From Don Austin.
THE new energy from waste incinerator has been approved by the House, 30 to 21, which is hardly an overwhelming endorsement reflecting, as it does, an uncomfortably large body of divergent opinion.
Nick Palmer’s factual letter (JEP, 10 July) calls attention to a vitally important aspect of incinerator operation which may not have been appreciated by those who voted and although it is always easy to be wise after the event, when a sum in excess of £100 million is being spent there should be no doubt that the decision was well made.
During the debates leading up to the vote it seemed there was a proposal for shipping out our waste for disposal and/or reprocessing elsewhere.
If such a facility is indeed available I would suggest, with respect, that the current approval be rescinded in favour of just such a stopgap solution so giving time to properly evaluate further aspects of a complex problem.
In fact, should the present Bellozanne incinerator suffer total failure before a replacement is operational this option may be the only alternative.
This is not backsliding, reneging or being indecisive, but simply being prudent. A similar situation arose over the Hopkins / Harcourt issue and no one thinks any the less of the States for putting it all on hold while further inquiries are made. We should do the same here.
Merestones,
Parcq de l’Oeillère,
St Brelade.
Article posted on 16th July, 2008 - 2.00pm
One Article Comment
Surely decisions of such importance warrant a greater approval requirement than a simple majority. I think on matters of such importance, the States members should require a 75% majority for approval.