IF, AS anticipated, a petition urging the States to pause before ratifying its preferred waste solution is published tomorrow, there will be just three weeks left before Guernsey irrevocably commits itself to a £93.5m. incinerator – or steps back from the brink.
Ask most islanders and it is a no-brainer. The proposed plant is too huge, too ruinously expensive and too scarily polluting – especially when the Brouard alternative is waiting in the wings to dispose of Guernsey’s waste for free.
Public Services’ response to public opinion, however, is to ignore it. What people – those who will pay, one way or another – think of the proposals is of no account. What matters is persuading 47 States members to back PSD’s burner-based strategy.
Now, many of those 47 are looking increasingly marginalised from those who look to their deputies to represent their views in the Assembly.
That division will not be helped by today’s contribution in page 10 from Andy Hall, who heads the Garenne Group. As such, he is Mr Construction in Guernsey, with a career’s worth of experience behind him, including incinerators.
The other telling point in his coming out so firmly against the Suez project is that it could cost the Garenne Group money. Yet he and his fellow directors believe that incineration is so wrong for Guernsey that they are prepared to sacrifice profit to warn islanders that the States is about to make a terrible mistake.
It is also clear that there is growing support for the alternatives.
Why won’t the States back them? In a word, fear. What if the alternatives don’t work – what will that do to the reputation of an already damaged Assembly?
Yet what islanders want is for PSD to manage that risk. If Jersey can and will take our waste, does that not provide a 15-year window in which to verify the Brouard alternative? If it fails, refuse can be exported until Guernsey goes for another on-island solution, incineration if necessary.
Yes, there might be a price to pay to Suez at this late stage, but if islanders were asked, they would regard a few million as cheap if it meant confirming that a £93.5m. incinerator wasn’t, after all, needed.
Article posted on 4th February, 2010 - 2.33pm
11 Article Comments
Unless I’ve totally misunderstood the level of Mr Brouard’s philanthropy, no one is offering to dispose of Guernsey’s waste for free.
I think you ought to make that clear with the same prominence you give to the original assertion.
Report abuse
Andy Hall’s letter (Press today) does make a compelling case for rejecting the Suez proposals.
Hopefully the 47 deputies will read the letter and read the writing on the wall.
Time to forget face saving or any promises made and do the right thing. Walk away from this daft proposal. If it means Floquet resigns in protest – an even better result.
Report abuse
I was at the Bulwer Avenue recycling centre on Thursday looking for a TV that didn’t accept BBC signals when I was pestered by dozens of strange little flying insects.
I asked one of the guys in a yellow jacket what they were and he said ” Oh they’re Blera Fallax,we’ve been inundated with them ever since we started taking in scrap wood”.
I can’t say that I’ve ever seen this type of insect before. I don’t know anything about them but if they bite I’m certainly not going back there without my trusty aerosol.
Report abuse
Blera Fallax is the latin name for a kind of hover fly. Totally harmless (unless you have a wooden leg.)
Report abuse
What a terrible, terrible reason to forge on with the Suez proposal because, to quote deputy Parkinson in today’s Press:’…..£8m would have been spent on successive procurement processes…’
Yes, of course, that is a lot of money – but a fraction of the cost of committing ourselves to an overlarge, unsightly, unsafe, over-expensive, outdated,damaging to the environment, incinerator.
Deputies who do not vote for the requete because of those sorts of reasons should be ashamed – and will suffer when it comes to election time. Deputy Parkinson has already announced he is leaving – so obviously can’t be bothered to think about it any more!
Report abuse
I cannot understand why we would go forward with the Suez contract, when we already have a better option.
Why not allow Stan Brouard to prove his system, at no cost to the Tax Payer and proceed with a system to allow waste to be sent to Jersey as an insurance. Total cost, aborting Suez say £3.5m plus £4m for new waste transport operation, total £7.5m versus a big mistake at 93.5M+.
If for any reason the Stan Brouard option fails, as in ‘not up to the job’ then we ship the waste to Jersey for ten years or so, meanwhile, in that time ‘Incinerator’ type waste plants may be totally banned in Europe/UK/CI and many more far cheaper options could be reviewed, with, by then, a track record.
Report abuse
I fully support Deputy Kuttelwascher’s requete.Andy Hall’ letter in favour of alternative waste disposal methods must be heeded by our head in the sand politicians before it is too late to reject Suez.So it may cost a few million but the States have squandered many more millions due to poor management.How many States members have professional qualifications to enable them to understand most of the multi-million pound schemes they approve.Not many if any.For once in a blue moon face up to the obvious.You made the wrong choice with Suez,you should have the guts to admit it.
Report abuse
george
I’m not sure that the States made the WRONG choice.
They were only presented with the ONE choice by honest Bernie, and even then he had to bend the tendering rules.
It’s looking more and more like the faceless Civil Servants who drew up the tender specs got it completely wrong right from the start.
The States have one last chance to save some face with the Kuttelwascher requete.
I hope the Press print the voting results.
Report abuse
Ray,
Isn’t Blera Fallax an endangered species ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blera_fallax
now wouldn’t it be funny if this area became a conservation area as a result :)
Report abuse
Jamie
I’ve no idea what a Blera Fallax looks like but the guy in the yellow jacket seemed to be quite certain.
I doubt that Guernsey could afford to write off a
land area that big just because of a pesky fly, endangered species or not.
Report abuse
This article implies that if the Kuttelwascher requete does not succeed then we will be irrevocably commited to Suez. Why? The contract will not have been signed by then. Planning permission will not have been granted by then. There is nothing to stop a different requete being brought. This is but a battle in a much bigger war.
Report abuse