WITH an economy going into recession and many difficult problems facing the Island, what do some of our States members want to do? – they want to debate an issue that has already been debated numerous times, and they want to overturn a clear decision that was made democratically by the previous States. We’re talking rubbish here of course.

Now there is no new evidence that would justify going back on a decision to build an energy-from-waste plant at La Collette. The only thing that has changed is that we have got some new members who feel very strongly about the environment.

In fact, that’s all some of them feel strongly about. Other States members will simply join any bandwagon that happens to be passing. By the time you read this, the clear decision of the States may already have been made again. Let’s hope that the anti brigade have either lost or will lose, for two very good reasons.

Firstly, to reverse a decision that has already been made, and where a contract has been agreed, is clearly very bad government. The States of Jersey is not renowned for its ability to make quick decisions in the first place, so if we can’t rely on those decisions once they have been made, then we don’t know where we are.

Contractors will certainly think twice before signing up for States projects. Sure, they will be compensated by the taxpayer if the contract is cancelled, but that’s no way to do business.

But probably the most important reason why the anti brigade should fail, is because not going ahead with the energy-from-waste plant could be disastrous for the environment which is of such concern to the incinerator opponents.

It’s quite simple really: while we would all like to live in an unattainable world where everything is recycled, we have to face the fact that over the next ten to 20 years there will be a mountain of waste to dispose of, however much recycling we do. So what are we going to do with it?

Now the mountain might be big, as the previous House obviously believed, or it might be small, if we manage to significantly improve our recycling record – but a mountain there will be.

As we can’t predict with absolute certainty how much waste we will have on our hands, we have three choices. We could export our problem to someone else, who will burn it on our behalf or, perhaps, bury it. There’s not much of an environmental advantage there then.

So we are left with looking after our own waste to the best of our ability and that means either buying a big incinerator, which can cope with whatever waste the Island produces, or buying a smaller one in the hope that recycling makes the mountain smaller.

Now those who oppose the incinerator would no doubt go for the smaller option if they were forced to make such a choice. But what happens if a pared-down incinerator can’t cope? What do we do with the excess?
At least a large plant, whose capacity has been determined using realistic recycling targets, will help us avoid such a crisis. Yes, it might turn out to be too big, but that’s better than having it too small.

Perhaps another alternative would be to do nothing and prevaricate, as we have done with Bellozanne, until the situation reaches danger point.

But the opposition has looked to Guernsey for support in their fight against the incinerator. Now there are probably many things we can learn from Guernsey, but handling waste and sewage isn’t one of them.
Indeed, Guernsey was given the option to join with Jersey in tackling the problem, but they prevaricated even more than we have done. Presumably the opponents of the incinerator think that support from Guernsey will help them institute any number of new investigations and inquiries until one comes up with the answer they want.

In the meantime, the Island could be facing a critical situation and we’ve all got to pray that no more elastic bands break at Bellozanne.

A lot of the opposition to the waste plant is obviously because it is so expensive. I can understand that. The high cost is partly because of its size. We might just be able to get away with something smaller, but the experts say that that is what is required and I for one, wouldn’t want to risk the experts being wrong.
Even more importantly, the cost is a reflection of the complexity of the plant and that is because the plant is being designed to be as clean as possible. It’s expensive because it’s doing an essential, dirty job, in the most efficient way currently available.

No doubt there are a number of new technologies just around the corner, but (1) they could be even more expensive, (2) we can’t afford the risk of being at the leading edge of new technology, and (3) we can’t wait.

In any case, for the opponents to imply that the plant has been designed with little thought for the environment or the impact of the plant on the neighbouring Ramsar site, is simply an insult to the officials who have worked so hard on the plans. Apart from anything else, they have undertaken a very detailed environmental assessment carried out by independent experts.

It was the strength of these arguments that persuaded the previous States to vote in favour of it. They certainly were not persuaded because they supported anything the previous environment minister tried to do.

But the bottom line is what possible motive could the department have for putting forward such a plan if it wasn’t the best solution for the Island and its environment? They certainly couldn’t be doing it in order to save money.

The States members who continue to oppose the plant must continue to do what they think is right. But they have also got to appreciate the damage they can do by not accepting reality.

• Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine