I and thousands of my neighbours in Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount have been objecting to the siting of this incinerator in our community for over 10 years. We have never been complacent on the matter, we do not blog, although we have our own Internet site under the title of NODUBLININCINERATOR. Those who wish to keep up to date with our campaign can access the up to date info on the site.
Last Saturday the Opinion& Analysis section of Irish Times, Stephen Collins had a article which questioned whether John Gormley had a conflict of interest when it came to dealing with the issue of the Poolbeg incinerator.
I have replied to the ed, but as I doubt this letter will be printed I am adding it here. It appears that a lot of media will only print the outdated PR mantra that Dublin City Council continue to trot out.
Your political analyst, Stephen Colline, is usually a fount of wisdom, so it is a pity that his article on the proposed Poolbeg Incinerator (Saturday 26th June) appears to be based solely on outdated and contested public relations material from Dublin City Council and its consultants.
Perhaps he would consider these now established facts about this flawed project:
1. If it is the duty of the local authorities in question to select the safest and most efficient waste disposal system, why have the many other better options now available not been considered?
2. While the DCC PR machine keeps stating that EU fines are starting to “clock up” in the hope that the statement will be accepted, has he investigated if it is true? He will be surprised.
3. The “commercial developers” would be hard put to succeed in a legal claim, given that they have just announced the dispersal of the funding raised for the project as a dividend and a share buy-back scheme. Was he made aware of this?
4. While the project has apparently received approval from the bodies mentioned, is he aware that the contract with Covanta was signed while the Bord Pleanala oral hearing was just starting, and long before a “decision” was promulgated? Does he realise that this was a full year before the EPA hearings took place? Predetermined outcomes?
5. Has he investigated what “preliminary work” was done for the Foreshore Licence? If he does he will find that this did not even reach the minimum survey standards needed, and that a further hearing could well be involved before the issuance of a licence.
6. Is he aware that the promoters have now acknowledged that the maximum capacity required for the Dublin Region is well below 300,000 tonnes per annum, and that the excess needed for viable operation would have to be imported from the whole of Ireland, so that the facility is grossly oversized? And that if waste were imported from outside the Dublin Region the terms of the planning application would be breached and legal action would be well founded? So the way is by no means clear for the project to proceed!
7. The European countries that he cites as examples are no longer building incinerators. Covanta have abandoned their venture in China. Why?
8. Has he not realised that the opposition to this proposed facility, oversized and probably overpriced, comes from a far wider constituency than Dublin South East, and that there are serious implications for the health of the community? DCC has never carried out a baseline health assessment, presumably so that future health effects cannot be proven against a benchmark to be their responsibility!
When Mr. Collins considers the foregoing he will, no doubt, realise that there are usually two sides to every argument. If he would like further information from CRAI we would be delighted to meet him.
CRAI has always said this is the wrong technology in the wrong place