The Mont Cuet landfill Site in Guernsey. Picture: Peter Frankland
JERSEY could make around £4 million a year by burning Guernsey’s rubbish.
Figures released in Guernsey estimate that by 2012 the island will generate around 45,000 tonnes of waste a year. It is expected that recyclable material would be removed from that amount, but that the vast majority will be burned.
According to projections produced in Jersey, it will cost around £100 to burn a tonne of waste at La Collette when the new incinerator is up and running. However, sources close to the Council of Ministers have suggested that Guernsey would be required to pay more than the cost price.
During the next three years, Jersey must work out how it makes up a projected annual budget deficit of £50 million and, therefore, the option to make money from the incinerator is likely to be tempting.
It has been proposed in Guernsey that the island’s rubbish should be shipped to Jersey to be incinerated in our new energy from waste plant, which will have spare capacity for several years.
• What do you think? Register your vote on the form below
Article posted on 24th February, 2010 - 2.59pm
40 Article Comments
Hang on guys, The states are trying to impose taxes all in the name of global warming. So when members start saying to us we need to cut our emissions we start burning other peoples rubbish. And then they hit us with more taxes.
Does this make sense to anyone?
Report abuse
The Irish have a knack of calling monuments etc in rhyming phrases such as the O’Connell St sculpture
‘The Floosie in the Jacussi’. How about giving our ‘monument’ a similar treatment?
To start the ball rolling ,how about;
‘The Seashore Eysore’
any other ideas?
Report abuse
This could be the future, turn Jersey into the worlds rubbish tip.
Report abuse
It angers me that Jersey now has this most enormous horrendous incinerator located on a RAMSAR site, and that Gsy can keep its beauty. so disgusted.
Report abuse
I think that the people voting in favour of burning Guernsey’s rubbish, possibly dont live in close proximity of the incinerator !!!
Report abuse
A few minor changes to the headline would result in a resounding YES. “Should we burn Guernsey, it’s rubbish”
Report abuse
How many of those saying yes actually live in HDP?
Does it real matter if the proletariat get cancer from increased emissions?
No, if they can make money out of it.
Report abuse
what a terrible mess.
was this the plan all along?
previously we were told that transporting refuse to france was not a plausible idea, indeed it would not be legal.
the problem with the size of the incinerator, and the amount of waste needed for efficient burning, was raised during the Scrutiny process.
we already know of our failings to deal responsibly with the resultant ash from burning our waste.
i certainly don’t want more heavy metals to accumulate in my body, or to breathe in more dioxins, or my veg patch to contain more phthates, or my seafood platter to contain more molybdenum. call me odd…
Report abuse
Our opinions didn’t count towards the type or location of the incinerator. Whether or not we burn Guernsey’s rubbish for economic gain is of little consequence.
Either way, it’s probably a good idea to avoid local sea food especially mussels. It will also be interesting to see if the number of childhood leukaemia cases rises.
I doubt that the States have considered that the treatment costs for one or two extra cases of leukaemia per year will outweigh any savings they made by installing a ‘cheap’ incinerator and contaminating our coastline.
#Whyshouldwe- Clearly, States Members in Guernsey care for their Island. Draw your own conclusions about Jersey States Memebers.
Report abuse
Its stupid shipping waste in to our island, The states wont listen to any one all they think of is making money to buy more street lights and tub’s of tarmac…
Its ruddy crazy ma cock ay…
Report abuse
Red sky at night,Jersey mans delight,Guernseys on fire.MY Grandmother use to say this 65yrs ago.now it will be the other way around.I have family who live on the island of Guernsey,Lets be honest,there is no love lost between the islands.so i say,burn your own refuge.
Report abuse
A nice little earner. Our rubbish has to be incinerated so we need to run an incinerator. So as to ponce less money off the taxpayer generate some electric and then charge the ‘ Donks’ to burn their rubbish and thus generate more electric. The ‘Donks’ will of course be expected then to purchase all the ash created and take it back to Guernsey to build new housing. They will also be required to use a Jersey shipping company for all the transportation of the aforementioned trash and ash. Sound a little like no.2 , Trash and ash, man.
Report abuse
The question in the online poll was asking whether we should burn Guernsey’s waste if it makes economic sense. The answer to that must be ‘yes’. However, the issue isn’t purely about economics. Unfortunately, that last statement isn’t too well understood by many on Jersey. With £4 million up for grabs, I think we will very shortly be receiving much of Guernsey’s waste.
I would also like to show my appreciation towards comment number 6!
Report abuse
‘Red sky at night,Jersey mans delight,Guernseys on fire.MY Grandmother use to say this 65yrs ago.now it will be the other way around.I have family who live on the island of Guernsey,Lets be honest,there is no love lost between the islands.so i say,burn your own refuge’
You have got that one wrong!
Red sky at night
Guernsey’s alight
Red sky in the morning
Normandy’s burning.
Report abuse
4 Millon to burn there rubbish? , Tell you what make it 5 Millon and we can burn the whole Island!
Report abuse
Helen Back (1) “Does this make sense to anyone?”
Yes Helen this makes a great deal of sense.
1) The Jersey incinerator is being built, for better or worse, whatever Guernsey chooses do.
2) The rubbish will be incinerated anyway, be it in Guernsey or Jersey, hence a marginal impact on the environment.
3) The only material difference would be the saving millions of pounds on a second largely redundant incinerator. A totally Green outcome.
Report abuse
what rubbish about being it a RAMSAR site. Its a patch of relaimed land next to La Collette power station! Hardly a site of natural beauty.
As far as Guernsey is concerned a good idea to share facilities and hopefully costs
(any chance of putting Guernsey into the incirerator too!!)
Report abuse
Marks comment here is one of the few that actually makes sense.
If we want to make the incinerator into less of a loss than it already is, then yes this is the right thing to do.
If we want to do the correct thing for the environment, then yes this is the right thing to do.
There’s not a lot of love for the incinerator all accross the island but if its there, we have to make the most of it. simple
Report abuse
For the benefit of those that don’t know – Ramsar site UK23001 refers to the shoreline area designated the south-east coastline, which is where the heated waste water produced will be pumped, thereby effectively killing the sea life. But, hey why worry we are destroying the world anyway so what does it matter!!!
Report abuse
A Guernsey incinerator will cost 93 million. Jersey can burn Guernsey’s rubbish for 4m pa. Therefore, it will take 23 and a quarter years for the Island of Jersey to save Guernsey 93 m and put 93 million into the Jersey rainy day fund.
Report abuse
Mogit
The usual Green overdramatisation. The area affected will be very small and given the very strong currents certainly not the whole of the S/E coast line!! In any case given the overbuilding on that area how on earth did it ever get designated as a ramsar site
Report abuse
4 (whyshouldwe)
you said “Gsy can keep its beauty”
have you ever been to Guernsey?
17 (treehugger)
Have to agree completely about it being a RAMSAR site and can’t understand why people complain about the Emissions. I am sure shutting down St Clements coast road would improve health of the residents more than cancelling an incinerator. The coastline has been ruined already by all the buildings, and if we care about the fishies and animals in the sea then you better become vegetarian or lobby to ban fishing.
Report abuse
Given the very vocal condemnation of our incinerator and the claims of Deputy Wimberley and others that there are better and greener ways of disposing of rubbish I would strongly suggest that we export this expertise and see what happens.
If the critics are right then Guernsey will save millions on not following our lead. If mass recycling and alternative methods don’t work then our Government will deserve an apology.
Let’s face it at present Guernsey disposes of all its solid waste by just dumping it in a big pit which I understand has only lasted so long because it is on fire and pumps all liquid waste untreated into the sea.
Put the integrity and ability of our ministers in perspective.
Report abuse
tricky- it was designated a Ramsar site BEFORE it was reclaimed, but as usual the States decided that they would do what they wished without reference to anyone, glad you see it as overdramatisation, but there again as someone once said there’s nowt wrong with the world, just the idiots in it!!!
Report abuse
No.22 Your comment would suggest that you live nowhere remotely near the new incinerator. St Clements Coast Road has not been effected. The sea air along that road remains the same as does the sea air around the entire coastline.
Report abuse
Good comments for and against. Mark your comment makes good sense. The problem i have with this isn’t the green option its the tax option. Stealth taxes are becoming the norm on our lovely little island, Any excuse to get more money out of us through green taxes and they will. Just watch and see what happends.
Report abuse
Mogit – how many millions of pounds do you propose our government spend on all your suggestions AND how much would GST have to be raised to pay for this. Sorry but you convince me that the Wimberley’s, Tadier’s and Le Claire’s would be an economic and social disaster if they ever got any real power.
Report abuse
The States of Jersey decision to go ahead with this huge incinerator, is a huge backwards step as it has literally “put the lid on” recycling, as we are all going to have to produce as much rubbish as possible to make the thing run.
We still don’t know how much pollution this incinerator is going to churn out onto our beautiful Island, but to take on another jurisdiction’s waste to double the pollution surely cannot be allowed
Report abuse
Of course we should burn Guernsey rubbish! If the tree huggers dont like it than they should be forced to pay higher taxes…. and light it each morning! In these hard times we need to get income from wherever we can. If this means a little pollution, than so be it. Luckily i dont live near the thing!!!
I am sure @28 knows what they are talking about, so if we ARE going to have to start producing as much rubbish as possible to make the thing run, than I Have started saving all my plastic waste, as well as old tyres and I have started collecting packing polystyrene from my local supermarket for when it is opened. If that is not enough, than we can start burning trees, seaweed, seagulls (way too many of those)!!!
Just a few thoughts!
Report abuse
baz – your clearly some kind of over agitated “special guy”. Too much sugar maybe?
Burning GSY’s rubbish IS the green option. Not thinking within the boundries of Jersey but thinking of the Channel Islands as a whole. It makes sense to have one incinerator and one area where the land/sea is being poluted, rahter than 2.
We just happen to have more land and, thanks to the powers that be, we already have the facilities. Whether this was the plan all along or not…
Report abuse
No 28 The new incinerator is much much more enviromently friendly than the old smoky one.
All this talk about spreading leukemia etc throughout the s coast population is just scaremongering. Certainly the out put will be cleaner than the current power station which has been there for 30 odd years!
Furthermore burning Guernsey’s rubbish is much more planet friendly than the current arrangement of burying it and we get cash to boot.
Recycling in this small island is just a pipedream as it all has to be shipped out to the UK on oil burning ships, again not very carbon friendly. Of course if you have any alternative viable suggestions then fire away!
Report abuse
disgruntled (28) a huge backwards step as it has literally “put the lid on” recycling
The problem is not recycling, or the lack of recycling, or even dioxins. The problem is the rubbish we purchase and the throw in the bin. Incineration is a simple and cost effective way of disposing of our rubbish, just as pigs are an efficient way of recycling food waste.
If you ‘disgruntled (28)’ want to help the environment; stop generating rubbish!
Report abuse
In the Guernsey Press
http://www.thisisguernsey.com/2010/02/26/jersey-says-yes-we-can-take-your-waste/
Report abuse
I am sure that us burning Guernseys waste is the overall green option.
For:
one incinerator will be more efficient at burning waste than two.
the massive amount of GHGs produced by building a second incinerator in Guernsey.
Against:
Shipping waste from one island to the other but this would not cause great emissions
Report abuse
If we have all these boats going back to Guernsey empty. What are we going to sell the Donkeys. Their concrete aggregates are twice as expensive as ours and their quarries are running out, anyone see an opportunity ?
Report abuse
The obvious answer is to stop using plastics except where absolutely necessary!!!!!
It was pretty obvious to me that the CoM were going down the route of taking in Guernsey’s rubbish when I heard all about this monsterous development, on land adjacent to the Ramsar Site! Maybe they think the electorate are all gullible well I for one ain’t!
Report abuse
adrian. Any viable suggestions as to what we can use instead of plastic. I am happy to stop but it is irresponsible to suggest stopping something without proposing an alternative.
As for the RAMSAR site an indication of the actual damge you think this might cause rather than an immotive plea might be helpful. Bear in mind the power staion has been there for 30 or so years and the RAMSAR site is still thriving!
Report abuse
Some interesting points above but also several non-factual. The fact that the SW prevailing winds tell us that the fallout from the micro toxic particles will fall steadily on the south east side the area of Havre des Pas area and beyond.
This information came from an elderly but extremely clever professor ( sorry name escapes me )who gave a talk at the St. Pauls centre about the unwelcome effects of incinerator waste. Ex TTS Minister Guy De Faye attended and was completely out of his depth. The message was clear; the discharge is toxic, although better than the old chimney, if that makes you happy.
The day after the vote was taken for the Incinerator, the JEP front page told us that Waterfront 2 was on the drawing board. Hundreds more houses more reclamation. This of course confirms the CoM true purpose which is to keep building and to overcrowd Jersey even more.
This is confirmed by their immigrtaion policy of attracting 250 more skilled people (plus families ) to live on this small island per annum.
As part of the grand scheme increased everything, we need a grand iconic incinerator which is actually two incinerators as there are two streams so one can be shut down for maintenance. It follows we really don’t need Guernsey’s rubbish to keep the whole thing belching on our coastline. Where did the figure of £4 million regarding income come from ? and do you trust them ?
My personal view is, a new incinerator was needed but not this expensive monster. As the younger more environmentally aware children become of age so will less packaging as life will become greener and recycling will become cost effective as new technology takes us forward, lets guess at fifteen years, the mistake will be demolished.
Report abuse
tricky plastic is killing the planet it is irresponsible to use it and dump it.
Ways to avoid plastic.
1.Shopping without plastic bags.
2.Packaging without plasic in it.
3.Minimise or get rid of packaging where possible.
4.No plastic nappies!!!!!!!
5.Use other materials where possible in production processes instead of plastic.
6.Cutting back on rampant consumerism.
7.Extending the life of products and making them repairable.
8.Recycling where possible.
I am sure you could apply some of these ideas yourself to cut back on the use of plastic.
As per the Ramsar site, it is next to a toxic dump isn’t it? What about these toxins getting into the sea water from the dump or, building works associated with the incinerator? I would say myself there is a chance of this happening wouldn’t you?
I think it would be wise to monitor heavy metals PCB’s and other contaminates in the fish and sea weed near the reclamation site wouldn’t you?
Are the states actually doing this or not?
Is the new plant pollution free or not? If it isn’t it may well have an adverse effect on the Ramsar Site. If you burn more rubbish there than you need to then you are going to cause more pollution.
Report abuse
38 Davey West. You are indeed correct.Dr Dick Van Steenis warned the States that they were buying a Dinosaur,in technology terms this incinerstor is out of date before it’s even built,and so is it better than the old Bellozanne one,yes in the same way as a modern Built house is better than a tent.But is it safe for all of us..? Emphatically no,this internationally known Doctor who specialise in diseases caused by burning toxins made it clear,why…Deadly PM 2.5 particles get through the filters and are breathed into the deeepest part of our lungs….those who wanted the incinerator have their own motives and claim that “Scrubbers” clean the emmissions…but it’s about size ..the smallest particles are the most deadly…and we have embarked on what will be a £200 Million spend..when we could have had a plasma gasifier which would have fitted in Bellozanne yard easily,it works by producing a large weld arc burn up to 2000 degrees c.and it produces 6xtimes more electricity which can burn anything including the tyre linings and without releasing all these toxins for us to breathe in …cost about 38 Mill.makes you wonder why it was rejected and this horror which will blight the landscape forever,was chosen…who benefited..and by the way,your health is at risk for three days from just one hours exposure if the wind blows the P.M. 2.5s your way….and yes for the smart asses I have all the documentation if you want it.
Report abuse