Copies of the petition calling for the States to walk away from the £93.5m. Suez Environnement incinerator deal and in favour of Rodney Brouard’s free joint venture alternative are in more than 90 businesses. Here Emanuel Silva adds his signature to the one at Les Rocquettes Hotel. (Picture by Steve Sarre, 0889839)
MORE than 5,000 people have signed businessman Rodney Brouard’s ‘Sort our Waste’ petition.
Stan Brouard’s managing director is again urging people opposed to the planned £93.5m. incinerator to sign the petition and back his alternative.
He has set up a joint venture with Baltic Developments and offered to install a Vantage Waste Processing system at no cost to the island – if the States overturns its decision to build an incinerator at Longue Hougue.
Mr Brouard said the petition was in more than 90 businesses in the island and most pubs.
‘All proprietors are supporting this campaign,’ he said. ‘All businesses are on our website, where you can also sign the petition or print off petition sheets to obtain the support of family and friends.’
Mr Brouard is hoping to get 20,000 signatures and has asked parents to include their children on the petition.
‘Nine Vantage Waste processors have now been ordered for various European countries for delivery in 2010,’ he said.
‘The first two will be installed in Riga, Latvia, in the next few months. Besides these initial nine units discussions are very positive with many other countries including the UK.’
Some deputies have asked for more information on the joint venture proposal, especially those who had voted for the incinerator, Mr Brouard said.
‘Many incinerators, due to health concerns and excessive costs, have been stopped in the UK during the past 12 months,’ he said.
‘Many EU countries do not want incinerators, let alone situate them in or near populated areas and yet the proposed Guernsey incinerator will be between the main hubs of St Peter Port and the Bridge – within a two-mile radius of where half the population live and the majority of people work.’
The joint venture has guaranteed an annual minimum of £100,000 to Guernsey charities and £5,000 to Alderney charities for 25 years from 2011.
‘This is not a bribe, as one deputy who voted for the incinerator told me, this is a fact,’ Mr Brouard said.
Safeway and all Checkers outlets have agreed to allow the petition to be signed on their premises – provided someone supervises it.
Mr Brouard said that in addition to supporting other charities, the joint venture would give £10,000 a year to the Pink Ladies, Guernsey Cheshire Homes and Mencap.
He hoped people involved with those charities would help collect signatures. ‘I really require somebody to coordinate volunteers on these sites.’
nÊAnyone who can help is asked to call 252521 or email rod@stan brouard.com. For more information, or to sign the petition visit www.sort ourwaste.co.uk.
Article posted on 16th December, 2009 - 1.00pm
66 Article Comments
Everyone should sign- incinerators = serious health issues!
Report abuse
Well done to Rodney Brouard. Any ideas how we get 15,000 more people to sign up? We must stop this incincerator both for our health and wealth.
Report abuse
Thing is Judy and Andy. I would like to sign it, but I can’t.
I don’t want the incinerator, but I don’t want Rodney’s thing either.
I like the way, in the full story, that he says his promise of charity cash is not a bribe. He then names 2 charities and says, “Theres 10 grand in it for you, if you get me more signatures”
What’s his definition of a bribe, I wonder?
There is something just not right about his proposal.
Better than Suez though, has to be said.
Report abuse
More than 5,000 signatures…. out of an adult population around 68,000- well whoop-dee-doo. Even 20,000 wouldn’t be “representative” of the majority of the population.
Report abuse
whoops- correction there- obviously thats the whole population figure, not just adult- i would query the legitamacy of having young children (those under 12 for example) sign the petition though- isn’t that just giving parents an “extra vote”?
Report abuse
In the interest of fairness, have they recorded how many people declined to sign the petition, or actively oppose it ? Thought not ……
Report abuse
I never liked the way RB was saying put your kids name down – nothing like falsifying the result eh!
And why did Gary Burgess refer to a £93m incinerator this morning???
And why do people think that the States are having to pay for the Suez plant???
Report abuse
It seems to me that the promise of backhanders in exchange for a contract would be regarded as bribery and corruption in any other context.
Report abuse
@Frosty and Billythefish
I think those that are 12 should right fully sign that petition. It is there island in the future, not yours. You lot will be long gone! Hopefully by then we won’t be under water, due to this disgusting unneeded incinerator.
Sign the petition, it’s the only way forward from this disgusting thing.
Report abuse
Frosty
So if another 1,800 people sign the petition (likely), do you not think 10% is a sufficient representative group size for the states to at least take notice??
Toby
If you want to set up a pro-incinerator petition, why not take action and do what Rodney has done and pull your finger out and start one!
Maybe you can explain why the incinerator is so good for the island whilst you are at it.
Good luck with that.
Steve
It was my impression that the petitions goal was to help push a requete through rather than force the public into backing an alternative.
The key here is stopping the EFW plant first and foremost.
Report abuse
Ted
Not sure of the actual workings of Bribery and corruption, you’ll have to ask Suez about that!
And since when have charitable donations been “bribes”??
Report abuse
GG
Whilst 12 year olds have a bit of nous about them (some at least) they can’t be expected to be aware of what is going on, what the ramifications are in all respects. Why do you think the voting age is 18 (even if you argue 16, no-one has put forward 12).
The argument that it’s their island etc is weak as a lot of decisions bind future generations, this is just a particularly emotive one.
And why has no-one answered my questions? Hmmm…
Finally, don’t bury me just yet, won’t even be 55 when this things is all done and dusted! Will still be partly my island then (even if the footie pitches belong to others!)
Report abuse
The weakness in petitions is that it’s dead easy to sign your name to something without really thinking about it.
That said, I agree with GG’s point in principle – people of 12 years should be allowed to sign, their voice is valid.
My criteria of validity actually isn’t age – I think anyone who signs this, or any, petition should be able to put a coherent argument forward why they are doing so – independently. It doesn’t have to be highly technical or rocket science – just a simple explanation for their reasons.
Report abuse
Not comfortable with this petition being bandied around as “fact”. It’s already been stated that people are being encouraged to sign it on behalf of children, so how do we know that this hasn’t been extended to signatures on behalf of people that don’t live here or on behalf of relatives and friends that can’t find the petition? Should visiting workers or licence holders be allowed to sign…they won’t be here when it’s built so how valid is their opinion? Despite the lack of science applied to this petition everyone seems happy to shout out the fantastic result without examining the reality. However authentic this petition proves to be, it is still only a few thousand, perhaps less when validated.Regardless, it’s obviously been a successful tool in manipulating the undecided politicians (some of whom still think landfill is a good idea) but, if it is less than genuine, then it’s not really a great starting point for a change in policy is it.
Report abuse
This is the poll conducted prior to the debate.
Opens as a PDF
http://www.ifcfeed.com/documents/Waste%20Survey.pdf
Report abuse
The Man
the point I’m trying to make is that most petitions are by their nature worthless and unrepresentative. If you only collect signatures in favour you are biasing the result. It’s like holding a referendum and only counting the votes for and ignoring those against – only worse because you don’t even collect the no votes in the first place.
Now if you collected 5000 in favour and say a few hundred against then it would at least demonstrate the relative public opinion ( up to a point ).
As it stands all you can say is that 5000 people support the petition and 60000 either don’t, can’t be bothered, or haven’t been able to sign …. Or in other words it says next to nothing about anything ….
Report abuse
Why not carry out your own mini poll like many have done by asking friends at work etc and if your getting the same response as i have had then i think the 5000 is very much under estimated. Just today at work out of 9 of us no one thought it was a good idea to build this thing.
Carts
I think there were more deputies manipulated (spin) into supporting this burner than we think and maybe now they have seen the light? good on them.
Steve Le Cheminant
Why do you think it maybe a bribe? you have to ask yourself if the donations would have been made if it was not mentioned and RB got his system through? which i believe they would be unless anyone thinks that RB is the kind of person to do something that disgraceful which i dont. Why shouldn`t he spell out all what he feels are the benifits from his system? as it is part of the whole package he is offering. He`s just trying to give us something in my opinion far better with some benifits to all of us in one way or another.
Report abuse
Toby
Read the attachment to Neil Inders post.
Whether you buy into the quality of the informtion or not 66% against the suez incinerator is still fairly indicative of what the people want (or dont want).
Do you have any evidence that contradicts this?
Is the information suitable to you in this format??
The vast majority of information in the public domain show that the public is against this proposal?
Report abuse
bcb – What spin, most of the media coverage has been about the industrial steam kettle brigade or the orange ribbons? The States have been fairly quiet and only engaged in an open tender process whittled down to a single service provider, how does that constitute spin?
The deputies either knew what they were voting for or they didn’t…so, if you think they are wrong you can maybe blame apathy, ignorance, herd mentality or just dumb luck but I’m not sure how spin comes into it.
Report abuse
We need a referendum, so that we can agree or not to mortgage, this Island to the hint.
It is only fair and honest that before we commit ourselves to the kind of dept that our children and their children will be paying for the rest of their lives.
It is purely about making the right decision that the majority want, not the people it appears, who just want any decision and could not care what, as long as one is made.
If a referendum decides we do have or do not have an incinorator. That is what we will do, but it must be the peoples right to decide.
Report abuse
The Man.
I thought the idea of the petition was simply to show opposition to the incinerator, however the full story in the GP says it is to support Rodney’s alternative. If this is the case, this could explain the low number of signatures, compared to most peoples experience of for and against views in conversation.
I was saying I would happily sign a petition that dissed Suez, but not one that bigs up Rodney’s.
That is simply for the reason I do not believe either of them is a suitable system.
bcb
I was simply commenting on the story stating that Rodney said that the donations were not bribes and in the very next sentence saying there was ten grand in it, for any charities that get signatures. I was simply pointing out that this was pretty much the definition of a bribe.
Make no mistake this is very much a money making venture, a big one. Rodney’s no fool, he knows there are millions to be made.
Good luck to him if he can pull it off.
I just won’t be one of the signatures.
Report abuse
Surely what we have to do is stop wasting time with petitions and each write to each and every deputy, urging them to reconsider and start the process again. Re-open the tender, open up the specifications and lets get it right this time – yes it might cost money to do – but it could save us in the long run. The conversations i have had with deps about this has shown me that basically they know that startin again is the right thing to do – just no one is brave enough to stand up and say it – and the others arent brave enough to support it. They would rather save face and go down in history as the deputies that potentially ruined Gsy rather then admit they were wrong. Dep Jones et al – you have never shyed away from a fight – never afraid to voice your opinions – grasp the nettle and rally your colleagues and get this process started again – and make sure it is done properly. Nothing against Bernie Flouquet but I think he and his dept have made a mistake and they MUST hold their hands up and make it right, now before it is too late.
Report abuse
Like most on this thread I’m opposed to mass burn as a means of dealing with our waste but I won’t be signing the petition. Partly because I don’t think it will do any good but mainly because the organiser has ruined any credibility that it might have had by openly encouraging parents to get their children to sign it as well. Did you hear Rodney try to justify this approach on Radio Guernsey this morning? An own goal if ever I saw one!
Report abuse
Martino
For thos of us that missed it can you tell us what was said??
Report abuse
The Man
To paraphrase, he said it was the future of Guernsey children that was at stake so they had every right to have their names on the petition too. Don’t take my word for it, go to the BBC Guernsey ‘listen again’ web page. Anyway it made me cringe because I could just imagine hostile deputies lining up to shoot down such a flawed petition. As others have said, all-adult petitions have such a low currency among deputies anyway, without kids being invited to sign them too.
Report abuse
Martino
Thanks for that, I’ll take a listen later on.
Personally I agree with you that childrens signitures would weaken the status of the petition.
I think it may have been better to keep it to adults but then to be fair only use the adult population when calculting what % of people have signed it (which is the inevitable measure of a petition).
i.e if there are 20,000 minors (not sure of the figures so that is a wild guess), then 5,000 adults have signed which represents over 10% of the adult population. That would have been better than using children imho.
Report abuse
I was looking at the this is Jersey forum regarding the current climate change debate, and was deeply saddened to see that a large percentage of the people voicing their opinion on the subject have chosen to believe the convenient argument that climate change has been going on for centuries, so that somehow ‘proves’ that man’s pollution contribution has nothing to do with the climate changes we’re currently experiencing….thus enabling them to continue doing exactly as they please, as there’ll apparently be absolutely no consequences.
This dubious logic reminds me of a well educated and intelligent doctor I spoke to once, who was quite adamant that as a smoker, he didn’t believe that it caused cancer, as he’d treated children who’d had lung cancer, but they’d never smoked….
I am sure that there are many States members who are delighted the media are assisting us all to focus is on irrelevant semantics and dearly hoping that it continues to deflect public attention away from what the real debate is here, which is surely not about who said what, or statistics of who wants what, but about what our Government SHOULD be doing to ensure a long, safe and healthy future for us and the rest of this planet that we’re part of?
Report abuse
Scarlett, it is very conceited to believe that mankind has such a profound influence on the climate. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 380ppm, and this is perfectly in line with the expected increase as the cycle of planetary warming and cooling that has been going on since the birth of the planet. We are currently near the peak of a 10,000 year spell of global warming, before we descend into the next ice age.
Then you’ve got the effect of solar radiation on the CO2 release from the oceans (where the vast majority of CO2 is stored), exposure and subsequent rotting (with CO2 release) of the arctic tundra. Mankind is a teeny tiny scratch on the surface of the planet, and all these fancy initiatives barely qualify as a band-aid. The planet will be just fine. It’s mankind who are in trouble.
Report abuse
Steve Le Cheminant
You say
Make no mistake this is very much a money making venture, a big one. Rodney’s no fool, he knows there are millions to be made.
Good luck to him if he can pull it off.
R B has publicly said he is not in it for the money, so it would seem you have made your mind up about what his motives are? can we assume he is a liar?.
Steve i have not made a mistake as i believe RB in wat he says. Do you believe Suez and the promoters over here who stand to make a lot of money out of this really believe it is whats best for the island or best for them?.
Report abuse
And to add to bcb’s post
This is Rodneys second attempt at stopping Suez, the first attempt was the Jersey shipping option which would have had no benefit to him whatsoever.
The alternative wouldnt go ahead without RB’s help, so why shouldnt he have an interest seeing as he will be bearing half the risk??
Report abuse
I have to respond to The Man, December 17, 2009 at 2:12 pm.
A charitable donation is a gift without stings attached. Anything else is a bargain of some kind.
When the “donation” is being offered in exchange for a lucrative contract to some one or some body not a party to the contract what euphemism would you use instead of bribe?
Report abuse
Ted
My moral compass works as follows
“Charitable Donations”
=Philanthropy or Corporate Social Responsibility
“Bribery”
=Politicians pockets
Highlighting CSR is not bribery, anyone who would think that in this situation is cynical at best.
Report abuse
bcb
I have not heared RB say he is not in it for the money so can’t comment on that.
Do you, however, believe that RB is going to donate £20M of his own money for the benefit of the island out of the goodness of his heart?
It might interest you to know, that at £80 a tonne he would recover his investment in less than 4 years.
My company Total Waste, knows this only to well as we offered to build a plant FOC 4 years ago with a gate charge of £60 a tonne and 10% equity holding to the States.
I gave RB all the figures so he knows only too well its a good earner.
Make no mistake Suez is a huge rip off. Ask any incinerator manufacturer or operator in the world how much a 50 000 tpa plant will cost.
I can guarantee it won’t be anywhere near £93.5M. I have heard severalmanufacturers holding their sides in fits of laughter when told how much Bernie is paying.
I fully support Jan’s requette in the States, I have however asked Deputies to ammend the requette to include all local companies who were precluded from tendering or misled on the tender requirements by PSD.
Also remember when Bernie keeps on saying how the States chose Suez as the best option from a list of tenders, he is being economical with the truth. He chose Suez. The States chose Suez as an alternative to nothing as that was the choice they were given, because they voted to have a choice of 1, when they rejected the Le Pelley ammendment.
Apart from a few Deputies this assembly has been a flock of sheep shepperded by idiots.
He also claims that experts have done all the work and checked all the figures. I hope they wer’nt the same ones used by Jersey.
Their incinerator is now apparently big enough to handle all their waste, our waste and Alderney’s waste with capacity to spare.
And just to top the cake, check Bernie’s recycling claims. 50% he says, domestic waste will be incinerated with no sorting, up to 50% of commercial waste will be recycled. I’m no mathamatician but isnt 50% of 50% 25%. Thats 10% lower than where we are now.
Do everything you can to prevent the Suez plant going ahead.
Report abuse
Student Bob.
Thank you for so perfectly regurgitating the exact same convenient arguments I was expressing my concern about.
It’s saved our fellow forum fans the tedious task of having to look them on the This is Jersey version.
Report abuse
Blimey Student Bob, I had to read that twice to recognise what’s what. One reason that Arnald has become so barbed is because such subtlety is entirely lost in text based banter.
I got a taxi ride today from town to Cobo. “what’s all this climate change nonsense” after observing that it was cold outside.
Cue real Arnald, who isn’t much different to Arnald Arnald. Sadly for the ladies out there.
I’ve become quite good at this game.
Be sceptical if you like, but you’ll be wrong.
The only vaguaries are in the outcomes. The basic science is sound. Like an apple falling.
What that fallen apple means is open to conjecture on certain aspects of life. Releasing hundreds of millions of years fixed carbon in a few hundred years is observable truth.
Anyone who disagrees with basic science are akin to creationists and flat earthers.
sorry guys, that laughable.
Report abuse
oh and SB if it isn’t sarcasm then you need to look at your books a bit harder, just for those that have used such a ridiculous argument to base their useless case on.
i’m probably a couple of decades in front of you, researchwise, environmental sciences being my first first base. At UEA. Under a close friend of the guy that’s on telly all the time. They were saying it then and being laughed at. They are saying EXACTLY the same thing now and being derided by armchair and big business stooges for the sake of ten more years of collective rape.
The planet will be ‘alright’ but OUR HUMAN BIOSPHERE, as you say, will not. So folks, as I presume his sarcasm or not is learned, within three generations – think about your ‘local heritage’ and them ole photos of trams and stuff,and all those old storries passed down WILL MEAN NOTHING.
Your parents will mean nothing
We live better than kings at everyone elses expense. It will bite us hard on the donkey-hybrid.
As The Cure sang
A Hundred Years
get that reference heads
Report abuse
Thanks for taking the time to write meaningless replies guys. It would have been nice if someone could have offered even the smallest morsel of evidence that mankind IS responsible for global warming/climate change.
You know, I’m not disputing that its happening, I’m just disputing the common misconception that it’s all my fault and that I really need to be controlled more by Government to stop me destroying the planet. Don’t get me wrong, I love the planet. It’s where I keep all my stuff. I’m just of the opinion that we need to accept and adapt to change rather than trying to make it go away.
Report abuse
Steve Le Cheminant
Leaving the RB part aside i agree with everything else you posted and it was indeed a very good informative post and very truthful.
I don`t think we need to ask anyone about the suez rip-off as a quick search will tell us exactly what you rightly point out.
Also i wonder if someone could point out to Mike Hadley re the sunday phone in that just because you can`t see smoke pouring out of the chimmney it doesn`t mean there is no pollution (as he seems to suggest).
I couldn`t help shakeing my head in dissbelief and disgust.
Report abuse
bcb.
Just to clarify.
Are you saying that you believe that RB is donating his money and will make nothing out of this?
Report abuse
Steve
I thought it was a joint venture loan which would have been paid back with interest and not RB donating his own money, but i stand to be corrected.
If i am mistaken in thinking he was not in it for the money then ofcourse you are right to point that out too.
I think you are probably better informed on this than i am so i do take your point.
One thing we do agree on is that it is better than suez and like you i dont want to see it go ahead.
Report abuse
bcb.
Yes I believe it is a joint venture.
My point was that it is a very lucrative venture. I was under the impression that you believed it was some kind of selfless gesture on RBs part.
My apologies if that was not your position.
My personal view is that RB stumbled on to the financial oportunity at the eleventh and a half hour. This is a huge media assult on his behalf to win public support.
I feel that there is a danger of public support backing this as a kneejerk reaction as part of a general dislike of the Suez proposal.
A garden center manager and a cosmetics distributor can put up the money, but it does not nessasarally give them the correct expertise to run a waste plant
It worries me that RB won’t answer some questions, such as where he will get steam from without using energy or burning waste, and that most of his supporters don’t seem to care.
That is the main reason that I support the requette but not RB.
If you look at the process itself, it’s just slighty better than land fill.
Yes it works but its not exactly sustainable or particulally environmentally friendly.
He also assumes that he will be allowed to build it at Mont Cuet, why should he be allowed to when the States have designated Longue Houge to everybody else?
If RB has to fund the £30M+ required to prepare Longue Houge to be suitable for building, will his figures still stand?
Or will he suddenly revise them after the States have accepted his proposal?
Too many questions not enough answers for my liking.
Report abuse
Student Bob. I’m no more in favor of being controlled by the Government than the next man. Far, far less, actually.
What I AM in favor of is mankind taking a tiny modicum of responsibility for it’s actions without having to be ‘told’, and realising that we cannot act like spoilt children, treating this planet as our personal playground to pollute and plunder at will, FOREVER, without some dire consequences.
Yes, the planet went through many changes before man turned up, and will after we have hastened our own demise, but whilst we’re here, the decent thing to do would be to start acting like decent tenants, and leave the accomodation at least resembling the way we found it for the enjoyment of it’s other residents.
Report abuse
Steve
Presumably if the the requete is sucessful then it would result in a new tender process where PSD rather than the public would choose a new method, be it your solution RB’s solution the Jersey option or any other method.
In that respect given you would have then have a second bite of the cherry I would feel you should be very thankful towards Rodney.
You talk of a sustained media campaign, then that is to his credit, he has been a major player in forcing our deputies to rethink, which is a massive aceheivement in itself.
Seeing as potentially you could benefit massively from this now. I havent seen any of your attempts to stop suez, yet you now seem to be dismissing his abilities.
I am 99% sure that Rodneys primary motivation was getting the Suez proposal stopped, given he campaigned hard for the Jersey option prior to this, he has latched onto this new option because he appears to never give up.
Also Steve, one would assume that given its a joint venture with a specialist company, that he wouldnt have his garden centre staff operating it if he were successful.
Report abuse
STOP!! Enough said, cut the cackle,DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, ACTION NEEDED NOW, SIGN! FOR R B.
Report abuse
Oh Roy, you’ve convinced me, let’s cut the cackle indeed. Shouting and repeating the same message will eventually get to me – where do I sign?
Report abuse
The Man.
Quite right, if the States open up the tendering window again, not if they simply handed the contract to RB.
You obviously have not taken any interest in the waste situation until quite recently, or you would be aware of my attempts to gain the waste contract.
My attempts go back over the previous 4 years, long before Suez came along.
I don’t believe a media campaign on my behalf would have had any effect at all, as like yourself 90% of the population had not heard of or cared about any upcomming doom in the waste sector.
You yourself are quite vocal on here, I believe this is in reaction to Suez, as I don’t recall you making any representations against incineration until recently.
I have had several pieces in the GP and on CTV over the past few years, I have been in constant contact with all deputies over the past 2 assemblies. I have had several meetings with PSD and ENV over the past 2 assemblies. I gave my proposal to the waste panel, and I submitted a tender even though I had been precluded.
Im sorry if you feel this was not enough, but I tried my best.
If you read my previous posts, I thanked RB for the anti Suez publicity and wished him good luck over Suez.
I don’t mean my posts to come across as sour grapes, however I am a Guernseyman and would not like to see the island make a big mistake.
It is my view that RBs system, whilst better than Suez, is not the best choice for the island.
Yes I am bound to champion my own solution.
If you care to email me at totalwastegsy@hotmail.com I will be happy to send you some details and some information to give you a chance to understand where I am comming from.
If you recall RB was all for shipping to Jersey before he decided to go for the contract himself.
If his actions are as selfless as some seem to believe he will surely shortly withdraw and support shipping to Jersey again.
This again is a bad option but thats another story for another thread.
Report abuse
Steve
I will email you for your details, thanks for that.
I guess in some way the point I am trying to make is I think all the opponents of Suez should stick together for the time being, certainly until the requete is successfull (which I now beleive it will be).
I feel we should at least wait until we havent got the burny still hanging over us before we start demeriting the other potential solutions and people involved, I feel any detracting now could give Bernie more ammo against the requete.
I honestly dont think the states will hand RB the contract, I think it will go to tender, but this time with a fair, transparent and most of all OPEN process which gives all options a chance.
Report abuse
The Man and Steve Le Cheminant
You both make valid points and are at least in agreement with one thing, like myself we don`t need this monster of bernie`s.
Steve
Reading back to my earlier posts i can see the inpression i could have given regarding RB in it for the money. My main point which i don`t think i made clearly enough was that i don`t think it was his motivation to get involved.
Report abuse
Just a few thoughts on the petition.
Surely anyone eligible to be on the electoral roll is eligible to sign the petition. No need to actually be on the roll.
Anyone else should be able to sign, but their non-eligibility should be clearly indicated, e.g. “under-age” or “visitor”.
As past experience has showed, petitions are largely ignored by the States: they are regarded as publicity. An exception would be a petition with a majority of those eligible to be on electoral roll. The implied threat to States members at the next election would radically alter their thought processes.
On the subject of referenda, it is often said that they are not legal here. That is sort of true. If the States voted to have a referendum, however, then that vote would make the referendum legal.
Report abuse
I love it, for 4+ years we have been proposing our system which includes RDF and Bio Mass gasification.
The States have continuously said, its unproven and unsuitable technology for Guernsey.
Now Jan Kattlewascher rides into town on his white charger, shouting “I have the solution”.
Guess what it is, yeaaa gasification.
What changed your mind Jan? On second thoughts, no need to answer that, I think I can guess.
Report abuse
The Vantage process reminds me of a ‘green coal’ MBT process that sounded great but never got beyond pilot plants and was then cancelled. How many Vantage plants are in action, how long have they been working and how much waste do they handle? Obvious questions before signing any petition.
Report abuse
@The Man
according to that poll, out of a non representative 1/30th of the population, only 1/5th of whom expressed an opinion, 2/3rds are against the Suez proposal. Interesting perhaps, but it certainly cannot be taken to indicate overall public opinion.
And even if it could, it should be noted that the same proportion accept that some form of incinerator is necessary. Or likely. It’s difficult to say because the question is so badly worded as to render their answers meaningless …..
Report abuse
I wonder how many people who have signed the petition are actually against the incinerator or are against the 93 million or so being spent on it. In my business I meet an awful lot of people daily and many of them have been wearing orange ribbons, so I have said,”I see you are against the incinerator” and every single reply has been , well its the money, the cost of it all. No one has mentioned the health aspect of it, just what the money could be better spent on, when every department seems to be in dire straights, seems logical to me.
Report abuse
Yah Toby. Much better to flush £250m down the toilet. That is what this EFW nonsense will cost us. But never mind a few good friends of yours are in the pay so thats ok then.
Report abuse
The Man…
I agree with your point that opponents of the Suez proposal should unite together at this point, in order to achieve the most important aim that we all share….. to get rid of the Suez proposal. Once that is done, then all the various options need to be looked at with fresh eyes. The Rethink campaign was started with this in mind. It simply asks the Deputies to ‘Rethink’ the waste solution…. to bin the present Suez solution that is on the table and to Rethink the whole thing in order to come up with a better idea.
RETHINK!
“Fly an orange ribbon (from your car, house, bicycle, umbrella, dog…) to tell your deputies that you want them to rethink the Suez Incinerator proposal and instead implement a cheaper, cleaner way of dealing with our waste that creates local jobs and keeps more of the money in the island”.
Report abuse
@Daniel – I don’t know who you think I am or my friends are …. But I don’t directly know of anyone who is set to make money of Suez.
As for my preferred waste solution ? The pixie macerator …. Apparently they can set it up Boxing Day, ready to take all our Christmas waste. They’ll pay us to take our rubbish, it emits no fumes, and all the process leaves at the end is fairy dust which we can release into the atmosphere to spread nothing bit joy and laughter into the world ……
Anything else the States chooses won’t be ideal …… Surely nobody thinks burning our rubbish is ideal any more than just throwing it in holes in the ground ?
In my opinion Suez has 3 , and only 3 things going for it – we can be certain it will work, we have a completion date for it and we know the majority of the States agreed to it. And those are 3 very important pluses against the many minuses …..
Yes there are better/ cheaper / cleaner alternatives out there, but then there always will be ( until the pixies put in their proposal ). I would lobe and support a fully worked out, timetabled , scrutinised alternative to the Suez waste od energy plant to be put forward and approved within the next few months …… but the cynic in me feels that given the government we have that will never happen ….
Report abuse
Toby
I think you are talking the same language as some of our deputies. You think there are better solutions and that suez is the wrong one?, But lets just go ahead with it anyway because were fed up with talking about it? I feel thats exactly what some deputies are thinking. Maybe we should pay them a bonus to get the best from them just like the bankers?.
Also i dont think the majority of the states would have voted for it if they were given some alternatives. Do you remember what Matt Fallaize said in the debate? He voted with dave jones but because it didn`t go through he felt he had to vote for suez because there was nothing else to vote on. How many others felt the same?. Flouquet did a great job in making sure he got what HE wanted.
Report abuse
@bcb
there is always going to be a better solution around the corner …. Sooner or later you have to decide on something that isn’t perfect but that is here …
I fear that if you give the States any chance to reverse a difficult decision they’ll leap at it …… And then be totally incapable of making any alternative choice ….
By all means throw out Suez which I think we all agree isn’t the best solution ….. But there had better be an alternative ready straight away that everybody can agree on or we’ll be in an even worse situation than we are now ….
Report abuse
Toby.
You make the mistake of thinking that we need to find a waste plant that fulfils the same roll as Suez. We don’t. A fraction of the money destined to be spent on Suez, spent instead on enhancing our recycling streams, would totally negate the need for any large over-sized waste plant. It has been shown how we could reduce our residual waste down to 20,000 tonnes relatively easily. We do not need to be buying a plant that deals with 50,000+ tonnes.
If the investment was instead focused on the front end of the waste stream,
Report abuse
Toby
You keep saying there will always be a better solution just around the corner? It isn`t just around the corner there are some that were always there, as others have pointed out like rosie. The problem is that none of them are what Bernie wanted.
Report abuse
It’s very hard work representing my client Mr Lucifer sometimes ….
If someone can put forward an alternative waste solution to the States, one that is proven to work on a similar scale to that which the island requires, which passes full financial scrutiny, that has a guaranteed installation date, it gets my whole hearted support.
Nobody in their right mind can think that incineration is an ideal solution ….. The same as landfill, posting to Jersey arent ideal. Yes recycling more would help, but given that with increased recycling our waste still keeps building up I can’t see it as a final solution.
If you give our polititians any chance to change their minds, in the hopes of chasing voter poularity they will. Regardless of any practical alternative existing …. Or not …..
I’m not saying the process that led up to the Suez choice was perfect, I’m not saying Suez is ideal, I’m not saying it’s what anyone really wants ……. But it’s there, and to throw it away without a fully worked out alternative would be just as bad ( and I agree it’s bad ) as letting it blindly go ahead ….
Report abuse
I have just returned from Mont Cuet recycling area, what a mess around and about that area, also the potholes are a disgrace, you have to wear your wellies for sure. But on our return from Mont Cuet my husband noticed the awful smell from there was in the car which is understandable and we did not think anymore about it until we reached our house at Bordeaux and because we had left our windows open yes that putrid smell from Mont Cuet had reached our house, the wind must be in the right/wrong directon to catch us, well it is awful and we had a job to get rid of the smell, so to all those people who want to build up Mont Cuet by 20 feet, forget it, the people who live closer must be fed up with that awful smell, I must say that is the first time we have noticed it. It is usually a sulphur smell from the power station.
Report abuse
Toby,
You are still thinking that we need a plant that replaces Suez. Something of the same size…. a kind of one size fits all solution…. a big magical plant that is going to somehow disappear all our rubbish. But we wouldn’t need ANY ‘one’ big plant if the money was instead spent on reduction and recycling. It’s our whole way of thinking about rubbish and our waste strategy that needs rethinking. The vast majority of our waste is not waste…… it is a resource that can be re-circulated into useful products.
The RA solution that was put forward last July is still the best solution. The costs were roughly drawn out and showed that, not only would it have cost Guernsey tens of millions less than Suez, but it would also have generated a yearly revenue for the States. It would, (or could) be up and running 2 years earlier than Suez.
The RA solution was simply based on the idea of Reduction and Recycling, using and enhancing businesses that already exist in Guernsey, and providing them with the space in which to develop….(Longue Hougue). With source separation, the different types of waste can be dealt with in ways that would maximise the value of the waste. Any equipment needed can be bought off the shelf, rather than the expense of having something bespoke (like Suez). The money would have all stayed within the island and local businesses would have benefited. With Suez, over £200million will be spent over the duration of the contract and a good deal of that will disappear off island.
As long as we are fixated on this idea that we have to have one huge big shiny brand-new splendiferous machine that is going to disappear our waste into thin air (there is no such thing!), then we will be doomed to end up with a totally inappropriate solution like the Suez proposal.
Report abuse
Rosie, we need something !!!!!
This is Guernsey, you are NEVER going to achieve 100% recycling by whatever means, anymore than you are going to get people to reduce car usage, or politicians to make a sensible decision, stick to ANY decision , or stop spending money ( OUR money) that they don’t seem to realise we don’t have ….
There is always going to be a significant amount of waste that actually is just that – waste, with no other use. We have to deal with that. We can’t just keep on throwing it in holes in the ground, and I would hope we could be responsible enough to deal with it ourselves, and not just export the problem
to someone, and somewhere, else.
Report abuse
Toby.
It has been shown that we could reduce our ‘residual’ waste down to 20,000 tonnes quite easily if a relatively small investment was made at the front end of the waste stream. That would mean we would need a plant less than half the size of the Suez proposal. Dealing with a residual waste of only 20,000 tonnes is quite a different problem than planning to deal with a waste pile of 70,000 tonnes which is what the tendering document asked for.
For 20,000 tonnes you do NOT need a large bespoke plant with a mass-burn incinerator capable of burning 41,500 tonnes. It is totally unnecessary and as you have rightly pointed out, we do NOT have the money for it. For 20,000 tonnes, the components needed to deal with that amount, can all be bought off the shelf. Or, provided the bio-element is removed from the waste at source, there would be no reason why you could not landfill the residual waste since it would not create methane. Because there would be so little to put into landfill, there would be enough space for many decades.
I never said the we could achieve a 100% recycling target….. yet. It is likely however, to be possible in the future. But why would we want to spend far more money than is necessary, buying a plant that will lock us into an unsustainable method of waste disposal for the next 30 years. What that will do to our finances is bad enough, but it won’t be doing our reputation any favours either!
Report abuse
Billythefish- Dec 17, 2009 at 11:19 am
“And why did Gary Burgess refer to a £93m incinerator this morning??
And why do people think that the States are having to pay for the Suez plant???”
The capital cost of the Suez plant is £93m which is probably why Gary refered to it as that.
People think that States are paying for the Suez plant because they are paying for it. Out of our savings. We (the rate payers) are then going to have to pay them back over the 25 year contract. That will be the £93m + 4.75% interest yearly, and that will be before running costs. The amount you pay will not be dependent on how little waste you generate. The cost will have to be repaid whatever you do with your waste… so no incentive to recycle there then!
Report abuse