MORE than 300 people attended last evening’s presentation of an alternative plan for dealing with the island’s refuse.
And all but three of them said they were against Public Services’ proposals for a combined sorting and recycling facility and energy from waste plant.
But the Rational Alternative plan, which includes two micro-incinerators that would have a capacity of 22,000 tonnes per year – only around half of the initial capacity of the PSD one – did have some critics, who suggested the alternative proposals were not detailed enough.
Questions put forward to the Rational Alternative panel, which is led by businessman Rupert Dorey, covered topics including the health impacts of incineration, how much pollution it would cause and whether other alternatives had not been discussed.
One islander asked why it had taken so long to come forward with the alternative when the PSD proposals go to the States later this month. Mr Dorey said that they had become deeply concerned about the PSD plans and wanted the best for the island.
A UK businessman said that Guernsey’s problems were mirrored in communities across the UK.
‘And they are all rejecting incinerators,’ he said. ‘PSD’s plans are absolutely ridiculous.’
Some islanders questioned whether Guernsey needed an incinerator at all, including Rodney Brouard, who is suggesting that the island should send its waste to Jersey to be burned.
The question of whether new technology could be used instead of an incinerator was also raised, but Mr Dorey said that new ways of dealing with the problem could not be implemented at present.
However, he added that the Rational Alternative plans were flexible and could make way for new-technology developments, unlike those of PSD’s preferred tenderer, Suez Environnement.
A Vale resident referred to a report from the British Society for Ecological Medicine that had concluded that incinerators should not be implemented because of the health effects.
Mr Dorey said the Rational Alternative would produce less toxic waste and fewer emissions than the PSD’s proposals.
Another man, who lived near Longue Hougue where the incinerator would be built, said he would leave the island if his health was put in danger.
Mr Dorey was asked who would be in charge of the incinerator and he suggested a company could be set up by the States to run it, along similar lines to Guernsey Post and Aurigny. But it was a matter for further consultation.
Public Services board member Deputy Tom Le Pelley warned of a long delay if the process were to start all over again.
- Both the rational alternative presentation and the PSD’s original presentation may be viewed as PDFs – click here.
Article posted on 15th July, 2009 - 9.44am
14 Article Comments
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like PSD’s proposals either but the fact that the vast majority of people at this particular meeting were against them is neither surprising, nor a good yardstick of general public opinion.
These kind of meetings are invariably full of people with strong views on the subject matter. A random public opinion poll would give a far better and more accurate indication of where the public stands on this proposal.
Report abuse
I beg to differ Paul. Having attended both PSD/Suez presentations and last night’s public meeting, I think last night’s showing was a pretty good indication that the people of Guernsey do not want and have never wanted mass burn.
Both PSD meetings were attended by about a hundred people, most of whom were hostile to the Suez model. Last night’s meeting was attended by 300 plus and all but a few were deeply opposed to being shackled to a mass burn plant that the island simply cannot afford.
Sure, the make up of the audience was skewed by the presence of a few dozen (myself included) who could be described as the usual suspects. The vast majority, though, were ordinary, usually apolitical islanders who undoubtedly represent an undercurrent of deep concern running throughout the community. You really had to be there to appreciate that this was the case.
Report abuse
Surely these meetings are just to get a general Idea of what is available,
To state that only 1% back the proposed item is going a little on the side of propaganda,
Isn’t the time honoured way; would be to have an Island wide vote;
The ‘Press’ could be helpful in putting a form in the paper and asking for a return to a department agreed upon, to deal with such.
But the 1% is certainly not a good way of deluding people; like the sewage it stinks.
Report abuse
i went, i think there were a varied selection of folk, so far as you can tell. what it did highlight was a strong objection to the suez idea, perhaps not that the 4 blokes idea was the answer but certainly that psd should go back to the drawing board, widen the remit, do more research and think again.that’s what i felt.unfortunately the whole of psd are looking poor, possibly being drasgged down by the terrible chairman?i know plenty of work has been done on their proposals and good for them but i think they should start again with wider eyes, it’s so much m,oney and such a poor way of dealing with waste.
Report abuse
You could equally spin it the other way … based on these figures just under 1/2% of the population ( approx 300 out of 60,000 ) are opposed to the PSD proposals …
All we can say is that, of those that attended, only 1% were in favour of PSDs proposal, nothing more, nothing less. Given the nature of the presentation it would be somewhat surprising to get any other result ( turkeys after all would be very unlikely to turn up to a christmas dinner planning meeting …. ), thus the sample cannot be said to be representative of the population as a whole
Report abuse
Martyn – you misunderstood my comment I think. I’m not doubting that, should a referendum take place, the likely outcome would be a majority in opposition to the PSD’s proposal. Eric I think understood what I was getting at which was that a wider scale survey / referendum is required before claims of widespread opposition can be made. The opinions of 300 people plus hearsay is not enough.
Incidentally, as I wrote in my first comment, I’m not in favour of the PSD solution. I just think a broader approach to measuring public opinion is necessary.
Report abuse
The meeting was an obvious opportunity to ask for a show of hands – that is normal and is the “mood of the meeting” not to be confused with the wishes of the islanders. However unprepared the rational alternative plans were (for very good reasons) it was clear that the primary objective was to influence a vote at the end of the month rather than say “my plan is better – vote for me!”. Rather than criticising the alternative solutions it surely would be better to spend time challenging the costs of the PSD proposal and understanding the consequences of the vote. In the past we could afford to buy something that was not necessarily the optimal solution since the money was sloshing around – today we cannot afford to err in this direction and I think the meeting showed a general disquiet about the tendering process which attracted so little interest and the sizing of the solution. Questions were raised about other projects where the incinerators were deemed too large and clearly unless the question of Jersey involvement is definitively answered we are making a decision in two weeks while missing very useful information. The alternative explained does not come with an easy-to-read design, build and operate guarantee so necessarily will require effort to spec and to implement – but given another six months this could be clearer. They may only have 2 weeks… We were very close to defining our need as 120,000 tons last time round and I do not care to be lectured by the same people who said that was a racing certainty and without blushing are telling us 70,000 is their new figure we must trust.
Report abuse
ichsaz – I think you’ve nailed the point: the guys on the panel didn’t have vested interests (unlike the three people in the room who voted in favour of the PSD/Suez proposal!) and they said at the outset that it wasn’t the only (and possibly wasn’t even the best) solution. I suspect the reason they went about it the way they did was that though they felt the PSD proposal was completely inappropriate they didn’t feel they could ask deputies simply to reject it without offering any kind of alternative. Many deputies would otherwise vote in favour of the proposal, not because they thought it was the best solution for Guernsey but because it would have been a choice between some kind of solution (however bad) and seemingly no solution at all, and they wouldn’t want to look like ditherers. What the Alternative panel – and let’s remember they’re just concerned citizens, not politicians or people who stand to make money out of their ideas – and the meeting have hopefully done is highlight the fact that there are several other viable options that would be better for the island, and hopefully that will give the deputies the courage to reject the only proposal (PSD’s) formally on the table right now.
What everyone seems to agree on (though I can’t speak for PSD) is that some kind of island-wide referendum would be a good idea. It was suggested at the meeting that the Press co-ordinate one, and I hope they do: this is the biggest decision the States has ever had to make so I think it’s important that islanders’ views are properly represented. In the meantime, I was emailed this link yesterday to a short survey:
http://survey.submarine.gg/takeSurvey.asp?surveyID=95
There are about five questions and there’s also an opportunity to comment if you want, so people with opinions either way might like to check it out.
Report abuse
PSD’s Suez proposals have had plenty of airing in the Press so most people should be aware of what they entail. For those who would like to know more about the Rational Alternative plans, including why they strongly object to the Suez plan, there is an article here that explains it all…….. http://www.g-can.net/articles/detail.aspx?articleid=182
We should not vote on these surveys until we are abreast of most of the facts.
Report abuse
The Submarine survey results have been published
http://www.ifcfeed.com/guernsey-articles/Islanders-demand-recycling-and-reject-Suez-proposal.aspx
Regards
Neil Inder
Submarine
Report abuse
It’s now emerging that a survey taken by the Public backs Kerbside Recycling.
Has that public really thought this option through as well.
Numerous complaints of being held up on the roads by slow moving wagons separating the waste as they go is a great concern.
Our roads are just not wide enough, if this type of service were to be introduced.
Report abuse
I think you need to be slightly cautious over the results in relation to kerbside recycling. The survey linked this with paying for rubbish collection by sack, as opposed to through the rates. So if you wanted to support changing the current payment system the only way to show this was to vote for kerbside collection as well. In fact these are really two totaly seperate issues.
Report abuse
I seem to recall the refuse collection usually takes place in the early hours.
If I am wrong then perhaps it should and the recycling can take place.
Report abuse
Thanks for explaining Peter.
Report abuse