Sir – Keith Mitchell, in his letter (July 22), stated that the residual waste (that which is not or cannot be recycled) “. . . has to be dealt with — either by burying it in the ground or by burning it in an incinerator . . .” This suggests that there are only two alternatives, and landfill is conveniently being regulated out of existence (quite right too), leaving the county council’s hands apparently tied to incineration.

There are plenty of alternatives to incineration. These alternatives do not create persistent organic pollutants such as dioxins out of waste that did not contain them in the first place, they are less polluting in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, and they are less capital intensive. Other counties are having these alternatives built.

Oxfordshire has met its 2010 target for diverting biodegradable waste from landfill, so swingeing fines and some methane emissions have been avoided thanks to improvements in recycling and introduction of food waste collections.

The county council used to use the threat of these fines to insist that we needed to get a move on with the incinerator.

The county council has a programme to reduce its ‘environmental footprint’ called Future First. The latest Future First Action Plan (2008-09) states that the council’s ‘corporate core’ must “work with Future First team to ensure all procurement processes consider carbon impact and environmental footprint”.

Has procurement associated with this incinerator been through that process?

I once bought a secondhand car on the advice of the salesman. Luckily, I wasn’t buying it for somebody else.

Steve Gerrish, Kidlington