Throwing out kerbside recycling scheme ‘will cost the island £16m.’
Thursday 1st October 2009, 2:29PM BST.
DECIDING not to pursue kerbside recycling will have cost the island £16m., according to the Treasury minister.
Deputy Charles Parkinson (pictured) spoke after the States yesterday voted against his petition, which would have directed Public Services to investigate how to introduce kerbside collection of recyclable materials on an island-wide, self-funding basis.
He said the island could no longer hope to reach its 50% recycling target and as a result the second phase of the planned Suez Environnement/Public Services incinerator would have to be built to deal with the waste – at an additional cost of £16m.
‘It is a very disappointing decision,’ he said afterwards.
‘In effect, it commits the island to phase two of the incinerator.’
But Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet, who opposed the requete to investigate kerbside recycling, said islanders would be incentivised to maximise recycling through the current bring-bank system in order to reach that 50% target and avoid the extra build, and its cost.
‘We will hopefully be able to improve the bring-bank sites themselves and we are hoping to bring them up to date and make them more aesthetically pleasing,’ he said.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
is this the start of the rot to feed the ‘monster’! the narative also infers a done deal on Suez, hopefully there is active oposition to still throw that deal out. promoting more recycling would be a very positive direction.
Report abuse
How many other places don’t have kerbside recycling. Keep living in the dark ages and burn it. What a stupid decision.
Report abuse
This one makes me laugh. Corporate government, says Charlie. Work together, says Charlie.
Wait, here’s a debate on kerbside recycli…oh, shame, the States decide not to persue it.
Thinks Charlie, nuts to that – I’m going to waste another day debating it and potentially send the staff back to the drawing board (incurring more costs!). And I don’t care that it’s a mere 3 months since the decision.
Corporate thinking my bottom.
Report abuse
In Arizona they use differant coloured bins on collection day, EG:
Black for General Houshold food waste
Blue for tin and plastics
Green for paper
Why can’t Guernsey do similar but on a smaller scale…
Report abuse
Thats it then, Trott & Co only want to buy and run their ‘monster’. Why are they so hellbent on spending £100 million +, any personal involvement now or in the future ? Flouquet consultant for Suez perhaps.
Report abuse
50% recycling, miles from markets, with a thermal treatment not scaled to encourge the recycling initative……….not a chance! Guernsey seems to want to be in the dark ages for lots of things, which is a shame, isolationist government, protectionist policies, no consistant policy on almost anything, a civil service which will drwaf any incinerator chimney!
Report abuse
Heaven forbid that Guernsey should do anything sensible when we can choose a company like Suez to deal with instead.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1099
Report abuse
I think it was a bad decision and I agree with Deputy Parkinson it is likely to lead to stage two of this ridiculously expensive incinerator
Report abuse
what world does the DCM live in? the only way to encourage greater recycling is to make it easier (kerbside collection) and/or provide a financial incentive.
making the bring banks aesthetically pleasing will not encourage more people to use them.
this scheme was/is eminently sensible as long as the cost of the black bags is pitched at a fair level.
a truly crazy decision to reject it.
Report abuse
Incinerator. Burn. Dark Ages. Brenda.
Hang on… isn’t there a dirty great MRF before anything gets burned? Isn’t the incinerator only able to deal with about 20odd thousand tonnes – ie 17,000T that currently is landfilled would be MRF’d?
Not to mention the fact that there is more recycling points on Guernsey if people want to get off their fat whotsits than virtually anywhere I can think of.
But hey, let’s ignore all that. I heard the word “incinerator”. Knee jerk, knee jerk – I HATE IT ALL!!!!!
Report abuse
Unfortunately i dont expect we will get much higher % with the status quo as it is.
Those that receycle will continue, those that don’t…quite simply..wont.
Then you have all the lazy people ( like im afraid to say.. me) who let the recycling box mount up, get full-but im ‘too busy’ to get round to driving a whole 5 minutes to my nearest bank, and then spending however long placing all the recyclnig away.
So, then everything else goes in the regular bin until i ‘get round’ to going to the bank. I dont need a lecture, i know its bad- but im ‘fessing up because i think its probably the case with lots of people- and this needs to be realised and the fact that you arent going to change everyone accepted.
By the way, when i lived in Wokingham for a few years, we had a black’ normal rubbish’ big purple wheelie bin for recycling, collected once a fortnight- EVERYTHING recyclable went in there ( except putrescibles- which fortunately the landlord had a composter in yard for) and me and the other 4 students recycled EVERYTHING possible.It was so easy- it wasn’t even ” doing the recycling” in our heads, just- open front door and sling it in the purple bin.
There was never more than a third filling that black wheelie on a weekly collection, and that was with a house of four 20 something students.
Unfortunately i think its a fact of life that some people just wont put the extra effort in
Report abuse
The Baltic proposal would sort our rubbish for us, no need for kerbside or recycling other points, would also do it cheaper so rates coulod theorectically be reduced.
But hey, lets not let common sense and whats best for the island get in the way, eh Bernie??
Report abuse
If it looks like a better/cheaper solution, if it smells like a better/cheaper solution, if it feels like a better/cheaper solution, then the True Guernsey person will fall for it regardless of how loopy it is.
Report abuse
Utter madness.
Flouquet is a fool and takes us all for fools too.
Its so simple isn’t it? The easier it is to recycle – the more we recycle – therefore the less “landfill” we create.
But of course Flouquet doesn’t want this. More food for the monster (as already posted above).
When the monster isn’t satisfied Flouqet will order under utilised States workers to chop down trees to feed it and then sacrifice themselves into its insatiable guts.
Lets just pray that next election we get some politicians who can actually run a government.
One thing we don’t want to recycle is the majority of the current incumbents!
Report abuse
Gilthead
What ARE you on about? more food for the monster. MRF, mate MRF!!!! Materials RECOVERY facility. This sits in front of the monster. The monster can only eat a fraction of what goes into Mont Cuet.
Therefore BY DEFAULT, PEOPLE, thousands more tonnes will be saved!
Geez!
Report abuse
Billythefish
Oh yes of course R Brouard is loopy to suggest how we can save money and he doesn`t have a clue as to what actually might be a good deal for guernsey? He`s a real failure in business and is so easily fooled. Or maybe it`s you who can`t see the light.
How do you know the Baltic plant is cheap? or are you an expert in this field? maybe were just being ripped off by suez and some with an interest in this.
Report abuse
BUT…. I wan’t kerbside recycling, and so does everyone I have spoken to… How did we end up with a government that ignores what the public wants? What can we do to regain control over our island?
Until recently we lived abroad, we had 2 wheelie bins 1 for recyle-able waste and 1 for everything else,
SIMPLES,
also wheelie bins = no black sacks
also the wheelie bins were different sizes dependant upon the size of your household, smaller family = smaller bin
SIMPLES,
Report abuse
I agree with Charles P and Dave J – not doing more to encourage higher rates of recycling, including kerbside collections, makes it far more likely that we will need to build phase two of the Suez incinerator.
I was genuinely surprised that the States rejected the Parkinson requete given the reasons that it appeared before the Assembly in the first place.
In June this year, the Public Services Department recommended not introducing kerbside recycling. David de Lisle moved an amendment to direct that kerbside be introduced for dry recyclables, funded from general revenue. The vote was quite close: 21 pour, 26 contre.
But in that debate, several of those that went on to vote contre said they would support kerbside collection in principle so long as it could be funded by increasing charges for the disposal of other forms of household waste rather than from general revenue, i.e. a ‘polluter pays’ concept.
So a dozen or so of us met after that debate in June and submitted a requete, to be presented by Charles, asking for a report to be prepared by PSD with a view to introducing kerbside recycling funded on the ‘polluter pays’ principle. That was the requete debated in the States this week – and yet despite overcoming the objections about funding that defeated the proposal last time, it still lost.
Clearly, a majority of the States just does not want kerbside recycling. So the chances are that idea is dead for a good few years now – another day in the minority, but onto the next challenge…
Report abuse
To Billythefish
It is not that people don’t know that the recycle elements sit in front of the ‘Monster’. The problem is the ‘Monster’ needs so much fuel (waste) in order to run effciently, without the right load it runs and produces even more filthy gases and toxic waste. Hence the feeling that all will be done to actually burn more in order to satisify the incenerator then actually save the environment.
Report abuse
What happened to the “pay what you dump” proposal for refuse collection? I’m all for recycling (and currently get off my “lazy whotsit” every week with a big box and go to the excellent facilities at L’Eree), but until homes and businesses alike are incentivised to dump less, recycle more – by having to pay for what you dump – it’ll never grow as rapidly as it needs to.
Flouquet is wrong in saying the threat of extending the Suez contraption will be enough to get people to recycle more.
Report abuse
Tell you what, though.
People would naturally recycle more if they knew they were providing the raw materials for a local company to recycle back as jobs and money for Guernsey.
Report abuse
BTF – I was on about the Suez monster requiring food to function. It has to have a cetain amount or it won’t work.
Simples (al la D_T).
Matt Falaize – er you’ve lost me entirely. How can a “polluter pays” principle be applied to re-cycling?
The States, as ever, is useless.
Even someone with only an ounce of intelligence can see that seperating waste at source has to be the sensible choice…oh hang on! Sensible and choice…
Report abuse
See, it’s people’s lack of attention to detail that worries me. bcb, I never said Rodney Brouard was loopy, I never even said the True Guernsey person was loopy. I referred to loopy ideas.
Guern abroad, I’m very happy to educate myself – where have you learned that the amount of waste the Suez incinerator will require is a) not available from the residual waste that will be left after MRFing, and b)that the byproducts are filthy and toxic (to levels that present a threat to health that is!). And make it credible sources, not tree hugging website commissioned reports!
From what I can make out, we currently tip 35,000ish tonnes. The incinerator can cope with 20-something, which means we have to MRF an ADDITIONAL 10,000 tonnes (perhaps). In order to make it inefficient we would have to recover a HUGE amount.
And anyway, as I understand it, if there’s not enough to feed it, it will simply be switched off till there is.
Report abuse
Gilthead
Throwing out rubbish causes pollution. Therefore paying for a service that minimises that pollution would be a ‘polluter pays’ system, no?
Do you really think you can criticise the States when the electorate are this ignorant?
Report abuse
Gilthead,
The Parkinson Requete proposed investigation of kerbside recycling paid for by additional charges levied on black bag waste; hence the term “polluter pays” that several posters have used.
Report abuse
Matt – thanks for your response. Yes I understand that. But you do not insentivise recycling by charging for non recyclable waste. You do that by legislation a la UK council by-laws.
The cost of curbside recycling, I’m afraid, should be funded from general revenue. And done properly – and not in the usual half-witted way.
This whole debarcle is the fault of the States – you can’t get away from that (not you personally!). Again a massive opportunity has been missed to reduce waste and minimise our environmental impact by enforced recycling.
Report abuse
Gilthead,
In June I voted for the de Lisle amendment which envisaged funding kerbside recycling out of general revenue. I was in a minority.
This time I voted for the Parkinson Requete which envisaged funding kerbside recycling out of charges levied on non-recycled black bag waste. Again, I was in a minority.
Frustrating though it is, one has to accept that this Assembly opposes kerbside recycling. Next time [post-2012] it could be different, if the public chooses to vote for more candidates who favour kerbside. That’s democracy!
Report abuse
Billythefish:
For someone who posts so regularly on here and in such an abusive manner, your lack of knowledge on the subject is staggering!
The mass-burn incinerator does not burn only 20,000 tonnes….. it is over twice that size at 41.500 tonnes, and to make the electricity that it boasts it will make, it needs that quantity of waste to burn.
The MRF at the front end that you keep wittering on about, only sorts through commercial waste. It will not look at household waste. Household waste will go straight into the incinerator unchecked. Therefore whatever concoction of materials are in the blackbags….. batteries, paint, chemicals, left-over cleaning materials, food…..you name it, will be burnt, volatised and sent up into the sky.
Voting for this mass-burn incinerator was the worst decision that this States has made…… completely mad!
Report abuse
I can’t be the only one who sees the irony in the pro mass-burn group of Deputies voting against kerbside recycling on the grounds of cost, when they were happy to totally ignore the staggering cost of the Suez proposal despite there being much cheaper and better options….. infact options that could create revenue streams coming into the economy instead of a financial drain.
The capital cost of the Suez proposal is £93m. With interest etc, that is going to take £230m minimum out of our economy. Stage 2 of the mass-burn will be impossible to avoid….. even more so without kerbside recycling, so that is an extra £16-£20m + interest etc etc. that will be wiped out of our economy.
……and yet they turn down kerbside collections because of cost?
Report abuse
Rosie, I wonder if you’re revealing some “true colours” here.
Just tell me, exactly, in this thread, where I have been abusive to ANYONE. The closest I seem to have got is asking Gilthead “What ARE you on about”. If that is within your definition of abusive, then fair enough, although perhaps a little over sensitive.
Then again, to refer to my “wittering” could be seen as abusive.
A mirror is in the post.
Report abuse
Anyway, I will also say that, on topic, having read the report, Rosie is right that the efw component will have a maximum capacity of 41,500, although that doesn’t mean it can’t work under than level.
It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong.
I am not a big man! ;)
Report abuse
btf
If the burner is at less than optimum capacity it ceases to provide the ‘benefits’ as advertised by Suez and interpreted through PSD’s propaganda.
It’ll be an expensive means of being toxically inefficient.
Still, think of the aesthetically pleasing bins we’ll be able to drive to.
Report abuse
Billythefish:
I am afraid that I do find that the language you use, the way you ‘shout’ in your text, and the insinuations you make etc, abusive and unnecessary. It certainly does nothing to encourage an intelligent debate particularly when it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject. However, I am glad that you have now read the report and I am impressed that you aspire to behaving like a ‘big’ man, even if by your own admission, you are not one!
As Arnald has said, if the burner does not burn at the maximum capacity, it will not make the quantity of electricity that was part of its selling point. It says it in the Billet…… the more waste delivered to the plant, the more energy the plant will make, and the cheaper the gate fee will become….. not exactly an incentive to reduce waste!
Furthermore, if mass-burn incinerators are not burning at full capacity, they do not burn so cleanly and we don’t want that either. Turning them off isn’t much of an option either……. what would happen to all the waste that would need storing? Lots of energy needed to control smells and keep the waste stable…( waste will voluntarily combust if left to its own devices). And if the plant is not running…. what about all that energy-from-waste its supposed to be making that we are relying on? So… there will be every incentive to keep that waste coming right on in.
The lack of kerbside collections will make sure that this hideously expensive plant becomes even more expensive. Yet, the majority of our Deputies would rather spend barmy amounts of money on a fancy turnkey end-solution than the relatively small amount that would be needed for kerbside collections to reduce the quantity of waste that needs treatment, and therefore reduce the size of treatment plant.
Report abuse
OK, Rosie, or should that be ok, Rosie, let’s get into intelligent debate.
Firstly on your point of storing waste. There appears to be 2 months worth of internal storage built into the plant.
I know that one of the things anti-Suez campaigners are wittering on about, to coin a phrase I read somewhere, is emmission levels in the atmosphere.
Yet, let’s cast our mind back to the public meetings PSD held (I hid near the back). There was a chap working for the consultants on the project, who, when it came to emmissions, gave some background to his career.
It turns out he led the team that put together the latest EU guidance, or whatever, I forget the precise detail, on emmissions etc. and therefore could happliy say the proposed plant would not be in breach, nor is any revision imminent.
So, essentially, you had the guy up there who literally “wrote the book” on waste plant emmissions, and yet you cannot accept his exceedingly well informed advice and opinions.
Pray tell me, why is that?
Report abuse
Oh, and the frequent use of capitals is because as far as I know, I cannot place emphasis, comic or otherwise, using bold or italics. How else should I? Suggestions, whether your own or recycled from the kerb, are welcome!
Report abuse
Yes….. there is 2 months worth of storage built into the plant, PSD have proposed the Suez plant with the promise that it will provide enough energy for 2,000 homes. Where will that energy be coming from if the plant is closed down? As I have said in my earlier post, what will they (Suez) be doing to control the smell and to keep the waste stable? I suspect, instead of making energy, they will be using energy whenever the plant stops burning. Instead of making a profit from selling the energy they should be making, they will have to buy energy from the grid….. so no incentive there to shut the incinerator down.
Also, when they start the furnace up again, they will need to use fossil fuels….. lots of… to get it up to temperature. Again, a negative point to shutting it down.
On top of all that…. just where is the point in spending all this crazy money to have a plant that you plan to shut down for parts of the year because it is too big?????
Re: emissions. I have not fought a battle against Suez on the grounds of emissions, not because I am not concerned about them, (I am) but because I am not sufficiently up to date on all the data etc to argue the case well enough. However, emission criteria are always being revised, and I am quite certain that whatever todays criteria are, they will be found wanting before too long. Jersey’s incinerator was state of the art when it was first commissioned but within 15 years was running outside of EU regulations…. and has been ever since. The trouble is, when new criteria are set, it obviously takes years of research to decide whether the new criteria has an effect…. you’ve got to wait and see what happens to the downwind populations.
The new criteria has removed the larger particles in the emissions as they were thought to be the element that was causing cancers, lung problems etc. However, the latest thinking is that it is not the larger particles (10mm) that are the problem, but the smaller (2.5mm) that are the problem since they are small enough to become lodged much deeper into the lungs. No doubt more time will be needed to prove it irrevocably. Are you willing to take the gamble?
And that’s before we start thinking about the unknown cocktails of chemicals that come out of the stack. They do not know what they are burning in the furnace…. so how would they know what they should be testing for?
Report abuse
Rosie
You make some very good points
and all very true
BTF
Re my earlier post. i wish you would also pay attention to detail as i never said you did call anyone “loopy” i was just saying RB is not loopy and is no fool, and i would much rather listen to him than someone on here who can`t even get the simple facts right about Bernie`s mass burn thing.
Report abuse
OOps – you’re quite right – iwas extrapolating a necessary implication.
And I acknowledged that I got the max tonnage wrong – what i was thinking about was that in a public meeting it was stated it could operate at 20k ish tonnes.
One simple fact is people say the waste solution is “an incinerator” – it’s not, it’s an integrated solution of which an incinerator is only part.
If waste continues to decline or recycling initiatives PSD keep trotting out do the job, and if people aren’t so flippin lazy as to need stuff taken from their doorstep, then why would we need phase 2?
MRF does up to 70,000T (i think -would have to dbl check), Burner burns 41k – where’s the problem?
Report abuse
Billythefish:
re your ‘integrated solution’…
The tender document was for a ‘residual’ waste treatment plant. ‘Residual’ means waste that cannot be treated in any other way…. i.e is not fit for recycling. A ‘residual’ waste plant, is all that we should be paying for.
The Suez plant is not a ‘residual’ waste plant, so it does not fit the tender brief. It has a MRF at the front end ( as you have mentioned ) that will remove recyclables from the commercial waste entering the plant. There is already a private business in Guernsey doing this. It should remain in the private sector…… it is not an aspect of the waste solution that Guernsey needs to buy as it is specifically not detailed in the tender document.
Also…. the household waste going into the incinerator will not be ‘residual’ waste as it will contain lots of recycling.
The incinerator cannot run at 20k ish tonnes (as you put it) without shutting it down for long periods. ( problems with that mentioned earlier.)
Some questions….
Why are you so keen for the States to spend this ludicrous amount of money? Are you not aware of the hideous financial squeeze that is going to be gripping Guernsey in the future?
You ask ‘Where’s the problem’?…. and I ask, have you read anything that’s been posted over the last 24 hours? How many more problems do you want listed?
Report abuse