Waste of time

It is now approaching four years since the proposed Suez waste-to-energy plant was rejected. A scheme that had been carefully costed by the proposed contractor and presented in great detail and – very importantly – included the treatment and disposal of residual toxic material. The public is still awaiting the production of a clear and positively costed alternative scheme, despite the confident assurances by those opposed to the project that better alternatives were available.

If such was the case, where are the details and why has it taken so long to produce them and even more cogently, why is the public being kept in partial ignorance?

a) Shipping off the island will be expensive and the cost is likely to increase annually as transport costs inevitably do. The island's carbon footprint will also increase significantly by the operation of the necessary compacting machinery and the to-ing and fro-ing of the ships etc.

b) The island will be at the mercy of a third party that could – possibly at short notice – 'change the rules' of any agreement as circumstances in that area demand.

c) The costs will be ongoing ad infinitum.

d) There appears to be every possibility that the island may be faced with the additional cost of disposal of any toxic residue, which, because of its nature, might prove to be another expensive operation.

The public is entitled to be precisely informed of these vital facts before the scheme is presented as a 'fait accompli'.

Let us hope most fervently that our politicians have these facts clearly in mind before committing the island to issuing a blank cheque.

BRYAN VANDERTANG,

GY6 8JU.

Address withheld.