Sir - Councillor Roger Belson in his letter (December 1) is to be congratulated for making it clear to us what the drivers are for increasing reduction, re-use and recycling of waste - i.e. the strict Government targets on diverting biodegradable waste from landfill, where it generates the powerful greenhouse gas - methane. The council prudently recognises that reduction, re-use and recycling will not increase at a fast enough rate for us to beat these targets, so it has started the process of procuring a means of treating the remaining waste so that it has less volume, no potential to release methane when landfilled, and delivers usable energy in the process.

The problem facing us is what process is appropriate. The council has refused to take a view on this, leaving it to the waste management industry to come up with something. Councils, or so I believe, have a duty to achieve "best value" through competitive tendering. This means that the cheapest offer does not necessarily have to be accepted.

I believe that best value in this case should, in part, be measured in terms the method that gives us the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per tonne of waste treated, and the least risk to the environment from other pollutants. One of the treatment methods is inefficient at producing energy, and uniquely, creates 'persistent organic pollutants' (dioxins etc.) that have to be dumped safely. That treatment method should be removed from the options because its value is just not good enough for us.

And what is this inefficient and hazardous treatment method? It's what the waste management industry dishonestly refers to as 'energy from waste', but is in fact incineration.

Steve Gerrish, Kidlington