By late 2012, this could be the new view from Vale Castle. (0815280)
THE States gave the go-ahead for a £93.5m waste facility late this afternoon.
Members backed building the controversial plant at Longue Hougue by 32 votes to 12 with three abstentions.
The project includes an energy-from-waste plant and a mechanical sorting facility.
It could be added to in the future if the waste produced in the island continues to grow.
Public Services Department minister Bernard Flouquet hoped construction work could begin in June or July next year.
Voting was as follows:
For: Deputies Barry Brehaut, Carla McNulty Bauer, Jenny Tasker, Roger Domaille, Allister Langlois, Carol Steere, Martin Storey, Jack Honeybill, Leon Gallienne, Peter Gillson, Scott Ogier, Lyndon Trott, Jane Stephens, Matt Fallaize, Geoff Mahy, Tony Spruce, Andrew Le Lievre, Mark Dorey, Hunter Adam, Tom Le Pelley, Barry Paint, Bernard Flouquet, Mike Garrett, Mark Laine, Shane Langlois, Peter Sirett, Charles Parkinson, Francis Quin, Mike O’Hara, Robert Sillars, and Mike Hadley and Alderney representative Richard Wilmott. Total: 32.
Against: Deputies Jan Kuttelwascher, John Gollop, Rhoderick Matthews, Mike Collins, Ivan Rihoy, Mary Lowe, Graham Guille, Dave Jones, Sean McManus, Al Brouard, David de Lisle and Gloria Dudley-Owen. Total 12
Abstained: Deputies Sam Maindonald and Janine Le Sauvage and Alderney representative Liz Bennett.
Article posted on 30th July, 2009 - 4.40pm
38 Article Comments
What a shame!
Looks like the States really don’t have a clue, the Americans are starting to get rid of their incinerators, does this not mean something? It’s not proven to be safe, or is it an eco-friendly way of disposing rubbish.
Report abuse
The lack of foresight and sheer idiocy of our politicians never fails to amaze me. To the 32 States members who voted in favour: you have just condemned this island to a sorry future. Your children and ours will be burdened with this expensive and filthy legacy for years to come. Shame on you all.
To the remaining 12 who voted against: thank you for trying.
Sam Grimshaw
Report abuse
These incinerators are associated with diseases including Cancer.
Report abuse
Finally…….! wait there is no election due is there? between now and next june!
Report abuse
This is a very very sad day for the health & finances of the Bailiwick and its people. However, I am not surprised by the outcome. On a positive side, I applaud those Deputies who had the guts to stand up for those of us who opposed any form of incineration and the cost implications of this toxic beast.
I was appalled by Hunter Adam’s disgraceful mockery in the House of David De Lisles excellent speech. Hunter Adam, you have shown your utter contempt not only for your fellow politician but also for the health and well-being of the Bailiwicks population. A man of your past profession and current position should at least acknowledge there are health issues. ‘Hang your head in shame’.
I would like those Deputies who voted for this mass poisoning burner to give a reassurance via the media addressing the following:-
1) There is categorically no risk to the population whatsoever from dioxins emissions from the process of mass incineration
2) That PSD/SUEZ have been open and honest with the true cost of the plant and there will not be any future ’surprises’ with massive cost increases over the 25yr period and a public audit trail will be there for scrutiny.
3) That Guernsey will not under any circumstances import waste from other jurisdictions (Europe) to feed this ‘BEAST’
4) That the 32 Deputies who voted for this mass poisoning burner & the Director Of Public Health give their reassurances that they will be held personally responsible for any health issues which may arise over the life of this mass poisoning burner
5) That Hunter Adam and the Director for Public Health give their personal reassurances that there are no dioxins emissions from both the Power Station and PEH and they will carry out emission control checks on these emissions.
Report abuse
Very disapointing that the States failed to recognise Public concern and have no guts to deal with waste evornmentally and sustainably.
Boy is the Public purse going to be paying for this and for many generations to come in more ways than one.
There is one last hope for reason and maybe just maybe that will happen at the next and last vote.
Reading the other article this is not yet a 100% done deal, there is one remaining vote to go, whilst there is only one option on the table it still has to be voted on and I did not think that vote had happened yet.
If the Island pulls up their shoelaces than hopefully the incenerator part of this plant will get low volume use (less toxic waste etc.). My gut feel is though that recyling will decline, why bother when you can just bung it in your bin and it will all get burnt mentatility will creep in.
Report abuse
A sad sad day for guernsey.
Looks like all states assemblies have a blot on their terms of office. This assembly just ran away with the grand prize of biggest mistake of all time !!
Report abuse
What a suprise, didn’t see that coming. Thank you to the 12 that voted against it. As usual the majority of the muppet show got their wish.
I look forward to the report of the £40m over spend when it comes out.
Report abuse
They never learn;
liken the 12 virgins and their lamps.
only there’s nothing virginal about those stale old members of that infamous gang who seem
“To know it all”
Methinks it’s time for a change– on next election get rid of the lot, because one rotten potato can spoil the whole sack.
Report abuse
I know I’m probably going to get a load of grief for this but I would like to say Well done for those who did vote in favor.
It would have been so easy to go against so they must have done their homework to vote in favor.
The states memebers do live here so I’m sure they don’t want some ‘evil monster’ on their door steps.
All they’ve done is used common sense and gone for something that will get rid of our rubbish, provide energy in return and encourage recycling.
Report abuse
The real joke for me here (apart from the hilarious health issues) is that Guernsey tries to pride itself as a bastion of conservative capitalism in the face of overbearing ‘communist’ EU and the ’socialist’ UK.
Surely we should have promoted small local businesses to tender on portions of the entire waste stream business, allowing local entrepreneurs to have access to a new market and so create real money for Guernsey, that would stay on Guernsey and be used to prepare a future?
This is an absolutely shocking waste of an opportunity to create some diversity on the island, to give people more choice as to how and where they work.
No, not for our politicians swayed yet again by fancy presentations and million dollar PR.
What about giving the locals WHO WANT TO DO THIS FOR THE GOOD OF THE ISLAND a chance?
Now that Flouquet has admitted misleading the public with the spin, he has shown he does NOT CARE at all for the local economy.
What a shambles.
Report abuse
For those of us who don’t get the printed Press can the record of the vote be placed online?
Report abuse
The voting record now appears at the foot of the story, above.
Report abuse
Common sense has not prevailed. Rubbish is a resource and Suez is in it for profit not donations. To provide energy for £93 to £150 million plus for a maximum of 2000 homes i.e. one parish is exorbitant. There are several major world players in Plasmagasifcation – one competing with Suez in France – CHO Power – listed on the stock exchange that would have done the job for one third of price proposed and generated enough electricity for the entire island with zero waste.
Or we could have invested that money in a sustainable renewable energy technology – ie tidal or wind power.
As for recycling it will magically disappear to feed the hungry beast.
Don’t clap your hands yet.
Report abuse
Anna
Not sure of the real figure but I think you will find that there are more than 2,000 homes in Guernsey….
If the population is approximately 60,000 your 2,000 homes means there is an average of 30 people living in each house!
Report abuse
Hunter Adam is a disgrace with the rubbish he spurts out and he was just the same defending Flouquet on his very not funny joke. Matt F has really sank in my book as he wanted to support the sursis, why? because he had doubts along with others, when you have doubts over somthing as serious as this is why the hell vote for it?
Report abuse
@CW
The states memebers do live here so I’m sure they don’t want some ‘evil monster’ on their door steps.
All they’ve done is used common sense and gone for something that will get rid of our rubbish, provide energy in return and encourage recycling.
They’ll probably just go off to Cyprus once it’s being built…
Report abuse
It makes me wonder where the island will get the money from in order to finance this and the runway repair/extension.
Report abuse
This has been one of the best scams the States has pulled off, and I still cannot believe that 32 deputies fell for it. By constantly giving out misleading information and twisting the facts, the States have pulled off a remarkable coup. By the time truth and reality steps in; it will be too late. Unknowingly, these deputies have started a course of events that will change this island.
Report abuse
Although there are less expensive heat treatment processes available, particularly the Compact Power Pyrolysis and Gasification system, none of them have been able to prove themselves capable of handling the kind of rubbish we need to dispose of to the satisfaction of a waste processing contractor. That is why none of them appeared during the open tendering process.
The only alternative would have been for the States to choose a technology, or rather a mix of technologies, and to buy them and operate them – taking all the risks of semi-proven systems. The world is littered with the remains of similar schemes that went wrong. Including a massively expensive Suez funded plasma plant in France!
Guernsey is too small to take such chances and so went down the route of placing the risk with experienced contractors. They, and in the event Suez chose the technology that they were prepared to work with.
I find the scare mongering ignorance displayed by David De Lisle and repeated in submissions here by Sam, Andy, Pete, and others disgraceful. Although the mass burn incineration process is expensive in capital terms, it is relatively cheap to run and as safe as any. We must trust in our Environmental Health officers who also live here with their children and grandchildren, to ensure that standards do not fall or fail. De Lisle’s statements before and during the debate were just a load of misleading nonsense, and will have falsely caused some of our older residents who rely on the integrity of States members to worry unnecessarily.
Having had a close involvement in the issues and processes involved in getting to where we are, I am disappointed in the result and I believe it is more expensive than it need be. The parameters placed in the choice process by our politicians some 8 years ago prevented cheaper and better systems from coming forward. Systems that enjoyed supporters in that more financially confident period.
In the meanwhile we should all develop our personal waste strategies to prevent the generation of waste, to reuse all we can and to recycle the remainder. It is my belief that worldwide pressures will change the waste arisings and reprocessing profiles to such an extent in the next few years that the mass burn incinerator part of the Suez plant will never be fully utilised.
Let us all work to that end together.
Report abuse
I agree with you Roy – especially your conclusion. We must all work together now against waste and for recycling.
Report abuse
Roy Bissson
You might not agree with the very real beliefs and fears of many, including Deputy de Lisle, and posters on this site and in the Guernsey Press
What you are not entitled to do is to dismiss them as ingnorant scaremongering nonsense.
The fact that you can describe these real environmental and financial fears in such a derogatory manner, merely shows your own intolerance of views that don’t coincide with your own.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson:
If any ignorance has been shown, then it must come from you.
How dare you call those who oppose your and the other feeble minded lot plans on a dictator laid plan.
Discussion is the root of democracy, and you have shown your true colours by thinking you and your lot are invincible
I hope when the time comes these ignorant scaremongering people you shout the odds about remember your words;
I have copied them and will on election time show it once again to the people who count–
The People of Guernsey.
And what integrity is it you talk about; there are very few who think you lot have any integrity at all; so don’t YOU come with your scaremongering laddie.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
So why did the Deputies vore for it? If the burner becomes redundant all of this expense will have been for nothing. That is precisely what the Rational Alternative was suggesting.
Your mate Flouquet has sold us a pup. I’m not surprised.
Report abuse
Listening & reading to everything I could find about how we wanted to dispose of our rubbish,made me realise there was two main camps of though on the idea. The recyclers and the incinerators. The ideas put forward by Mr Dorey and Mr Brouard was to recycle as much as possible and what was left was either incinerated or exported to Jersey. The other way is to incinerate everything. PSD has listened to the reasons why the last incinerated was dismissed and accordingly came up with this new incinerator. In their Show Room Model, this machine is designed to do 40% recycling and approx 30 – 40,000 tons to be incinerated. This is the problem with this incinerator; it cannot produce energy from waste with this small amount. Both Suez and PSD have all stated it needs over 45,000 tons to work properly. PSD had committed itself to producing energy from this machine. So where is all this extra rubbish coming from? It has to phase out recycling to achieve this. PSD is happy to recycle while private sponsors are willing to foot the bill, but what is going to happen when they stop? Is PSD going to pay the bills? Apart from a token contribution, everything is gong to end up in that incinerator within 5 years.Is this scare-mongering or a reality check? I’m willing to put a wager on it – are you?
Report abuse
Unbeleivable Roy
You attempt to justify the initial spending of 93M on an incenerator by telling us to try not to use it!
Brilliant, I can see why the states is in such a “state”
Report abuse
I listened to the whole debate. What clearly stood out was that via previous debates, amendments and resolutions is that PSD had delivered exactly what the States had asked. I don’t see how the SOG could have come to any other decision.
The killer blow was Scott Ogier’s first speech. In 20 minutes he nailed the sursis and destroyed any meaningful opposition to PSDs plans.
After the first day it was a home run for PSDs proposals
Report abuse
It is an almost certainty that after a years running of this monster in looks and usage,
Guernsey will suffer a large amount of lung problems.
And may God help all who should be unlucky enough to get the dreaded Myasthenia Gravies. It’s living hell.
Let us hope that some common sense comes into play before it is too late.
Report abuse
Isle of Mann is now importing rubbish, for its incinerator. I thought, states said laws against this, is this another untruth.
It did not have enough to keep it burning, and had to pump gas into it, to keep it going.
My understanding for our incinorator,we are paying euros and we have to pay for a burn of 45,000 tons min.
It will certainly help to stop recycling, but is this the aim of PSD.
How the few States members can abstain,is beyond me, if in doubt vote against, when £200m is involved.
Report abuse
Democratic debate is of course important. Perhaps we disagree on matters of opinion, but should be able to agree on matters of fact.
I am afraid that those who believe that the alternatives mentioned here (e.g, gasification and plasma) are cheaper and in some way better, have been mislead by those who wish to sell such plants!
Those who have criticised Hunter Adam, are similarly misguided – he stated the facts, and it was infact others who abused science to mislead the people in a reckless fashion.
Scott Ogier deserves great praise for his stance on waste treatment. He has informed himself, and balanced environmental ambition with real world pragmatism. As did all the 32 deputies who voted in favour. Hats off to you all for showing leadership when it might have been so easy to follow the populists.
It is simply not true to say the world is phasing out incineration, even in the US they are now building more plants as rising fuel prices make trucking waste long distances to distant landfills less economically attractive. And in the EU incineration is playing a real and increasing role, but one that supports recycling plants by dealing with the unrecyclable fractions.
If you dont belive me look at the stats on EUROSTAT : http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/data/waste_statistics
Keep on recycling, we will need to – this plant is small, and we need to recycle liek mad to prevent the overspill going to landfill!
Report abuse
Does all this chit chat- boil down to the fact that the PEOPLE no longer have any say in how things should be?
If so why should the people pay taxes for these so called politician to give the people the FINGER on what we as Islanders. have the right to say NON.
Report abuse
Mary
How do you know?
All this has shown is that the admitted tender process was flawed.
This plant will be obsolete and inefficient before the end of its life. There will be no scope for adaptation without major costs, if contractually viable. It will restrict local business. It is poisoinous without doubt.
Where do you get your tonnage numbers from? They certainly don’t add up to the research that was done by the Waste Panel.
As it is I see the rubbish carts go by with commercial waste stuffed full of cardboard. If the tonnage is based on not recycling commercial waste and burning all our waste food and biomass then we’re already going backwards and the thing isn’t even here.
How come the PSD assertions are universally challanged except for the people that are driving it?
Too many holes.
Report abuse
So its got the green light,its a lot of money to spend so lets keep it local,starting with the building work enough unemployed to do that,and when its built, staff it with locals too after all we got to live [ and maybe die from it ] with it.
Report abuse
Donkeys Life, that’s another problem with this incinerator, it’s going to be built, operated and maintained by the French! Locals will not be employed to operate this filth.
Eric, I see your point, why should we, the general public pay taxes if our voices are not heard by these politicians.
Report abuse
Mary I would suggest that you remove your PR hat and read the facts and I quote directly from the current environmental policy as set out in France: http://www.legrenelle-environnement.fr/grenelle-environnement/IMG/pdf/rounded_table.pdf
The “definition of an effective and relevant mix of waste treatments is based on environmental and health principles”.
This has led to ” the introduction of a moratorium on the building of new incinerators and co-incineration (particularly for cement plants) so as to give a bigger push to the prevention and recycling of associated waste and to reduce the share of incinerated waste to 20% of household and assimilated waste by 2020.”
The concern by the President of France for his people is the” improved assessment of possible impacts on health and the environment of the various treatment and reuse methods, the scrupulous respect of standards for each treatment method, including continuous (or not) air quality monitoring and the monitoring of environmental effects.”
This policy has gone so far as to state its commitment to “a large-scale thermal performance plan in order to reduce energy costs in a sustainable manner, increasing spending power margins of the French population and responding to the major challenge of reducing greenhouse gases. This statement is referring to harnessing solar and ocean thermal technology not incineration.
There are recommendations for a disincentive for incineration by putting in place a “general tax on polluting activities a new TGAP base created for incinerated waste.”
Not exactly pro-incineration.
The words sustainable, health, environment and reduction in green houses gases are very clearly repeated and referenced throughout the document.
Report abuse
Good sourcing, Anna!
Do you think there is a plan here? With McNulty-Bauer having put her foot in it that pensioners are not valuable members of our society and Flouquet wanting to burn everything…….
….ah the pillow talk!
When they said it was a one-stop-shop solution they weren’t kidding!
Report abuse
CW (31st July) suggests that voting in favour of Suez was the harder option and that the Deputies must have done their homework to do so. I think not on both counts. It was a lot easier to vote for Suez because what they all wanted, was a solution that would enable them to wash their hands of the waste problem for 25 years, and the quicker they could do that, the better…… Dep. Flouquet told me so 18 months ago.
What all the ‘alternative ideas’ wanted, was for the States to maintain an element of control which would have been much cheaper and quicker and would have enabled us to remain more flexible to the changing nature of waste and abilities to deal with it. It would however have required the States members to have to think about the ways we deal with our waste and would have required every person in Guernsey to be more accountable for the waste that they produce…. neither point was popular with many Deputies. They wanted to put the subject to bed and forget about it.
Having sat through the debate on Wednesday, I had the clear impression that several of them had not studied the subject with much detail. As with a lot of these situations, the Deputies rely heavily on the Department giving them accurate facts, and as we all know, the information coming out of PSD were skewed in favour of mass-burn.
CW’s final sentence talks of getting ‘rid’ of our waste. The world is fast realising the unsustainable nature of linear economies that rely on destroying waste at the end of the line. There is a huge push to make consumer led economies circular, so that goods are not destroyed at the end of use, but circulated back into more goods so preserving resources and reducing the energy needed to virgin mine new materials. Hence talk of ‘zero waste’ and not getting ‘rid’ of waste.
If Guernsey wants to retain a credible image on the international stage, we should be looking at these new ideas and positioning ourselves so that we can move with the times. Tying ourselves to a technology that will commit us to destroying a sizable fraction of our waste arisings for the next 30 years, will do nothing to enhance our reputation.
Report abuse
…. and I agree with Neil Inder’s conclusion that it was Scott Ogier’s speech that swung the vote, despite his being extremely economical with the truth.
A year ago, he was also the main influence in preventing having the option of mass-burn thrown out altogether.
I can’t help but wonder if he is pleased with his contribution in our ending up with a mass-burn incinerator that we will now be obliged to fill for the next 30 years, and pay for.
Report abuse