PUBLIC SERVICES has issued a ‘back us or stop us’ ultimatum to deputies ahead of this month’s requete debate on the planned incinerator.
In an in-depth interview with the Guernsey Press, Minister Bernard Flouquet (pictured) spoke candidly about the challenge facing his department to convince deputies to back their original decision for Suez Environnement’s £93.5m. incinerator.
The States accepted PSD’s recommendation in July last year that Suez be approved to develop the plant. But that decision proved unpopular with a large section of the community and deputies came under increasing pressure to perform a U-turn on the deal.
If approved, Deputy Jan Kuttelwascher’s requete would require PSD to return to the States when it is in a position to sign the final contract with Suez – after planning permission is granted and a number of other tasks have been completed.
Deputy Flouquet questioned the true motive of the requete and suggested a more-closely defined and direct approach would have been more appropriate.
‘The tender process is a commitment by us to the people who wish to bid. You cannot then turn around to the winner and say “well done, but now we have another game for you to play”.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
Article posted on 6th February, 2010 - 2.30pm
63 Article Comments
Easy
BIN
Next!
Report abuse
If the other States Members need “convincing” that this is a good idea, surely that must mean he thinks it’s a bad idea, but wants everybody in the government to love him, look what he’s done to Roy Bisson.
I’d also like to point out, that he hasn’t a clue what us, the public want.
Report abuse
Back us or bin us ?
Vote (b)
Report abuse
The only good waste saver idea for this Island and all of us Islanders is to get rid of all the flaming idiots we have that are supposed to be helping to improve the state of this island at present.
What GG says on his comment in this matter is spot on.
We simply have not got the money to pay for this, unless of course some of the States members want to lower their salaries.
No chance of that me thinks!
Report abuse
Deputy Flouquet
The population of Guernsey (apart from Roy Bisson, of course) simply doesn’t trust you, either to be open and honest, or to competently recommend the most appropriate and economically-viable solutions to major projects. You are, very simply, completely out of your depth.
What further invitation do you require to actually resign ?
You now say: “Back us or bin us”, presumably to your fellow politicians. God only knows what answer you will get from them, although most of them are hopefully listening to the public, especially those who intend to get re-elected in 2 years time. If you are asking the general population to “Back us or bin us” then you are surely in no doubt what the overwhelming answer would be.
You are proposing a waste solution which is inappropriate for Guernsey and which Guernsey cannot afford. You have never publicly explained why you have declined the eminently sensible offer from Jersey to export our waste to there, an offer which is seemingly still very much open, nor have you been remotely interested in the Rodney Brouard or other proposals. Why not ?
You will gain infinitely more respect from the people of Guernsey if you had the guts to accept that you may have got it wrong and that the current incinerator solution isn’t right for Guernsey.
You may well view it as a loss of face and a loss of credibility to withdraw the proposal at this late stage, but I doubt if you will enjoy your retirement years in Guernsey with the legacy of the incinerator proposal if it gets passed. Guernsey people will never simply never forgive you or forget that it was you who imposed it on us.
Its time for you to do the decent thing and simply accept that you’ve backed the wrong horse. Its not too late to repair some of the damage to your reputation and not let your pride impose this massive white elephant on the people of Guernsey to bear the burden, in both health and financial terms, for generations to come.
If it costs £8m to walk away from this proposal, then that’s one of the best uses of £8m that Guernsey will ever make. It shouldn’t be viewed as a loss, but as a massive saving in both monetary and human health terms.
Report abuse
BIN BIN BIN
Report abuse
bin
Report abuse
Bin- Bin- Bin- Bin-
Thats four in the family Oh and bin bin for the sake of my two granchildrens health and wealth
Report abuse
BIN Suez and BIN BF !!
And here’s just a couple of reasons why:
1) The people of Guernsey don’t want it …. you know those people who you represent?
2) Cost – overpriced and unaffordable.
3) Health concerns – it might meet EU regs but it still introduces / raises harmful elements in the air we breath – would you stick your head in the flue for an hour or two to prove it’s safe?
4) 25 Years is too long to back one horse. You’d be left with an old heifer if you didn’t have to put it down before then.
5) High probability that better opportunities present themselves (as we are beginning to see now)
6) Does not give an incentive to Re-cycling, in fact it does the complete opposite.
7) BF loves to say how he followed the states tender process, yet non of the tenders passed this process, he did not go back to the states to let them reconsider their requirements but took it on himself to change the tender process. Instead he waited to the final hour to present their preferred bidder effectively backing states members into a very tight corner. Anyone that needs to use political manipulation to get backing is not acting in our best interests.
8) The waste arising figures are flawed and full of inaccuracies. The largest being the expected rate of growth. To produce the amount of waste projected would mean Guernsey’s population needs to grow to the point that half of us are living in the sea.
9) Manipulation of numbers …. oh there is so much of this, but here is one I like. “The gate fees wont change much” what BF fails to tell you is that current gate fees pay a nice tidy profit to PSD. In the same billet as the Suez proposal, he is requesting more funds from Treasury to make up for this shortfall in the PSD department as a result of accepting the Suez deal.
10) Land use – the suez proposal is too big and wastes land (a very valuable resoure in Guernsey). A smaller footprint facility would allow the area to be utilised for other purposes such as light industry /fred in the shed businesses and earn a modest rental income for the states (us).
I could go on and on ……
Report abuse
Bin please.
Report abuse
Jamie for Chief Minister !
As for point 10 …. land being such a valuable resource …. I think I’m right in saying that the work and materials to form the reclamation site cost £10M ?
Why don’t we sell the whole site to a property developer for squillions ( for a type of Fort- George-by-the-sea estate ) and use part of that money for a smaller waste unit and the rest for projects that would really do some good for the struggling Guernseyman
Report abuse
The simplest question I’ve ever been asked. Bin.
Report abuse
Bin BF, BIN PSD – and those Deputies supporting the incinerator proposal.
They are all so out of touch with the alternatives how can we rely on any them to properly understand the Island’s needs in future?
Report abuse
I listened to the BBC radio Guernsey phone in today and I have to say it did little to allay my fears that our government is totally unfit for purpose
This applied to many of the subjects they discussed but I will concentrate on the waste subject.
Both guests were sticking firmly to the PSD line, incineration is the only technology that works.
However they must have missed this article, as Bernie has changed tactics somewhat, he now seems to be claiming that other technologies do work, but only if you buy them from Suez.
It amazed me that only 2 years on from being a paper boy, one deputy can now dismiss other technologies as unproven, despite their widespread use around the world and having successfully processed millions of tonnes of waste materials.
Forget university if you want to be an expert in any field, simply get elected to the States.
The other guest can state that no other companies offered any other technologies.
She is either a very good liar or a bit too dim to be an effective deputy.
Anybody who has read the press, listened to the radio, watched TV or attended any number of presentations over the past few years knows that to be a falsehood.
Why would deputies close ranks to protect this project?
They know it is unpopular, they have to know it is vastly overpriced compared to similar systems.
They must be aware of Suez’s reputation, they must be aware of the dozens of disappointed customers and of the cancellation of orders for Suez systems.
If they are unaware, it means they have not bothered to check out any aspect of the whole proposal.
If so they cannot claim to be giving good representation to the public.
Come on States, pull out now, restart the tendering process alongside a public enquiry into this shameful exercise.
If this does not happen, I call on the honest deputies in the States to lodge a requette, that all deputies who vote for Suez accept that they are personally 100% confident in the honesty of the process and except responsibility legally and financially if it goes belly up. They can accept Bernies word for it if they like, or they can check it out for themselves.
Bin please
Report abuse
You would have thought that Guernsey would have jumped at the opportunity to send all their rubbish to Jersey!
Report abuse
Can anyone remember a worse States than the one we currently have?
Spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need or want, allowing once beautiful areas of the island to be ‘Mooarc-ised’ beyond all recognition for the sole benefit of the wealthy, introducing ridiculous unsustainable tax regimes to the detriment of islanders for the sole purpose of desperately hanging onto the only industry they care about, regardless of the fact the rest of the world has moved on, and off-shores are about as popular as herpes (then announcing the alternative to the competition. Genius), and to top it all off, acting like total CHILDREN, making threats, having tantrums over who goes first to lay a wreath, coming on these forums all p*ss and fire, denigrading the opinions of those who elected them as ignorant and irrelevant- and now this latest angry wailing, from a man I wouldn’t trust as far as I could throw, ‘if you don’t agree with my obscene, unworkable idea, I’m leaving! *sob*….
then LEAVE, Mr Flouquet. NOW.
This is the sort of thing that started the French Revolution.
How about we bring the elections forward, and let the people decide if we are as impressed by our ‘representatives’ actions as they think we should be…?
Report abuse
Enough money was wasted last time the Island walked away from a deal that was already underway. The public do not realise the millions that have been thrown away on this over the years. The general public, including myself, cannot know all the facts and implications involved with such a project and should have confidence in the experts involved. I have to say though that the Deputies of this Island are not experts in the field so they too should listen and believe what the experts say. This is not something that should be used to score good points with the islanders by just saying what is thought they want to hear. the Deputies need to be “brave” here and leave to those in the know.
Report abuse
Bin it – for once do what the people of Guernsey want.
Report abuse
Anonymous
When you say ‘experts’ I presume you’re referring to Suez’ expert salesmen who spotted a mug a mile off
Report abuse
Bin it please
Report abuse
i dink dat da states shud vote lindan 4 10 moar years
Report abuse
Scarlett I can think of a worse States that the current one ?….yes, the one before.
In their defense, most of the problems the current States have are caused by trying to sort out the mess left by previous houses. Admitted they could be making at better job of clearing up the mess, but most of the blame can be laid at the feet of those who created the mess in the first place …..
And those of you claiming to represent the will of the people in this matter …. whilst I do not doubt the actual level of public opposition to Suez there is no actual direct measure of it either way. Unless someone carries out a rigourous poll of the entire population, or the States hold a referendum, all we actually have is a lot of ( compelling ) hearsay.
Even the Brouard petition, if taken at face value, only shows 20% opposition ….
Why is it that, when Deputies bring up paid parking yet again “the public” moan that the States should just stick to their decisions and stop debating things over and over and again and again …
And yet when it comes to waste, “the public” are seemingly DEMANDING that they do just that!!
If “the public” can’t make its mind up, what hope do our politicians have …..
Report abuse
Toby
To be fair, the paid parking dispute is “small beer” compared with the incinerator proposals. Debating whether or not parking should be free or 20p per hour, with no adverse health implications for islanders, isn’t quite the same in my book as spending £93m of capital on something that isn’t appropriate for our needs, is something that we cannot afford, doesn’t look like it can actually be used cost-efficiently once up and running, and which is using technology and processes which cause health issues through emissions and which are being heavily questioned anyway by waste disposal experts.
Am quite surprised though that nobody has yet organised a march of islanders to demonstrate the public reaction to the Suez proposals.
Report abuse
This is such a monumental decision with so many implications for Guernsey that I think we need a referendum. Its obvious that we can not trust our deputies to do the right thing for us, so WE should decide!
Personally I like the idea of shipping our waste to Jersey while we see if Rodney’s solution works.
Report abuse
Steve,
I haven’t sold my round by the way – I am still a paper boy!
Unfortunately, your 7.21 post completely misrepresents the comments I made on yesterday’s phone-in and my position on waste policies generally.
I have never stuck, firmly or otherwise, to what you refer to as “the PSD line”. I tend to favour the view that mass burn incineration is a sub-optimal solution for Guernsey. Since being elected, at every opportunity I have voted for change in the direction of waste policy (in the form of three amendments, two requetes and a sursis). But I and others have been in a minority at every step along the journey.
Contrary to the claims in your post, I have not dismissed as unproven all technology other than mass burn. What I did say on the phone-in yesterday was that it would be unwise for the States to base a long-term solid waste solution on technology that was untested.
I also said that the only credible alternative to Suez at this stage would be to change our waste policies dramatically, modify the tender criteria accordingly, and then go out to tender for a third time. The first stage – a dramatic change in waste policies – is key, and thus far those of us pushing for that have been in a minority in the States. There is no point cancelling the contract with Suez and then going out to tender against the same criteria – that would simply lose years of time and several millions of pounds while almost certainly ending in another proposal to erect a mass burn incinerator.
I am still undecided about how to apply these thoughts to Deputy Kuttelwascher’s requete. Given my views above, I am instinctively attracted to it. The weakness, though, is that it does nothing to address the key issue – the underlying waste disposal policies which have led us to this point.
Report abuse
Bin….nope a better alternative.
Incinerate!
Report abuse
Matt
Your frank response to the earlier comments of Steve are very welcome, but I think you’ve managed to give yourself your answer which is that more time is needed to evaluate the other alternatives, and that the exporting-to-Jersey solution buys ample time to carry out that evaluation, rather than going ahead with Suez just because we have spent so much on it so far. That can NEVER be the right reason for making a fundamentally wrong decision.
I’m staggered at Deputy Flouquet’s listed reasons for not considering the Jersey option more seriously. Here they are:
1. “It is neither a complete nor sustaianable solution”.
Perhaps not, but it buys us time to ensure that we get a more appropriate solution for our long-term needs, whilst helping Jersey with something that it has already committed to. That’s a win-win-solution and is the very reason to go ahead and export to Jersey, than a reason not to !
2. “It would leave between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes and as Jersey’s waste grows the capacity available to Guernsey will reduce to zero”.
So how exactly is Jersey’s waste going to grow ? Are they going to import thousands of new residents to create more waste or completely abolish recycling ? Of course not. And in the future we will probably have found an alternative waste solution here, so where’s the problem ?
3. “Guernsey would have to be looking at its long-term solution well before the end of the offered 10 years”.
Of course it would. But that’s still not a reason to go for the Jersey option now while that process is going on.
4. “The suggested gate fee is similar to that of the Suez plant but with “nothing to show for it” after spending about £50m over the 10-year period”.
Perhaps, but surely infinitely better on spending millions that we haven’t got on something that isn’t right for Guernsey in the first place !
5. “The risk of political change in Jersey”.
Its not a risk – it happens every 4 years in their elections, just as here. What about the risk of political change here ? Its a perpetual risk of any government. But that’s why a well-drafted contract would be needed to protect us (i.e. Jersey and Guernsey reach agreement for a specified period, say 5 years, with 24 months notice either way of termination). That’s what contracts are for, aren’t they ?
6. “The risk of public opposition in Jersey”
This one made me laugh…does Bernard Flouquet not realise that there is more than a smidgeon of public opposition here in Guernsey, or has he simply not noticed ? Jersey’s plant is already committed to and just about in place – its already gone past the point of no-return and their States are now keen to make sure that it works as cost-efficiently as possible. Importing waste from Guernsey is totally logical.
7. “The need for a transfer station to be built at Longue Hougue”.
Agreed, but as long as this current PSD aren’t in charge of the tendering process now’s a good time to undertake such a project when building costs are down. In the bigger scale of things, the cost of this isn’t a reason not to do it.
8. “The potential congestion at St Peter Port Harbour”.
Hardly seems like a factor worth spending £93m on to avoid !
9. “The loss of locally-generated electricity from Guernsey waste”.
True – but maybe this can be negotiated into the price with Jersey for taking our waste. I’d far rather that we invested a bit more capital developing tidal energy in Bailiwick waters, which is sustainable for so long as the moon stays in the sky.
10. “Proximity principle – is it ethical to give your waste to someone else to deal with ?”
Yes – if the “someone else” is actually asking to take it from you to make their own waste disposal scheme viable!
It’s yet another example of how Guernsey and Jersey should be working together to achieve mutually-beneficial economies of scale. Wake up politicians to the opportunities for such collaborations with an island 50% bigger than ours, just 25 miles away. We can’t always both have our own thing on our own small island. Combining resources in several areas such as these is a no-brainer.
But then again, the current elected States of Guernsey as a whole (with a few honourable exceptions) seem to view the term “no-brainer” as a compliment.
Report abuse
David
You have totally destroyed the Floquet excuses for going ahead.
I can’t see where a project that has a guarantee period of 2 tears is “a complete nor sustaianable solution”.
Well done on doing such a good job in incinerating his pathetic attempts to defy common sense
Report abuse
Well wrote David, completely agree. I very much doubt Lyndon Trott will see it as that, though.
Report abuse
Stephen
It had to be done ! Impossible to sit back and see so much bull***t coming from him at the moment. Does he really think that the electorate are all too stupid to see right through him ? He’s not the brightest lightbulb in the chandelier and its amazing that he’s managed to fool both the public and his fellow deputies for as long as he has to date. Fortunately a growing number of the more intelligent deputies amongst them seem to have now begun to finally work it out for themselves – the requete from Jan K simply has to win the vote and I finally believe that it will do so.
Report abuse
Semantics Matt, unproven, untested.
Where is your evidence to back this up?
What is untested?
I did not say you had sold your paper round, but good luck with it still being there in 2 years when you need to take it back on.
To the poster who says we should trust the experts.
Thats what Jersey did, and here we are discussing sending them our waste, as their incinerator is far too big.
Even though our incierator is about twice the cost of simmilar capacity plants, Flouquet even admits that he thinks it is too small and we may need to enlarge it. Most deputies still back it.
Matt says he is not convinced but will back it unless a requette is placed to stop it.
You are usually quite good with requettes Matt, why not draft it yourself?
Report abuse
Coming to your airwaves soon – or more later hopefully – the ‘Bernie & Roy Show’.
Including multifarious expressions of disdain, disrespect, ambivilance, tautology, dissimulation,
mendacity and contumacy – and thats on a very good day.
So may I introduce to you the act you’ve known for all these years – yes it’s Sergeant Bernies one and only (very lonely) Hearts (who with) Club Band. Featuring , of course, on trombone, trumpet and buffoon (sorry ed. that should be bassoon) that great old stager Roy.
We hope (but doubt) that you enjoy the show.
Report abuse
Matt.
I think that there are 2 important things to consider here.
1.) Firstly, our understanding of waste disposal has fundamentaly shifted over the last decade. When Guernsey first embarked on this project, rubbish was described as being a ‘problem’ that needed solving. It was decided that a waste plant was required that was big enough to ‘accommodate’ the problem as it currently was, and even allow capacity for the ‘problem’ to grow. A kind of ‘one stop shop’ that would suck in all the rubbish and somehow ‘disappear’ it all.
But the waste industry has moved on, and our perception of ‘rubbish’ is now quite different. If rubbish is dealt with properly, the vast majority of it is not rubbish at all. It is a resource and can be re-used in some form or other. Waste disposal is no longer described as ‘disposal’ but as ‘waste management’. It is no longer thought of as a’problem’ to be disappeared, but as an opportunity to be exploited.
Consequently, I agree with you….. the re-mit for the project should change to reflect this huge change that is happening in the whole concept of waste management. We should not still be chasing a solution that looks at rubbish in the old sense… as a problem that needs to be done away with in ONE big plant. That might have been appropraite in the 1990’s … it is not appropriate in 2010.
2. The second thing is that this project, however many years ago, was originally given to some people in the States who have stayed with the project even when the project moved department. Those people have never wavered from the original brief,,, that a large end solution was needed to accommodate the problem. Their belief in this ideal, has meant that they have systematically blocked any initiative that would reduce the waste needed for an end solution. The attempts made by you and others to change the direction of the waste strategy, were bound to fail as long as the department, charged with the mandate were pitting all their energies, reports etc against you. Many in the house are happy to trust in the Departments opinion, so your attempts were always going to be at a huge disadvantage. It was aways bound to be an unfair battle.
I really believe that you should stick to your principles. If you do not think that mass-burn incineration an appropraite technology for Guernsey, then vote for Dep Kuttlewasher’s requete. We don’t need a one plant solution to replace Suez…. we need a whole fundamental shift in the way that we think about our waste.
In order to give us the time to develop a modern waste strategy, we have several options…. the best being shipping to Jersey to give us the 10 years breathing space necessary.
Report abuse
Er,tricky one, let me think….BIN!
The Jersey arguments in the Press today were laughable. I particularly liked the one that said we can’t send to Jersey because in the 10 years we were doing so we would have to think of something else! Doh!
BIN!!
Report abuse
Steve
Say what you like about Matt’s politics, he possesses one rare attribute amongst our politicians – the ability to be honest and openly admit that he was previously wrong. He did it with the Education primary schools debate and although he took some stick for it from some quarters, he went up in my estimation by being brave enough to not only change his mind, but to say publicly why he had been persuaded to do so. Far too many of our politicians worry too much about how it will look if they appear indecisive, rather than making the right decision for Guernsey.
I don’t think Matt needs to worry too much about getting re-elected. Very young he may be, but despite that he appears to have more morals, intelligence, research ability and honesty than most of our current deputies put together. And that’s coming from somebody like me who regularly disagrees with Matt’s beliefs.
Its possibly to respect somebody even if you disagree with them on several issues. Frankly, I don’t even respect several of the deputies with whom I actually agree on their politics !
Report abuse
Steve,
My earlier posts did not claim that any one particular solution was untested. I was merely making the point that we cannot base a long-term waste solution on technology that is anything other than tested and proven.
I share your concerns about whether the Suez plant may need to be extended at a later date.
It seems to me quite plain that stage two will need to be erected – at a cost of several million pounds – unless measures such as kerbsie recycling are introduced to minimise the volume of waste sent to the incinerator. Unfortunately, this States has rejected kerbside recycling twice in the past 12 months. As I wrote in an earlier post, those favouring reform of our underlying waste policies were in a minority in the 2004-8 States and are again in this States.
As for submitting a requete myself, that is not going to happen. I can think of at least six occasions in this States alone on which we have tried to persuade a majority to back alternative waste policies – and each attempt has failed. I suspect that many members are also already getting fed up with the number of amendments and requetes I have taken to the States. There are 46 other members, though, and if any one of them proposes reform of our underlying waste policies, even at this late stage, I will of course support them.
Rosie,
I think our thoughts are similar. But we are, in political terms, in a minority. That doesn’t mean we should stop campaigning for reform, but it does mean that for the time being we have to get used to losing more often than winning, unfortunately.
I will stick to my principles, but it must be understood that the Kuttelwascher Requete, about which I am still to make up my mind, is not the difference between going ahead with or rejecting the Suez incinerator. The only credible, secure alternative to Suez is to change the underlying waste policies of the States – and there is as much or as little chance of that happening whether the States approves or rejects the Kuttelwascher Requete. That is not a criticism of Jan’s motion by the way – it is just the political reality behind it.
David,
Thank you for your extremely kind words. They mean a great deal, but may be a little undeserved. We are all much of a muchness: some strengths, some weaknesses, but all trying our best for the future of our island. I do agree, though, that it is possible not to like people with whom we frequently agree, and vice versa.
Report abuse
A variety of reasons are given for opposing the States decision to go for the Suez proposal, some of them very well argued. However, the reason given by most people for rejecting Suez is based on a fundamental misconception. Most opposers seem to believe that Suez is going to involve a huge increase in cost as compared to any other solution. Waste disposal is costing a lot of money now and will cost a lot of money whichever method is selected for the future. There is no get out of jail free card being offered by any alternative proposals.
Report abuse
All of you clamouring for the States to accept public opinion and perform a u-turn on Suez still don’t seem to understand that there is actually nothing ( that I have seen anyway ) that actually shows this is a majority public opinion.
All Mr Brouard’s petition shows about public opinion is that it is actually 5 to 1 against his proposal ( well alright, it doesn’t. At best it shows 1 in 6 are in favour, but that is nowhere near a majority is it … )
If a Deputy is truly representing their electorate, they can only base their decision on information provided to them. Unless more than half their electorate actively voice their opposition, then their public duty would be to stick with Suez ….
If you want your deputy to represent your opinion then you have to let them know what it is!!!!!! Ranting on internet forums isn’t going to achieve anything….
I know from past experience that lobbying States members can be a demoralising, and seemingly pointless, exercise ( I remember once being contacted about my comments by only 2 members of the house !!!! ) but if you don’t actually get off your a@@e and do something you will only have yourselves to blame if Suez does go ahead against your wishes …….
Report abuse
Toby
What absolute nonsense. How many do you think would sign a petition FOR the Suez plant? Nowhere near the amount that have signed the one against it I am 100% sure of that.
Going on your logic a deputy couldn’t be elected unless they were voted in by at least 50% of the electorate of their particular district. How many achieved that do you think?
Report abuse
Ted.
I hope that you will be able to come to the presentation this evening in the Harry Bound Room at Les Cotils. 7.30. The financial risks of this proposal that will be put onto the Guernsey people will be explained.
Of course dealing with our waste bears a cost….. no-one is trying to deny that. It does NOT however, have to be anything like a £93m cost paid up front to the contractor. There are now quite a few people who have taken the time to research this subject and can see that this plant is going to be a huge mistake for Guernsey, for several reasons, but cost is a big one. It is not a fundamental misconception….. it is simply reading the facts and seeing that the alternatives would not match the cost of Suez and nor would they present the level of risk.
Sadly, there are also thousands of people that can’t be bothered to research this issue, but no doubt they will be the first to squeal when they struggle to pay for the petrol to fill their car.
Report abuse
Toby
How many more times are you going to tell us that in effect their are more in favour of suez? i think it would be a safe bet that for everyone that signed there will be another 3 or 4 that haven`t but are against suez,
I believe that because i`ve only meet 3 people that think we should go ahead with it.
Try doing what Phil suggests and see how many sign in favour?.
And what is it that we all don`t understand? are we all that ill informed apart from you?
do you not think we can see through Flouquets agender?
Do you think Rosie doesen`t know what she is talking about? as she seems to have the best logic behind all of this.
Flouquet has been pushing us in this direction for years and makeing it differcult for us to do what most seem to want to do which would result in another way to rid us of our waste. Why hasen`t he done it? whats in it for him?.
Report abuse
Rosie
Spot on as usual.
Some of us have been trying to convince PSD of this very fact for several years.
In my experience PSD have always been steering the States as a whole toward Mass Burn incineration, lets please call it what it is, it comes nowhere near the efficency level required to be classed as EFW.
I personally have sat in many meetings with Deputies and civil servants over the past 2 assemblies, trying to show them that if waste is treated as a commodity, rather than a disposal problem, the logistics and economics are vastly different.
Believe me I more than share the frustration shown by many on here and other forums.
I am intrigued with the duel between Steve and Matt.
Now may be the time to see if deputies would be prepared to support a complete change in the waste strategy, without actually putting a requette together,unless you get the support required, you never know.
Toby, you must be aware that there is widespread concern among the public, nobody has even bothered to start any kind of “We support the States backing of Suez” campaign.
Maybe you should.
If support is as widespread as PSD are trying to convince us, you should suppass Rodney in a week or so.
Then we could all shut up and stop moaning on forums.
It is our only recourse, I’ve tried all the others.
Ted,
Please search the archives of this site, BBC and CTV.
You may have missed it but you are very wrong.
Report abuse
No Contest
BIN!
Report abuse
“nobody has even bothered to start any kind of “We support the States backing of Suez” campaign”
i am guessing you never look on facebook? there has been a group set up to support the states backing for over 6 month now.
Report abuse
Baphomet – there’s a facebook page that wants support to convince us that the Earth is flat.
I totally agree with the majority on here.
If one thinks about this logically how can a mass burn incinerator possibly be the way to deal with waste. It can’t, no way. Madness.
Total Waste is spot on – the majority of our waste isn’t. Its a valuabe commodity.
David is right (again) too – use Jersey as a stop gap until something much more sensible and sensitive can be instigated.
Igorning Brouard’s “alternative” surely the way to go is seperate waste at source and have curbside recycling.
I really, really fear that Flouquet is damning the Island forever.
Report abuse
Why would anyone want something that causes hideous health problems?
Report abuse
I would bin the lot of you states members, as a local person i have seen how you have messed this island up and ripped me off just to pay for your mess ups for me and every one else, the population of the island too many people, that is why tips are filling up and there are to many cars, just use your brains for once and see what is going on surely you states members have one brain cell between you to work it out.
Report abuse
I wonder how many elected representatives read these blogs besides Matt Fallaize,Dave Jones,Barry Brehaut and Jan Kuttelwascher?
I ask because without fail at every important States debate up to half a dozen old duffers will stand up,remove their flat cap,and proudly announce that they have received no letters from their constituents so whatever proposal is on the table must have the approval of the general public.
I think we tax payers subsidise States members PC’s so please Matt/Dave/Barry/Jan encourage your colleagues ( at least those who have not had triple bypass operations )to tune in to thisisguernsey.com occasionally
Report abuse
May I just say, and with all my heart in the request.
Once they are binned please please make sure the lid is well and truly fastened.
If by the most unfortunate happening they should win on that dreadful Incinerator;
Then I suggest that all those who vote for it should have the very first hand knowledge, by being the first rubbish to be done away with.
Report abuse
In Scandinavia they are very green minded they use Incinerators which also produce electric. (International Journal of Environment and Pollution)
It appears that flue-gas cleaning systems in modern incinerators are very reliable in removing almost all polluting emissions from flue-gas streams. OK now If you went with the steam option you would have to heat water which takes approx ten times more energy than burning which means a lot of electric is used which then puts more pressure on the power station (big costs & pollution)or you heat the water with oil or gas again cost & pollution
I think some people are just looking at the initial cost and think that thick black smoke is going to be pump out all over the Island.
They should do their homework first. We could send it all to Jersey my concern with this is they say it will cost x amount to ship but just remember how in a year or 2 costs seem to shoot upwards on these projects.
Report abuse
Bin
Report abuse
Firestorm,
There is FAR more chance of the Suez project coming up with unexpected cost overruns than a contract to ship waste to Jersey.
Just because Scandinavia has incinerators proves nothing.
I think you will find that a lot of people have done their homework on this and they don’t like what they have discovered. Have you done yours?
Report abuse
I just really hope that the results from the vote are published.
Then we know who to campaign AGAINST in 2012.
The more I see, the more I ask around, the more people I chat to, I see no-one who wants this incinerator (except for Roy Bisson, Bernie and evidently Toby).
Every day there is another story in the press about more opposition.
The only way the requete will fail is through strong arm tactics by the few in favour of it, or “you scratch my back……” style promises.
Frankly if on that basis the requette fails, I’d be more disgusted than if it failed and a bunch of deputies came out saying “incineration is right for the island”. At least we could say they would have the courage of their convictions.
Do the right thing deputies, dont let Bernie sway you.
You know this is wrong, listen to the people for once.
Report abuse
It is, of course, a ludicrous claim that only a handful of people support the long delayed decision of the States for treatment of the island’s waste. Many of those who do support the States decision are just so exasperated by the display of ignorance of the subject and the tone of personal abuse displayed by the born again opposers that they feel any reasoned response to them is pointless.
It will be a sad day if our representatives stoop to a populist vote in the chamber. My vote, too, will be affected by who does and who doesn’t switch horses.
Report abuse
Phil, bcb, The Man et al.
Congratulations for missing the point. ( again in some cases… )
I don’t believe, nor have I ever said, that a majority are in favour of Suez. I don’t intend starting a “Save Suez” campaign because
I don’t particularly want to save it …. I just think its better than nothing …..
When someone brings forward an alternative, cheaper and timely proposal that passes full scrutiny ( i.e. it is proven to work, and whoever proposes it is proven to be financially sound ) it will get my wholehearted support.
I’m still waiting for that alternative though …
The point I will try and make yet again is that there is no measure of public support or opposition available. None. The only thing that comes close is the Brouard petition, and all that shows is that 10,000 support Brouard. ( and I’m not aware of a section on the petition for those who don’t agree with it, or are totally ambivelent ) It doesn’t say anything about what the other 50,000 people on the island think. Everybody who has a letter published in the Press, or who rings the BBC phone in may be against Suez, but we have no way of knowing the opinions of those who don’t write or phone in ..
I’ll say it again, all Brouard shows is that 1 in 6 people support Brouard. Nothing else. I fail to see how anyone can claim that it shows the majority public view.
I don’t doubt anyone’s anecdotal evidence that everyone they meet is opposed to Suez, but it is purely anecdotal evidence.
You have no way of knowing if everybody is opposed to Suez ( quite likely )and you just haven’t spoken to them all, or if you just happened to not speak to the between 1(ie Bernard) and 50,000 other people who are in favour of it.
Ray, if you really want your deputies to listen to your opinion its no good expecting them to come to you, you have to go to them – phone them or write to them. Anyone who can’t be bothered to do so, in my mind at least, comes across as not actually being as concerned as they make out. I know from past experience that making such contact can provoke a depressingly small response, but at least then you have made your views known.
Report abuse
Ted
I find it amazing that you accuse the opposers of being ignorant.
Please, with your obvious advanced knowledge of waste disposal, enlighten us as to the merits and demerits of suez, and also the alteratives??
I await your answer with baited breath, and also preferably links to back up would would otherwise only be your opinion.
Toby
FYI, the Brouard solution has just had a massive sale in Turkey after the demonstration unit was succesfull in proving that it works to a large delegation.
Other than that, Statistics can be twisted to prove anything, the whole point of a petition is to show that there is significant opposition (I doubt the states would appreciate 10,000 phone calls on the same subject).
If you dont think 1 in 6 is a significant enough % to warrant consideration, then you are very misguided
Report abuse
Toby,
Can you post the financial details of SITA Gsy ltd, proving their financial security?
Other than that criteria, what is your definition of “When someone brings forward an alternative, cheaper and timely proposal that passes full scrutiny ( i.e. it is proven to work,”.
What processes that have been proposed to PSD don’t work?
Or are you saying that if you have enough cash, whatever you propose is proven enough for me?
Report abuse
Toby
Your argument to go ahead seems to be based on there not being anything else? Have you not listened to rosie for example? do you think RB has no idea about what he is doing? do you know more than him? surely it is wise to at least give him a go with nothing to lose, why the objections?.
If it were true that nothing else existed do you really think all this opposition would be out there? or is it all just being made up?
You still go on about your 6 to 1 why?.
There will never be 60,000 people to have a say, take out the children for example then how many does that leave? take out the people who have no intention of staying here and the ones who couldn`t care less. Could it be that ALL or Most of the people who have taken an interest in this can see it is wrong? If the other 20 odd thousand or so took an interest then how many more would be against?.
Also i think when you speak to so many people and only a very very few are in favour then i think you have somthing there?.
To be honest with you Toby the people i have met that are against it have an understanding of the alternatives and give there reasons, but i found that the ones that are for haven`t even bothered to look into them and just come out with the usaul stuff like “what else are we gonna do with the rubbish” or “there`s no other way to get rid of it”.
Report abuse
Just checking.
Anything from Toby yet?
No, did’nt thing so.
Probably busy at PSD.
Report abuse
The Man
if a salesman sells a lot of snake oil it doesn’t
stop it being snake oil …. If Turkey want to be the test subjects then good luck to them …. If and when they get or working full scale we’ll still probably be stuffing rubbish in the ground and ammending recquettes on yet another waste solution …
Your point about statistics seems to me to show that you undertand as well as I do that they can be twisted to mean anything. Yes 10,000 is significant ( and if they all contacted their deputies we might get somewhere ) but then the 50,000 others are no less significant are they ? absence of proof is not proof of absence after all …( and that runs both ways of course ..)
Total waste, I don’t work for PSD and I don’t particularly support or like any of them.
I actually like a lot of the other proposals …. Whether for their cost or green credentials .
But to be viable they have to be proven to work at the scale required …. If you can PROVE that( ie a similar plant is working elsewhere )you have my wholehearted support.
And financial security is paramount .. are you seriously suggesting giving taxpayers money to someone who cannot meet the standards required for a States contract ? I don’t care exactly what the reasons are that may have excluded anyone, but the rules are there to safeguard public money …..
Although perhaps it’s a shame the States wastes money unnecessarily in so many areas , especially on it’s safe contractors ..
Report abuse
Toby,
Thanks for your support. For I have it.
When designing the waste system for Guernsey, I made sure all the systems specified had a minimum of 5 years service with the specified materials and had processed at least 5 years expected arisings on Guernsey.
No system is unsupported, each material has a system overlap.
All systems have a track record of much larger througputs than required and have also been proven at lower throughputs than required.
Im glad you do’nt work at PSD, but your logic was so simmilar, forgive my mistake.
The system that is most unproven is mass burn incineration at the scale proposed for us.
Incineration is most suited for throughputs above 100 000 tonnes pa.
Smaller scale is really pushing the envelope.
My point about financial security is, SITA Gsy ltd is a new company, just because their parent company could meet the financial criteria should not be an issue.
Otherwise why set it up.
Remember Landsbanki had a parent company, that did’nt work out too well.
Suez did not meet all the tender criteria.
Are you suggesting that as they have enough cash to impress the States, handing over £93.5M is OK by you, so that is that.
Compared to the systems in our proposal, mass burn is the unproven new kid on the block.
Double the indstry standard price, only guaranteed for 2 years and will require legislation to prevent recycling to guarantee a fuel source.
Those are some of the reasons I oppose it and support Mary Lowe.
All I have ever asked is to be able to tender on a level playing field.
Report abuse
Total Waste
it seems to me all you have to do now is convince the States of your financial stability and you’ll be on to a winner.
Good luck with that ….
Especially given that, with Jersey effectively ruled out for now , we’re all running out of time.
Sadly I’m still of the opinion that Suez is better than nothing. And nothing is just about all it’s better than …
Report abuse
I just don’t get where your comming from Toby.
You seem to be saying that Suez is better than nothing but that anything other than Suez, is nothing.
If I can build a waste plant of proven technology at my own expense, why should I have to prove to the States that I am worth at least £250 000 000?
I could say OK then I won’t pay for it myself, you can pay for it, that will be £17M please and still have to prove my huge wealth.
Why should wealth have anything to do with it?
I would have thought that it should be the other way round anyway.
Why is Jersey ruled out?
I would say with TLS fishng for an idea of what we would be prepared to pay, makes it very much on.
Report abuse