An opinion piece in Folha de S.Paulo criticizes the defense of burning solid waste for energy generation, known as Waste-to-Energy (WtE), and claims of foreign conspiracy against opponents. The authors highlight high costs, risks to recycling, and the need for transparent debate. They respond to a previous article accusing NGOs of fake news funded by international entities.
The opinion piece, published on February 25, 2026, in Folha de S.Paulo, is signed by a former president and executive director of the Fundação Florestal de São Paulo and by a journalist, professor of journalistic ethics at ESPM-SP, former editorial secretary of Folha (1988-92) and columnist (2013-18), author of 'Jornalismo e Desinformação' (Senac).
The authors respond to the text 'A guerra financiada contra a geração de energia a partir do lixo', published in Folha on February 20, 2026, which defends Waste-to-Energy (WtE) as a clean and efficient solution for waste. They argue that WtE is not scientific consensus and criticize the insinuation that opposing NGOs are funded by North American and European entities, without refuting specific evidence.
One WtE advocate is a professor at Universidade Columbia (USA) and founder of the Global WtERT Council, an international NGO to promote the technology. The other is president of a Brazilian association with a mostly foreign base, partner of the same network. The authors question: 'If the logic of "foreign conspiracy" applies to one side, why not the other?'
Main objections to WtE include high implementation costs reliant on public support; the risk of diverting recyclable materials to incineration, harming the circular economy; methane burning in sanitary landfills, which reduces emissions and generates energy at lower costs; and the potential to sustain a model focused solely on waste reduction, overlooking excessive consumption.
In São Paulo, about 20 thousand tons of waste are generated daily, at an annual cost exceeding R$ 2 billion. Internationally, in countries like Portugal, WtE gains traction due to landfill saturation but is criticized for not addressing roots like production, consumption, and disposal, competing with recycling. The term 'greenwashing' describes promoting WtE as a 'clean' solution. The European Parliament's site prioritizes consumption reduction, reuse, and recycling, without hailing incineration as a panacea.
The authors conclude that a 'public reckoning' should include figures on costs, climate impacts, effects on waste pickers and cooperatives, waste reduction goals, and transparency from all sides — NGOs, companies, and governments. Accusations without arguments, they say, 'do not clean or light up cities nor heat homes'. The text notes that signed articles do not reflect the newspaper's opinion but aim to stimulate debate.
