather than focusing on this kind of recycling, it is better to think about the huge amounts of consumer material we ship around the planet when we ought to be producing it (and a lot less of it) closer to home. We should focus on multiple use for items (ie, recycling function) to maximise utility.

Duncan Marshall, London,

The main problem can be when the ground startts to subside. Others are build up of gasses in houses, possibility of illegally dumped substances uner houses and of course public perception of living 2 metres above rubbish.
Burning has none of these problems.

Richard, london, England

Thirdly, the European Union forces us to recycle.

Tim Worstall, Messines,

The best place for waste paper is landfill, as this sequesters CO2. The more trees we grow, and then bury, the better. It seems to have become an article of faith that "landfill is bad", but that is not always true.

Martin, Newmarket, Suffolk

Total lack of joined up thinking. What is wrong with land fill? Dig a hole to get say sand chalk gravel etc for building, then fill it up with either inert rubbish (like the stuff just extracted) or stuff that decomposes to produce methane gas to power an engine to generate electricity day & night

Steve, Hayes, UK