Given that the Creative City & Green GB are both at least two decades from implementation, it’s not unexpected that criticisms have arisen. While the plan certainly has its champions, there is concern among environmentalists (including me) and even city council critics that it doesn’t go far enough fast enough. The main critique of the plan — and one that is clearly stated in the plan — is its scope. It sets out to be a “blue print” for what could be, rather than what will be. In part this is to avoid tipping the scales of political debate too heavily towards any party or position, as well as attempting to keep an even balance between visioning and pragmatism.Critics of the plan have also voiced concerns over the small size of the plan. In a city as large as London, it was always going to be difficult to implement a plan that worked for every part of the city. The funding of the plan is also something that has been questioned with very little detail of how it will work going forward.The plan though doesn’t actually mention incinerators once, beyond confirming that they will be needed to deal with some waste products such as glass and scrap metal. When questioned by rumours of a “short lived reprieve”, the Mayor’s office have rebuked most of the claims - reiterating that the plan’s aims are limited to waste. But the plan stops short of recommending that London move away from incineration, and instead advocates strong recycling policies. This is crucial, because, as the BCC notes in an otherwise praising report, “recycling rates are lower in London than any other part of England.”. While the plan is bold in its scope, the intent, and the message it sends, it does not go further to reduce the use of incinerators which creates concerns for groups like Black Londoners for Climate Justice.While this plan does not address the negative impacts of additional incineration which would further increase London&’s already high Incinerator rate which is second only to the North East for the UK.