Opinion
- Editorial- Commentary
William Lucie-Smith
:
Alutrint and the democratic process
I am writing this before the High Court judgment (due on Tuesday) on the challenge to the EMA's grant of a certificate of environmental clearance for the Alutrint smelter plant. Whatever the judgment however, the Alutrint controversy is a useful example of democracy in action (or not) in Trinidad and Tobago.
Last week, construction started on the power plant being built by Ferrostaal for Trinidad Generation Unlimited (a company controlled by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago) to provide power for the smelter. Ferrostaal reveal that their contract is worth US$700 million, will be funded by the Government and the plant will generate 760 megawatts of electricity.
The start of the power plant construction brought a visit from Prime Minister Manning and of course further protests from various different sectors. It should be noted that the objections to the aluminium smelter come from different sectors and the protestors are not in any way a homogeneous group. Some of the protestors seem concerned about jobs for local people and may therefore be pro-smelter in the hope of employment (despite this being a non-labour intensive project). Others are concerned about the quality of housing they are being given on forced relocation. Another group is concerned about the environmental impact and the health risk associated with smelters. A further group is concerned about the lack of any economic justification for the project and its economic feasibility.
The pro-smelter lobby has been carefully orchestrated to condemn objectors as being against the development of Trinidad and Tobago. On TV talk shows the objectors are described as those who were against Point Lisas or those who are politically motivated against the PNM. In other words, they are simply perverse and do not have the interest of the country at heart. In the debate, we do not seem to hear rational arguments about the safety and health issues, the protection of the environment, or the economic feasibility of the project. Democracy does not appear to be working in a clear and transparent manner and it is impossible not to be concerned in the absence of serious answers to legitimate concerns.
The Prime Minister on his visit to the site declined to meet with protesters. He is quoted as saying, "What I noticed this morning was the regular anti-smelter crowd. I was very careful to see if I would see the people of La Brea in that tent and they were not there which means the people of La Brea continue to support the establishment of an aluminium smelter." He also commented: "Everyone must be free to express their view in the same way that the country must be free to pursue its development."
It is interesting to note that from his car the Prime Minister could dismiss the protesters as irrelevant because of where they are from, tell also that the people of La Brea support the project and equate his view with that of the country. Of course, this is clearly a national issue, not least because the cost of US$780 million for the power plant and US$600 million for the smelter is to be financed by the taxpayer.
In the Express last week Mary King noted, "When I chaired the Joint Select Committee under which Alutrint fell, the committee attempted such a productivity analysis, fundamental to which was the selling price of natural gas (as a proxy to the price of electricity to Alutrint). The authorities, including the politicians in charge, refused to give this information to Parliament despite being ordered to do so by the JSC."
This statement is extraordinary. Far from providing an economic feasibility study to Parliament to justify the spending of billions of dollars, the Government refused to provide basic economic data. Is Parliament not entitled to this data on the spending of taxpayers' money? Are the gas and the electricity subsidised? Will the plant make an economic return to justify the expenditure?
There are several other issues that need full discussion. There is no doubt that smelters create an environmental and health hazard that needs to be carefully addressed. That is why Alcoa's plant in Portland Australia has a 650-hectare buffer zone and generally smelters are built in remote areas, not in densely populated small islands. The news that hundreds of people in the community will require annual cancer checks begs the question as to why this is necessary if there is no enhanced risk. It is also disturbing to note that Trinidad has largely failed to protect its environment against unregulated development, so not surprisingly; people have great concerns over a smelter.
Perhaps most worrying is the failure to provide Parliament with ongoing economic feasibility reports. The joint venture partner who was supposed to provide marketing and downstream expertise has pulled out and not been replaced. Alcoa have deferred their smelter plans. All the major plants in the world have been cutting back production and all expansion plans cancelled. Aluminium prices are expected to remain weak for the foreseeable future and China is being forced to stockpile.
So while the rest of the world and the private sector is withdrawing in face of massive overcapacity, the T&T Government (with no aluminium experience) is proceeding on its own with this smelter, using taxpayers funds while telling us to cut expenditure. At the same time, it has the hubris to deny Parliament an economic feasibility study and abuse objectors as against development without addressing the key issues. Does the Government's track record of development exempt it from the basics of accountability?
William Lucie-Smith is a columnist of the Trinidad Express. Petroleumworld does not necessarily share these views.
This commentary was originally published by Trinidad Express, Monday,
Wednesday, June 17th 2009
. Petroleumworld reprint this article in the interest of ou
All
comments posted and published on Petroleumworld,
do not reflect either for or against the opinion
expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld.
All comments expressed are private comments and do
not necessary reflect the view of this website. All
comments are posted and published without liability
to Petroleumworld.
Fair
use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material
the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian
significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All
works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed
a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. Petroleumworld
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or
sponsored by the originator.
Petroleumworld
encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast
Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction
identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com
or else and it is done within the fair use as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for
purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Internet
web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated
Petroleumworld
welcomes your feedback and comments: editor@petroleumworld.com.
By using this link, you agree to allow E&P to
publish your comments on our letters page.
Petroleumworld
News 06/22/09
Copyright© 2008
respective author or news agency. All rights reserved.
We welcome the use of Petroleumworld™ stories by anyone provided it mentions
Petroleumworld.com as the source. Other stories you have to get authorization
by its authors.
