Rights Action Group T&T

Response to Guardian frontpage story June 11, 2009

2009-06-11T09:59:00.002-04:30

Dear Editor,

The Headline Carried in The Guardian New Papers: “Mom blames smelter protest for baby’s death” is imbalanced and contains several inaccuracies.

On Tuesday June 9, there were protests in La Brea at two points. One was at Sobo Village and the other at Union Village. We are not sure where Ms. Thomas was delayed. However, the villagers of Union Village are very sorry to hear that Ms. Thomas’ baby, who fell from a bed and was injured at home, later died. We wish to express our sincere condolences to Ms. Thomas and Stamlin.

We are however, very disturbed that the death of this child is being portrayed as having happened at the hand of villagers. The police have the full power to take charge of emergency transportation if a medical situation presents itself during protest action. It is unfortunate that the police did not exercise this judgment in Ms. Thomas’ case. If at any time this situation was brought to the attention of the villagers we would have certainly intervened where the police didn’t. We would have with haste cleared the road and asked the police to escort her to the hospital. However, if the delay arose at the Union Village site, this was never told to us either by Ms. Thomas or the police.

Had the Guardian contacted us for our perspective when writing this story, we would have provided you with this relevant fact and assisted the journalist to prepare a more balanced article free from other inaccuracies.

We appreciate too well the importance of life and one’s children. Our peaceful and legal protest actions are aimed at protecting our lives and children’s lives from sickness and death that is associated with the Alutrint Smelter. We hope that the rest of the country can understand what it means to have to live with the reality that you and your babies have to be tested every two years for life threatening diseases caused by a development, which was supposed to be for your betterment.

We have now provided the media through written statements as well verbal interviews with very clear information that we are not protesting for jobs. We are seeking to protect our lives and community. Therefore, we would be grateful if you would also correct the inaccuracy in your article that the protest was for jobs in the smelter complex.

Mr. Elijah Gour,
President, Union Village Council, La Brea.

MR. MANNING, SMELTER NOT WELCOME!

2009-06-09T13:12:00.000-04:30

PRESS STATEMENT

JUNE 9, 2009
FROM ORGANISED CITIZENS OF SOBO, UNION, VANCE RIVER, VESSIGNY, AND SQUARE DEAL VILLAGES

We understand Mr. Manning is planning to come La Brea tomorrow to turn the sod for Alutrint's power plant.

MR. MANNING, SMELTER NOT WELCOME!

Protests involving the villages of Sobo, Vance River, Vessigny, and Union are growing. The citizens involved are against the building of the Alutrint Smelter. We now have the information that Alutrint has been hiding since February 2008 on the health risks of the smelter and the facts on such things as the loss of our beach that has been hidden from us since 2005.

Please note protests that started about two weeks ago were for jobs and fair relocation practices. However, our protest is by villagers being left to live near this smelter and we do not want it! The residents scheduled for relocation and the residents being left behind are standing together.

Those who want jobs in Alutrint have a separate platform. However, we sympathise with them as we have all been fooled that there would be safe jobs for our people. Instead we have hundreds of Chinese roaming about our backyards.

The representatives on many village councils and in the Parliament are representing Alutrint not us. They are trying to shove the smelter down our throat to silence us. This is why we are in the streets, we are representing ourselves.

Today the police discharged a firearm in the air in the midst of children in Union Village. Our protest is non-violent. We will not back down.

The State wants the people of Trinidad to believe that only a handful of residents of La Brea do not want the smelter. This is not true. For example, last week when C-news came to do a feature on La Brea they were only taken to La Brea Village where some persons told them they want the smelter. We waited for them but they never came to our villages. Please note the La Brea area consists of many villages. It is the some 4000 plus residents of Sobo, Vance River, Union, and Vessigny villages that have to be tested every two years for cancer. The residents of La Brea Village do not have to be tested. They cannot speak for us! We speak for ourselves. We do not accept this hurtful smelter.

The State is trying to create the impression that all is well and that the smelter is moving ahead at pace and is unstoppable. They want the people of Trinidad to believe we cannot stop it. This is not true. There is no plant on the ground yet. No plant will go on that ground.

We are calling on right minded citizens of Trinidad to support our call for justice and fairness. This is not just about the environment. We will continue our non-violent protests tomorrow and as long as it takes to safeguard our health and community.

Contacts:
M. Greaves, Sobo Village, Tel:795-5377
E. Gour, Union Village, Tel: 364-4574

RIP Grace Dolsingh

2008-07-07T14:55:00.002-04:30

Members of the anti-smelter community joined with friends and relatives of Grace Dolsingh last Saturday to say a final farewell to Grace Dolsingh, one of the elders of the Cedros community that stood firm against Alcoa and the government of Trinidad and Tobago and ultimately succeeded in keeping them out of their land.
Grace died from complications of two heart attacks. On Friday June 27, after suffering a mild heart attack, she was taken to the Point Fortin hospital, a woefully inadequate structure that laughably claims to serve an area of heavy industry. She was put on a chair and made to wait for 25 hours before she received medical attention. Friends and family feel that had she been attended to earlier she would have been spared the massive heart attack she succumbed to on the following Monday.
Grace's untimely passing is another indication of the strange priorities of those in power, particularly the Prime Minister of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, the Honourable Patrick Manning, who, two weeks ago signed a US$400 million loan with the Chinese government to begin work on the Alutrint aluminum smelter complex in Union. This despite the fact that there are currently four cases before the court regarding this latest manifestation of helter smelter development at the expense of our sustainability as a small island state.
We continue to ask, as we mourn a committed community elder, a mother, grandmother, friend, that the government reconsider its priorities and its promises to the people of this nation. We ask that the government reconsider its notion of development to include the needs of its people, particularly those most in need of care - the elderly, children, working mothers- many of whom populate constituencies like Point Fortin.
Eternal rest to you, Grace. We will continue your fight with all our strength and love.

Fishermen report largest recorded oil spill off east coast Trinidad

2007-09-26T22:32:00.000-04:00

It is for reasons like these that we the people of Trinidad and Tobago must never give up the struggle against the wanton destruction of our natural environment. It is for reasons like these that we cannot give our support to projects like Alutrint's aluminum smelter or Essar's steel plant or any of the other ridiculous plans to expand the presence of heavy oil and gas based industries in our backyards and on our shores.
If it takes the EMA a week to take notice of an oil spill, how can we trust them to monitor the daily emissions coming from a plant?
RAG joins with the voices of the Fishermen and Friends of the Sea and the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Fisherfolk in calling for an immediate introduction of proper emergency response mechanisms to be put in place to deal with situations like this. Below is a letter from TTUF which was sent to the press on Monday September 24, the day we celebrate our status as a republic.

To The Editor
We have copied this letter to our Prime Minister, Minister of the Environment and the EMA for their immediate attention.
In the past these public officers have done nothing to ensure proper emergency response mechanisms.
Please help us to stop this callous crime against our communities and the environment and to expose Government negligence.

The first report of this spill was made to us last week Monday by fishermen.
We sought to confirm this spill before reporting it.

The weather was very hazy this evening when these pictures were taken.
The oil slick plume shown in the attached was visible stretching for 20 miles this evening.
This is the largest oil spill that this Nation has ever had.
Weather permitting, we will get better pictures tomorrow.

Today, Monday 24th Sept, we confirmed the source of this spill by overhead flight and attach for you the enclosed pictures for publication.

We report that this oil spill is emanating from the Teak Alpha Platform which is 15 miles due east from Point Radix/Point Galeota, and which is now operated by Repsol and the NGC. The spill has been occuring for over a week and Repsol and the NGC have preferred to knowingly let it continue rather than stop it and clean it up. There is legislation under which the CEO's of this company can be prosecuted.

We, the Trinidad and Tobago Unified Fisher-folk (TTUF) reported this spill to the Coast Guard at 9.30 am this morning, but at 7pm the Coast Guard reported to us that they have not investigated it,
since they claim to have been informed by Repsol that "it is only a sheen".
It clearly is not. It spreads visibly for over 20 miles and can be viewed and filmed by your staff in aircraft provided by TUFF tomorrow afternoon based on the wind and weather factors.

Over a hundred years ago this country started oil extraction, and to date, conveniently, we are not aware of any Coordinated Emergency Response Oil Spill Plan to co-ordinate
immediate state and private sector agencies in response to oil spills. Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS) submitted an Emergency Responce Coordination Plan to the PNM Government since 2001,
in which the EMA should act as the central emergency response and investigative coordinating agency. To date no response nor acknowledgement has even been received from the Honourable but seriously careless Ministers of Energy, Environment and Prime Minister.

Why is the PNM Government dragging their feet on the approval and implementation of a co-ordinated emergency response plan? A good question is who benefits from this carelessness? Are politicians working for the energy sector? In "developed" countries the CEOs of Repsol and of the NGC would have already been prosecuted for this disaster. What is the meaning or benefit of their so called "Developed Country" status if they continue to look away from their responsibility to protect our island ?

Terrence Beddoe
Interim President
TTUF

Anti smelter movement goes to court

2007-08-07T09:33:00.000-04:00

The courtroom on Tuesday 31st July was really packed. Justice Peter Jamadar had made arrangements for this larger courtroom for this particular day because he was expecting public interest to be high. All the seats in the public gallery were filled. The lawyers section was occupied by Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj representing the litigants Maxim Harris, a resident of La Brea, and the Trinidad and Tobago Civil Rights Association; by Rishi Dass, Nyree Alphonso, and Judy Kublalsingh representing the litigants, the Smelta Karavan (Fyard Hosein SC is still in England and Nicole Mohammed was ill); and by Ramkissoon et al representing the litigants PURE (anenvironmental group from the La Brea area), and RAG, the Rights Action Group. On the defendants side there were lawyers for the EMA, for the National Energy Corporation and Alutrint, and the Attorney General seeking to represent the interests
of the State. Proceedings began at 9:00 am.There were four basic issues facing the court:
Should the Attorney General, represented by Martineau and Young, be
granted leave to intervene in the case to represent the “public
interest”?
Seeing that there were three sets of litigants, should the court allow
them all to participate in the application for leave, or should the
court eliminate one or two?
Were the three sets of litigants, all filing for judicial review of the

EMA’s decision to grant a certificate of environmental clearance to
Alutrint, “oppressive” on the EMA? The EMA has tried to argue that the
weight of three simultaneous actions was “oppressive”.
What should the timelines for submissions of affidavits, applications
etc, and for the date for the hearing of leave, be? Remember“leave”
has to be granted by the Court before the substantive matter is heard.

The judge sought the views of all the litigants on the matter of the Attorney General joining the matter. The litigants decided that the Attorney General could join, but that the matter of the AG’s possible claim for costs, in the event that the defendants won the case, had to be rectified.

The judge was of the view that all three litigants had direct interest
in the matter. His tentative direction was for the case to be “rolled up”, meaning that all three could join forces, but an order of presentation of points had to be worked out; in other words, which team would present first, second, third. There was general concurrence on “rolling up” by all three teams of litigants.

The EMA was given a deadline by which to file their claim for “oppressiveness” and the litigants were give dates by which reply to these claims.

It was decided, after much ado [because if Peake could be here then
Martineau would not be here and if he were here then Mendes would not
be here, etc etc] that the hearing for leave would be done on the 11th
-13th September. From what I gather, the decision of the court to hear
or not hear the case will be based on, first, the argue-ability of the
matter, and on, second, the standing of the litigating parties.

It was decided that the hearing would first be heard, and on the same
three days, the matter of standing would be finally ironed out.

NOTE: RL Maharaj decided to drop his constitutional motion in respect of
the Alutrint matter. He would pursue only the judicial review action.
He did not give a clear reason for doing so.

So, it is RL Maharaj, Fyard Hosein, Ramkissoon VS Martineau, Peake,
Mendes and Quamina. Justice Jamadar is keen to hear the case. He is
sensitive to the historical importance of this case. We will need to
pack his court. Please prepare your court wear for the 11th to the 13th

September, 9 o’clock at the San Fernando High Court.

Much respect to those who have shown support on this historic matter,
the outcome of which will determine our future development in the 21st
Century.

Sincerely
Wayne Kublalsingh

Defending the wild in the land of fire and ice

2007-08-03T09:40:00.000-04:00

by Jaap Krater
Saving Iceland

This year Iceland has seen it's third summer of direct action against
heavy industry and large dams. In a much disputed master-plan, all
the glacial rivers and geothermal potential of the largest wilderness
of Europe would be harnessed for aluminium production. Activists from
around the world gathered to protect Europe's largest remaining
wilderness and oppose aluminium corporations.
Icelanders were joined by activists from Africa, South and North
America and Europe for an international conference 'Global
consequences of heavy industry and large dams' organized by Saving
Iceland. "Progress is painted by some as huge projects, large scale
development. In all our countries, these have become disasters,
socially, ecologically and economically. Progress is a plenitude of
small solutions. We should let a thousand flowers bloom," states a
declaration from the conference, formulated by consensus by participants.

The conference looked at the effects of large dams on ecosystems,
climate and communities, on the role of aluminium in the arms
industry and military and on 'green-washing' strategies of large
corporations. Activists recognized the remarkable similarities in
corporate strategies between their different countries and
continents, on how communities and governments are manipulated and
environmental impacts covered up. A next activist conference is
intended in Trinidad and Tobago, where local communities oppose an
ALCOA aluminium smelter. Other campaigns that were presented included
the Movimento dos Atingidos por Barragens (Movement of Dam Affected
People, Brazil), Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada Movement,
India).

Reclaiming Reykjavik

The resistance against heavy industry and large dams in Iceland has
heated up, and not just because of global warming. Activists set up
camp in Mosfellsheiði, about ten miles north of Reykjavik. A dam was
built in front of the prime minister's office and Reverend Billy of
the Church of Stop Shopping held a sermon in Reykjavik's largest
mall, connecting heavy industry to consumerism. A public meeting was
held with the people of Thorlakshöfn (named as a site for two new
aluminum smelters) and activists from anti-heavy industry struggles
in South Africa and Trinidad.

On July 14th, Bastille-day, around a hundred people raved all over
Reykjavik's ring road in a carnaval against heavy industry. Iceland's
first Reclaim the Streets began cheerfully as Saving Iceland ran onto
Reykjavik's western ring. A clown army danced to the beats down into
the city centre. This Rave Against the Machine was organized by
Saving Iceland to "reclaim our public space, space to be free to
dance, to be free from dreary industrial car culture and to voice a
sound of festival in opposition to the grim industrialisation plans
for Iceland".
When the rave reached Reykjavik's town center, police blocked the
road and a stand-off ensued. After an hour police attacked the raving
protestors and they were all to happy to use all the techniques they
learned from training with American Swat-teams such as foot-cuffing.
Youtube removed video's of police brutality without explanation,
possibly on request of the Icelandic government.

Direct Action

On Wednesday the 18th, Saving Iceland closed the supply road to
Century Aluminum's Grundartangi Smelter and the Icelandic Alloys
steel factory. Two days later, Reykjavik Energy was invaded and a
huge banner was raised accusing the electricity company of supplying
energy to war-mongering corporations ALCAN-RioTinto and Century-
RUSAL. Reykjavik Council's building had a banner drop two days later,
as they own the energy corporation.
In the meanwhile the Icelandic consulate in Edinburgh, Scotland was
painted red under the slogan 'Iceland Bleeds', and locks were glued.

The next week, Saving Iceland blocked the gates of RioTinto-Alcan's
Straumsvik smelter in Hafnarfjordur.
Earlier protests against Alcan have been successful. Recently, in
Kashipur, Northeast India, Alcan had to give up it’s participation in
a bauxite mine because of protests against their human rights
violations and environmental devestation. Alcan has been accused of
cultural genocide in Kashipur, because mining and dams have already
displaced 150.000 mainly tribal people there.
In Iceland, the people of Hafnafjordur have stopped the expansion of
Straumsvik in a referendum, but the mayor of Hafnafjordur and Alcan
are hinting at expanding th smelter anyway, saying that the
referendum only applied to a planning permission of a certain spot by
the existing factory and that it could not stop the smelter expansion
being built on a landfill on the other side of the factory. Locals
continue to protest these plans and dropped banner's stating 'No
means no' and
'Nietsche killed god, Ludvik [the mayor] killed democracy'.

Saving Iceland then invaded Reykjavik Energy's construction site for
expanding the Hellisheidi geothermal power plant in Hengill. People
locked themselves onto machinery, climbed a giant crane and blockaded
the entrance roads. The action must have been succesful, as Reykjavik
Energy has announced to sue the protestors for the damages caused by
stopping work on the site.

Finally, the Earth Liberation Front struck Rio Tinto in England in
solidarity.
"In the early hours of 30/07/07, saboteurs struck at Smurfit Kappa, a
plastics factory owned by Rio Tinto Alcan in Chelmsford, Essex. The
gates were locked shut, office doors and loading bays were sabotaged
with glue and a message left painted on the wall. Vehicles belonging
to Rio Tinto were also sabotaged," says the ELF's statement.

Myths around Geothermal Power

The goal of enlarging Hellisheidi power plant is to meet industries
demands of energy, states the Environmental Impact Assessment,
particularly the Century expansion at Grundartangi and possible new
ALCAN and Century plants at Straumsvik and Helguvik. The expansion of
the Alcan smelter in Hafnarfjordur has been rejected by referendum,
and other smelter projects in the south west are not definite. The
current Icelandic government says to oppose more smelters, but
Hellisheidi is still being expanded. Once the expansion is completed,
this will force Iceland into more smelters because the electricity
needs to be sold to get investments back. In the mean time, farmers
pay twice as much for electricity as Century does.
The expansion of the Hellesheidi power plant in Hengill is itself not
as green as Reykjavik Energy suggests. Hot and toxic waste water is
either disposed of by pumping it back into the borehole, commonly
increasing the frequency of earthquakes in this very active fault
zone, or it is pumped untreated into streams and lakes, wiping out
valuable ecosystems as treatment is considered too expensive. The
Northern end of lake Thingvallavatn is already biologically dead in
parts due to wastewater pumping and must be protected from more
damage. Extraction of underground fluids leads to changes in
groundwater movements, commonly including drying of unique hot
springs and geysers and pollution of pure subsurface spring water.
Four endangered bird species are negatively affected: the falcon,
greylag goose, harlequin duck and raven.

Smelter expansion

ALCOA, Alcan/RioTinto, Norsk Hydro and Century/Rusal are all scheming
for new smelters in Iceland. Century Aluminum, a part of the recently
formed Russian-Swiss RUSAL/ Glencore/SUAL conglomorate, want to build
a second smelter in Iceland in Helguvik with a projected capacity of
at least 250.000 metric tons per annum. The planned site is designed
to accommodate further expansion. Grundartangi has this year been
extended to 260.000 mtpa. Currently, an environmental impact
assessment is under review for the Helguvik smelter, produced by the
construction consultants HRV (Honnun/Rafhonnun/VST). HRV are the
aluminium industry's foremost construction engineers and, with
Bechtel and Impregilo, have built the Alcoa smelter in the east.
It is absurd that an engineering company with a vested interest in
the smelter construction could be considered to produce an objective
impact assessment. The document makes idiotic claims, such as that
pollution is really not a problem because Helguvik is such a windy
place that the pollution will just blow away.
This smelter will demand new geothermal power plants at Seltún,
Sandfell, Austurengjar and Trölladyngju on the Reykjanes peninsula
(south of Reykjavik), in addition to the Hengill area which has
already been seriously damaged by Reykjavik Energy at Hellisheidi.
The impact assessment does not take these into account, nor the
impact of the huge amount of power lines and pylons required. Also,
the recquired capacity exceeds the natural capactity of the
geothermal spots, and they will cool down in three to four decades.
Century admits it wants the site to expand further in the next
decades. So it is obvious that this smelter will not just ruin
Reykjanes but also need additional hydropower.
The impact procedure seems to be completely irrelevant anyway, since
the company has completed an equity offering worth $360 million to be
deployed for partly financing the construction of the Helguvik
smelter project. This indicates that Century already has high level
assurances that the project is to continue no matter what. This
completely contradicts the claims of the new government of Iceland
that it is opposed to new smelter projects.

Expansion of Icelandic Alloys and aluminium smelters considerably
contribute to Iceland 's greenhouse emissions. If there are no
further expansions of heavy industry beyond Grundartangi and ALCOA
Fjardaal (the new smelter in the east), Iceland will emit 38% more
greenhouse gases than in 1990. If other expansion plans continue,
levels would rise to an incredible 63% above 1990 levels..
"This shows that all the talk about green energy from hydro and
geothermal is, in reality, a lie. Icelanders have to rise up against
these transnational corporations," says Saving Iceland.

Aluminium = War

One effect of this year's actions has been to expose the dubious role
of aluminum companies in the arms industry. Much of the aluminium
produced goes directly to the war efforts of the US, Russia and
others. Alumium is the single most important bulk metal for modern
warfare. It is the most important bulk metal for missiles, tanks,
fighter planes, and nuclear weapons. "It is as if Iceland is
organizing a competition which company - ALCOA, Alcan/RioTinto or
Century/RUSAL - has committed the most human rights and environmental
crimes to decide who to sell energy," says Saving Iceland.
ALCOA's links to the US's military-industrial complex is well known.
But until now Century and Alcan have managed to stay out of the picture.

Century is a subsidiary of Glencore, which is well known for shady
deals with apartheid South Africa, Communist Russia, Iran, and Iraq
under Saddam Hussein". Glencore has merged with RUSAL, making the
largest aluminium company in the world. RUSAL, as the main aluminium
supplier of the Russian military, of course contributes directly to
the war in Chechnya, where at least 35.000 civilians have been
killed, with bombs and missiles made of aluminium. Glencore are also
known to have recently massacred Wayuu Indians and local farmers
in Colombia for mine expansion.

RioTinto-Alcan's aluminium alloys are sold for a whole range of
military purposes. Alcan is the main supplier for European Aerospace
and Defense and Space, producer of military helicopters, military
satellites, the Eurofighter Tycoon, Mirage F1, EF18 Hornet and other
jets. EADS is the world's leading producer of missiles. Deals made
between the EADS and Alcan are presented as between Airbus and Alcan,
to cloud the military involvement; it is common for all aluminium
companies to hide their 'defense' products under the title
'aerospace'. But at the same time, military products need to be
marketed, so images of fighter jets are displayed on Alcan
Aerospace's website. Alcan also supplies to arms-manufacturer's
Boeing (US) and Dassault (France).

Colonizing Africa

RioTinto-Alcan has now signed a letter of intent with the Govt. of
Cameroon to expand the existing Alucam smelter with 150.000 Mtpy, and
build a new 150.000 Mtpy smelter. The Lom Pangar Dam, to be
constructed by the government, would power this. Alcan have a large
number of projects planned Africa - their "greenfield project
pipeline" includes Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Madagascar and South
Africa. 'Greenfield' means that untouched nature will be destroyed
for the mines, infrastructure, smelters, and dams that would power them.
Alcan was active in apartheid South Africa between 1949-1986. Now
they want to come back and develop a new smelter in the near zero-tax
'Coega Development Zone' near Port Elizabeth, powered by coal and
nuclear delivered by Eskom, one of the worlds largest electricity
companies. "Thirty percent of the poor communities of South Africa
don't have electricity, and now that will be going straight to
Alcan," says Lerato Maregele, a S-African activist visiting Iceland.
Elkom is a 'sister-company' of Iceland's national power company
Landsvirkjun. Landsvirkun want to be part of this deal and more
generally branch out to Africa, in a joint operation with Iceland's
national bank Landsbankinn. Landsvirkjun can be expected to try and
sell their expertise to Eskom's various hydroprojects in Mozambiqu,
Uganda and Congo. They will try to be part of damming the Congo
river, a project twice the size of China's Three Gorges, that will
have a devastating effect on the central African rainforest.
In the meanwhile, Alcoa are planning seven new dams in the Amazon
rainforest to power aluminium smelters.

Kick them out!

So aluminium corporations are posing a massive threat to wildlife,
wilderness and people around the world. In Iceland, people have seen
the destruction wrought by the Karahnjukar dam, and are more and more
hesitant about bringing more heavy industry into the country.
Stopping Alcoa, Alcan-RioTinto and Century-Rusal in Iceland will be a
major slap in their faces, and it is possible definitely possible to
win the struggle in Iceland if Icelanders keep on receiving
international support and solidarity. More and more a global network
against heavy industry is forming and kicking them out of Iceland can
be a first step to kicking these evil bastards off the planet.

Saving Iceland celebration marred by police intervention

2007-07-14T19:31:00.000-04:00

It started off as peaceful and fun filled protest party, but turned ugly when officers of the Icelandic police force put an end to Rave Against the Machine – a reclaim the streets type event being hosted by our brothers and sisters in the struggle against heavy industry, Saving Iceland - on Saturday July 14 in downtown Reykjavik. Just 20 minutes from the end of the parade, police intervened, causing a complete stop to the slowed flow of traffic behind the Rave.
For more than an hour, the Rave stood still on Snorrabraut, close to Rejkyavik's main shopping street. Us ravers were led by the antics of our very own Clown Army. We partied in the streets for an end to heavy industry in Iceland, South Africa and Trinidad. Scores of Icelanders gathered on the corners, giving support, reading information sheets and generally enjoying the music and Iceland's first reclaim the streets celebration. In the midst of negotiations, the police officers seemed to change their minds, and a struggle began between the peaceful protestors and the officers. Suddenly they were grabbing clowns, bystanders. One young woman was grabbed by the hair and thrown to the ground. Officers then forcibly removed the driver of the music van from the driver's seat. At the same time five officers had grabbed two of the ravers and pinned them to the pavement. As the crowd chanted 'the whole world is watching' and 'Hitler police', the police continued their brutality against the unarmed protestors. Cameras recorded the violence, but the other ravers kept calm, asking what were the charges. The dj played on.
Moments later the two arrestees were picked up like trapped animals, their feet and hands bound behind them and put into the police van. At this time they also grabbed another bystander who had questioned their brutality. When the van of police drove away with the prisoners, another police officer broke the glass on the driver's seat of the music van and disconnected the power. The speakers went silent, but the voices of the people gathered continued in the streets. The police then left the scene and the rave continued to the police station three blocks away where the arrested ravers were being held. The still free ravers gathered outside the station singing and drumming. On two occasions the police emerged from their fortress to intimidate the ravers, at one point to rip down the banners that were hung from the front of the station and then to arbitrarily grab at any dancer within reach.
The latest news is that the arrested ravers are being held overnight at the station in downtown Rejkyavik and that they would be released by Sunday morning. The police have thus far witheld information on their medical status, although an ambulance was seen entering the facility.

DECLARATION

2007-07-12T09:42:00.000-04:00

SAVING ICELAND CONFERENCE
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES ON HEAVY INDUSTRY AND LARGE DAMS
JULY 7-8, 2007.

We are gathered in Olfus, Iceland, we are people from more then 15 different countries and five continents. We are here to share our experiences of heavy industry, dams, transnational companies and other expressions of globalisation, in Iceland, in Brazil, in South Africa, in Denmark, in Canada, in England, Germany, Trinidad and Tobago and many other countries.

We are not professional protestors. Unlike the well-paid corporate lobbyists and spindoctors that try to sell you heavy industry, none of us gets payed to be here. We are ordinary people, we are teachers, nurses, youth workers, students, shopworkers, fathers, mothers. We are here because we care. The Icelandic wilderness is unique. It is the largest in Europe and one of the few wild places left on this continent. It’s beauty and uniqueness and fire and ice are a heritage we must preserve and must defend. It is the heritage and responsibility and privilege of all Icelanders, and all Europeans, and all humans.

We are global citizens in opposition to global companies.

We find it remarkable that in all our countries, we see and suffer from transnational companies following the same blueprint. All around the world, in north and south, in present and past, the same picture is coloured. An ugly picture coloured grey and black. We see the same patterns wrought by corporations. Patterns of ecological devastation. Of total disrespect for human rights. Of creating an environment that is unhealthy to live, where we do not want to raise our children anymore. Of the destruction of communities. Of the corruption and manipulation of governments.

We stand in solidarity with each other, we have a common struggle against common enemies such as ALCAN, RUSAL, ALCOA and Century.

Icelanders – do not forget what these foreign companies have done in the past and are doing now. How heavy industry has . How these people lie, bribe and your government. People from Africa, from South America and many places tell you – do not trust them. Do not walk into this trap. It is the trap of neocolonisation. It is the trap of false promises. How will you face your children if you sacrifice this country, this unique and unspoilt country.

Progress is painted by some as huge projects, large scale development. In all our countries, these have become disasters, socially, ecologically, economically. Progress is a plentitude of small solutions. We would let a thousand flowers bloom.

Inform yourself. Make up your own mind. Do not stay sitting on the fence, as if it doesn’t affect you. You have to make a decision.

Dams in Iceland only provide electricity for half a short time – they are not a long term solution. They do in fact emit greenhouse gases, aluminium smelters produce very, very large amounts. It is not a green metal at all. If you allow these factories, all of the credit you have under the Kyoto Protocol vanish like snow. If we do not face the dangers of climate change, our world will become unliveable.

What is this all for? You pride yourself for not having an army, but 30% of aluminium is produced for the military, for war effort, for tanks, for missiles. Will you let your wilderness be destroyed so that countries can bomb each other? Or do you prefer to sacrifice it for pepsi-cans?

It is not that Iceland will be sacrificed so other places will be saved. The aluminium industry will build devastating smelters in South Africa and Trinidad, and all the major rivers of the Amazon are threatened by large dams for heavy industry.

Why more aluminium? Why more dams? What kind of world will we end up with and what will we become?

We can all make a difference. Raise consciousness. Mount pressure. Bring information to schools, bring it to your work and your communities. Everyone can care, no matter how large or small they are, because we are all human. Inform yourself. Make up your own mind or it will be made up for you.

Signed,

Abigail Ley, USA
Alona Kononovica, Latvia
Antje Hersrick, Germany
Astrid Österreicher, Austria
Attillah Springer, Trinidad & Tobago
Bettine van Rijnswou, the Netherlands
Birgitta Jonsdottir, Iceland
Cirineu da Rocha, Movement of Dam Affected People MAB, Brazil
Daniel Nemeryi, England
Einar Rafn Þorhallson, Iceland
Eric Duchemin, Nature Quebeq, Canada
Gigja Sara Björnsson, Iceland/France
Gudmundur M.H. Beck, Iceland
Helen B, England
Jaap Krater, the Netherlands
Joanna Pasol, Austria
Johann Oli, Birdlife, Iceland
Jon G. Hefsteinsson
L. Maregele, South Africa
Laura Lnakkoiun, Finland
Mimi Sheller, USA
Olafur Pall Sigurdsson, Iceland
Patricia von Moravie, Germany/Austria
Rebecca Evans, England
Rev. Billy Talen, USA
Savitri D, USA
Spring Exprit, Austria/Spain
Trude Menrath, Germany
Wouter vd Pool, the Netherlands

And others.

This weekend in Olfus, Iceland

2007-07-05T04:24:00.000-04:00

A call to arms on World Environment Day

2007-06-05T13:53:00.000-04:00

Another World Environment Day has come and it feels as if Trinidad and
Tobago is no closer to coming to terms with the many challenges of
moving forward economically in ways that are sustainable and
non-threatening to human life.
It's not just a fight for the environmentalists. The energy experts,
the economists, the local contractors, all need to take interest in
the quest for sustainable forms of development.
At this moment in world history, Trinidad and Tobago continues to
exclude itself from the growing global conversation on climate change
and what we can be doing as a nation to mitigate its effects on
ourselves and generations to come.
We are already reaping the harvest of our carelessness, one wonders
how much hotter it needs to get before the EMA, the government and the
Opposition begin to get serious about how Trinidad and Tobago plans to
come to terms with global warming and the reality of climate change.
Whether on the issue of smelting or waste water or food security or
the land sinking into the sea in Cedros, Trinidad and Tobago's
environment is in a state of crisis.
The Rights Action Group urges those in positions of power to begin to
take decisive action and stop protecting the interests of that small
group of profit makers.
RAG urges all concerned citizens,environmentalists, social activists,
farmers and community organisations to not give up hope. We also pay
respect to all the communities and individuals across Trinidad and
Tobago who have been doing their part to raise consciousness in our
communities and in our board rooms. All those who have been struggling
against immense odds to bring attention to the problems in their
communities, to increase their access to information, to demand
answers from their leaders and to insist that communities are actively
involved in the consultation process.
We look forward to more participation and more commitment to a nation
that is moving forward into a clean, sustainable and more equitably
future.
In solidarity,
RAG

Earth Always - initiative from Trinidad

2007-06-04T09:52:00.000-04:00

Consciousness Raising is a feminist group on the University of the West Indies Campus. The group is made up of individuals diverse in age, marital status, occupation, education, physical ability, sexuality, race and ethnicity, class and political views. However, we are united in our concern for issues affecting not only each other but our country and the global community.

One of these issues is Global Warming.

It’s no secret that our climate is changing. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1990; in fact 2005 was the hottest year since record keeping began. Greenhouse gas pollution is the primary cause of global warming and much of the emissions come from energy production. In our government’s effort to achieve their 2020 vision are they sacrificing our country’s environment? Is the importance of “Investing in sound infrastructure” and “Enabling competitive business” worth the price of our fragile ecosystem?

24/7 Earth Always is Consciousness Raising’s suggestion to stop the degradation of our country’s natural environment and to build a future in which we can all live in harmony with nature.

24/7 Earth Always is about consciousness-raising, about capturing YOUR imagination and empowering YOU to make a difference. We aim to show that together, WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!

Trinidad and Tobago has signed and agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where countries commit “to reducing their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.” We are asking that citizens of our country unite and remind our government of the promises made regarding our environment. The more people get on board and support the campaign, the more it will have a significant effect on what our government is going to do about the issue.

Therefore, we are inviting companies, government departments, schools, communities, individuals and families of Trinidad and Tobago to conserve energy for 24 hours on June 5, which is World Environment Day, to show that it is possible to take action on global warming and that we care about our planet.

How do you go about doing this?
AT HOME:

Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs
Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs to save money and reduce emissions. Lighting accounts for around 5% of household greenhouse gas emissions, and compact fluros use 75% less energy than an equivalent incandescent bulb. Although the bulbs cost more up-front, you will actually save money through the energy saved and extended life of the bulb.

Turn appliances off standby
Unplug any appliances - mobile phone charger, TV, microwave, MP3 player - which are not being used and are on standby. Appliances on standby consume up to 10% of your electricity bill. Turn off anything that does not need to be on. A good rule is to turn off anything not being used. When you leave a room or leave the house, turn off your lights or appliances like the TV or computer.

N.B. A more detailed list of what can be done room by room is attached.

AT THE OFFICE

Get off standby
Speak to your office manager about turning off any equipment at work that is not being used, including computer screens, photocopiers and printers.

Before you leave the office
When you leave work each day, remember to turn off any lights in your workspace and your computer. Remember to unplug your mobile phone or laptop charger when it is not in use.

Find out what's happening in your workplace?
Your organisation may already be doing a lot to reduce their emissions. Ask about your environmental policy and find out what is already happening. Look for ways to reduce energy use in your workplace and encourage improvements.

AT SCHOOL

Lights & Computers
Turn-off lights and fans when no one is in the classroom, especially at recess and lunchtime. Turn-off computers & monitors when they are not in use.
Air Conditioning
Keep the doors & windows closed in your classroom when the air conditioning is running. Ensure there is nothing blocking air conditioning vents in your classroom. Make sure the thermostat settings are not set too high or too low.

Water
Turn off the taps when you are finished. Tell a teacher if there is a leaking tap in the toilets, classroom or playground.

When you get home after your day at work or school, do not stop the energy conserving there - Get together with friends and family for a BBQ. Sit outside and look at the stars. Go for a stroll if you have a park nearby. Have a picnic or candlelight dinner. Talk with your family and friends about the state of our planet and the need to make a change to keep the place we live the way we need it to be.

Do something non-electric – but most importantly enjoy!

Smelta Karavan launches this Friday!

2007-05-31T07:10:00.000-04:00

THIS FRIDAY! June 1st 11:30 a.m.
VENUE: Outside E.M.A/ OVAL
THE SMELTA KARAVAN mobile community bus makes its first public appearance at 11:30 a.m.

This is also the FINAL day of a 40-day fast dedicated to this movement of increasing awareness and involvement...
People we did not all know were making sacrifices with THE BIG
PICTURE in mind.
Someone was walking our talk.
There is at least some little something we each can do to say thank
you, I'm in it too!

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?
-Come on down.
-Tell a friend to come on down
-Call the your favorite local newspaper/ TV/ radio station and tell
them to come on down. Call twice.
- Just tell friends and family any way, even if you can't come. Spread
the word, "Have you heard....?"
- fwd emails you receive to those who share your interest
- risk sharing with those who don't
- share emails on the issue with T&T people living abroad
- I don't know, what CAN YOU DO? - DO IT!
T&T IS NOT FOR SALE!

I am going because :
The EMA is as good a place as any to enjoy important conversations
about the things I care about with those who share my concerns.

Legally, there is no local, regional or international precedent about
this issue.
If we want T&T green we have to attend its garden our selves!
The base of the pyramid must inform the head.

BIG UP TO:
Wayne Kublalsingh, Rosanna Farmer, Beena Baggan and friends who have
been quietly persevering.

Of Wayne, Rosanna says:
"He has been the mast while the rest of us have flapped about sometimes
wildly in the breeze,
but mostly catching the wind and moving this ship forward……however
even the strongest of masts
can break. Knowing all that he has done in the past few months I ask
you to give all that you got...."

BIG UP TO:
Navin Parray

Thanks to him we can all update and connect at www.smeltakaravan.org
which will be developed over the coming days and weeks. Blog on and upload relevant
environmental images articles etc.
Navin is also a founding member of
Trinidad Photography Club
(http://trinidadphotographyclub.wordpress.com/)for amateur
photographers and you can see his work at www.parray.com

BIG UP TO:
Simon Aboud at SIGN POST -
The mobile Karavan will have a banner to advertise the domain name
www.smeltakaravan.org

BIG UP TO:
THOSE WHO HAVE REGISTERED TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION FOR VOLUNTEERING
PHOTOGRAPHY/ VIDEO SERVICES!!...and counting.
EVEN JUST ONE DAY for the year would offer more than you could know.

Check up at www.smeltakaravan.org where we will soon be able to update
each other and keep in touch.

WE NEED:
-writers/ producers/ editors willing to create video material on the
topic
Even funky 60 sec ads on the topic
- we need artists, musicians etc willing to compose produce and record
music,
jingles etc on the issue
- we need help organizing and archiving material so that the journey of
a caring people will be recorded for
future generations regardless of what this government does or does not
do.
- we need people to clip news paper news about the issue, to scan to
convert to electronic documents and submit for the Smelta Karavan NGO records
- We need writers and PROs to put out for sponsorship, grants, funds -local and international etc etc.
If you see a need only you can fill, we welcome your involvement.

WHERE EVER YOU ARE DO WHAT YOU CAN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU CARE ABOUT.

ONE ONE DOES FULL BASKET.

Joanne Gail Johnson
www.caribbeanchildren.com

That dubious Alutrint CEC

2007-05-08T06:11:00.000-04:00

by Prof Julian Kenny
Trinidad Express
May 8, 2007

I am sure that Dr Saith has access to top legal advice to support his view that the Government is not afraid of any legal challenge on the CEC granted to Alutrint. After all, the Constitution does charge the executive with the general direction and control of the government of the country. On the other hand Dr Saith by now must be able to recite from memory the oath of office to uphold the Constitution and the law. As a highly experienced legislator he will confirm that when this country signs, accedes or ratifies an international treaty, it does so with the genuine intention of fulfilling its obligations to the international community.

I have written before on the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Materials and their Disposal. This country acceded to the treaty in February 1994, 13 years ago. Despite repeated requests from the Chief Parliamentary Counsel for instructions (Hansard, March 3, 1998) nothing I know of has been done. Perhaps this is deliberate as without the essential domestic legislation the High Court may simply rule that the Basel Convention is irrelevant. Note that in the appeal by Talisman against the refusal of the EMA to grant a CEC for a 3D seismic survey in the Nariva Swamp, the Environmental Commission did not even bother to hear technical arguments. It ruled simply that the EMA violated the right of the company to be heard, that the RAMSAR Convention (wetlands of international importance as habitat for wildfowl), one pillar of the EMA's decision, could not be applied in the absence of necessary domestic legislation.

But to return to the Basel Convention if one reads through the "internationalese" there are two things that stand out. The first is that parties to the convention may not ship hazardous wastes to non-party members. The second is that if a party member wishes to ship to a non-party member it may only do so by the mechanism of a bilateral treaty with the non-party. The United States has not ratified the convention. And notice that the US, having signed it, has not ratified the convention of the International Criminal Court, choosing to seek bilateral agreements - with inducements!

It seems therefore that the position taken by the EMA regarding the spent pot liners, accepting a "draft agreement" between Alutrint and some firm in Arkansas, is clearly in breach of the principles of the convention that we signed, unless, of course, there has been some formal bilateral treaty between the US and this country about which we know nothing. And there is yet another major problem. To ship spent pot liners to the US shipments will have to pass through the exclusive economic zones of other countries party to the convention, requiring their approval. Has this been done? If so, can the EMA give the route and the countries involved? And remember that the spent pot liner issue will only arise five to eight years down the line.

And again, there are relevant issues. There is in law a National Physical Development Plan that was approved by Parliament in 1984. Existing law requires the Minister to secure consistency and continuity in development of policy in accordance with the plan approved by Parliament. When the NEC applied for a CEC for clearing 800 acres of Union Estate it was granted without consideration of the fact that the area was designated for agriculture. The EMA, had it the independence it claims it has, would have been on much stronger grounds for a refusal of a CEC, and in its refusal it could simply have advised the NEC that the matter be referred to the ministry responsible for planning, so that a revised regional plan could be submitted for approval by Parliament after the necessary public consultations and review.

That the EMA does not seem to understand the jurisdiction of Parliament should not surprise anyone. At the Government's aluminium symposium a few months ago the EMA expert on the panel ventured that the Authority preferred to deal directly with applicants on the matter of standards, clearly not understanding that the jurisdiction for final approval of standards belongs to Parliament, not Cabinet, as the jurisdiction for physical planning in law clearly belongs to Parliament. Does the Authority assume that Parliament has no role? If so, why lay water pollution rules and not air pollution and hazardous wastes rules? Notwithstanding the directions given to the Authority regarding standards elsewhere in the Act Sections 26 and 27 clearly establishes the role of Parliament, if even for negative resolution of a ministerial order, which may be challenged with a motion.

Sadly, things are stacked against citizens for regardless of the cause it costs serious money to challenge any Government of Trinidad and Tobago, although governments have been shown to violate constitutional rights and law. Just think back to the Maha Sabha radio licence case, and to the Integrity in Public Life Act that demands fairness, and prohibits favouritism.

Culture Jamming Trinidad Style - What EMA stands for

2007-05-02T19:58:00.000-04:00

As seen on the wall of their Elizabeth Street St. Clair office.
Keep jamming the shitstem, Trinbagonians!

Action Alert: Anti-smelter activist begins fast outside EMA

2007-04-19T19:15:00.000-04:00

Dear friends,
University lecturer and anti-smelter activist Dr. Wayne Kublalsingh
was forcibly removed from the head office of the Environmental
Management Authority this evening (Thursday April 19) .
Dr. Kublalsingh went to the office earlier today, asking whether at
the time of the granting of the CEC to Alutrint, a contract or
agreemernt with the waste disposal company in Arkansas actually
exists. The hazardous waste facility is to be the final destination
for the Spent Pot Lining waste from the Alutrint smelter plant on
Union Industrial Estate.
After being ousted by members of the protective services, Dr.
Kublalsingh began a fast outside the office and has pledged to remain
there on Elizabeth Street in St. Clair, until he receives a
satisfactory response.
The Anti smelter lobby would like to thank those citizens and
international supporters who continue to suppoort our actions for
people centred development and environmental justice and we would like
to urge all concerned citizens to show solidarity for Dr. Kublalsingh.
If you can, please pass by Elizabeth Street and give your support.
If not, please also send your call for clarification on what will be
done with the SPLs.
Environmental Management Authority
8 Elizabeth Street
St. Clair
Port of Spain
Trinidad
Phone - 628 8042
Fax - 628-9122
EMail - ema@ema.co.tt

In solidarity
RAG

No Water? Drink Smelta

2007-04-18T06:47:00.000-04:00

Cathal Healy-Singh
Environmental Engineer
Anti-Smelter Alliance

The following contradictions accompany the recent decision by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) to award a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) for the ALUTRINT Aluminium Smelter Complex proposed for Union Industrial Estate:

Our National Environmental Policy (NEP, revised in 2005) contains an important ‘Energy’ Clause which requires that a cost – benefit economic analysis of gas/oil energy allocations to major developments be part of any impact assessment. Provision for this assessment should have been made in the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) which is to inform the EMA’s decision making on ALUTRINT’s application for a CEC.

The Environmental Act (of 2000) binds the EMA to follow its Policy. Despite this, the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) failed to include this energy analysis in the TOR they approved to asses ALUTRINT’s smelter complex. This failure is significant as smelters require ‘vast’ amounts of natural gas. The Government’s 2020 smelting plans which include ALCOA, would more than double the 2005 national per capita electricity consumption rates, with no regard for future ‘energy security’ needs.

ALUTRINT failed to confirm any firm arrangement for the safe disposal of Spent Pot Liner (SPL), a deadly toxic by-product of smelting. When ALUTRINT first spoke of disposing SPL in November 2005, they proposed to bury it on-site and later truck it to an industrial landfill in Trinidad. But T&T does not have any physical infrastructure or regulation for safe disposal of hazardous wastes. After being challenged on this matter, ALUTRINT claimed that SPL would be shipped to a private treatment facility in Arkansas, USA. Yet their EIA failed to make mention of the necessary approvals required by USA State and Federal Authorities. They are also silent on the consent required from fellow CARICOM States for T&T to ship toxic waste through their territorial waters.

SPL is a cocktail of hazardous wastes requiring stringent handling, treatment and disposal every three-to-five years of smelting. Improper disposal would constitute ecological disaster. The EMA should therefore not have awarded the CEC until firm long-term legal agreements and assurances for safe disposal of SPL were secured by ALUTRINT.

There also remain significant outstanding questions relating to the impact of smelters on the health of ‘pot room’ workers. ALUTRINT spent considerable effort to convince the national community that advances in pollution control technologies had reduced to an acceptable level the cancer risk to workers in the massive smelting ‘pot-rooms’ - where aluminium oxide powder is electrolyzed at 1000 Degrees Celsius, using a gigantic electric current, into molten aluminium metal. However, research around the world on both old and new smelting technologies continues to find increases in specific forms of cancer and respiratory ailments in pot-room workers. This is unsurprising given the toxic nature of raw material inputs.

Furthermore, research on the impact of smelting on the health of surrounding communities is extremely limited, as reaffirmed by the Australian presenter at the UWI Engineering Department’s Smelter Symposium. We do not accept the methodology used in the much touted Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment carried out for ALUTRINT by Canadian consultant ‘SENES’, to calculate actual conditions of pollution exposure that will be experienced by the some 10,000 surrounding La Brea residents. This is of great concern despite ALUTRINT’s claim that the methodology used is generally accepted in North America. It is important to note that because of a lack of resident technical expertise in the EMA to understand this Risk Assessment, they relied on another Canadian company called ‘JACQUE WHITFORD’ to advise them on the findings of SENES.

The truth is the impact of cancerous substances emitted from aluminium smelters on surrounding human and environmental health is not properly understood. Like most industries, reduction in impacts has accompanied technological advances. However, given that existing baseline health conditions in La Brea (and other industrialized areas like Point Lisas) are not presently properly understood, ‘caution’ should have been the EMA’s ‘natural response’ to the introduction of smelting into our small-island state.

The National Environmental Policy also refers extensively to the importance of the role of the EMA to ‘educate’ and ‘inform’ the Public on environmental issues and risks. Yet during ALUTRINT’s CEC process, the EMA made no effort at any time to educate anyone on the risks and/or issues associated with aluminium smelters. Hence, the community stakeholders were unable to develop an informed view on the industry.

Some front-line community residents surrounding the proposed footprint of the Union Industrial Estate were beguiled by large sums of cash money and job promises from ALUTRINT’s Public Relations campaign, which was passed off to the EMA as part of their ‘public consultation’ drive. But, had the EMA been interested in following their own Policy, they would have found it imperative to educate both the national and front-line communities and not rely solely on ALUTRINT to do so.

We believe that given all of the above, the EMA should have invoked the “Precautionary Principle”, provided for in the National Environmental Policy, which says essentially ‘when in doubt, don’t proceed’. The EMA should, on this principle, have denied the CEC to ALUTRINT.

But caution was not on the mind of the EMA’s Chief Executive Officer, McIntosh, when he announced the award of the Certificate of Environmental Clearance to ALUTIRINT. He insisted that there had been no political interference and expressed satisfaction that ALUTRINT could smelt away if they agreed to an intensive regime of pollution monitoring and reporting of potential cancerous substances expected to be released continuously from the plant over its projected 50 year life span.

McIntosh also insisted that the twenty-seven (27) new EMA staff members promised to them by Government would be promptly assigned to the new task ahead. ‘More staff’ was the likely concessionary ‘carrot’ extended to the EMA by the modern industrial state 2020 Visionaries in the PNM administration headed up by Prime Minister Manning.

Having completed his mission, McIntosh will no doubt be retired and replaced by another champion of corporate environmentalism. A curious Public wonders why notable EMA Board Members, John Agard, a UWI academic and David Abdullah, a trade unionist, were unruffled by the CEO’s announcement of the green light for ALUTRINT. The Public remains shocked by the EMA’s betrayal of its own core principle of valuing life and the right of citizens of our Republic to be informed when their right to a healthy life is being threatened.

World Earth Day Invitation from the Anti-Smelter Alliance

2007-04-18T05:54:00.000-04:00

Friends,
you may be aware that Sunday 22 April, 2007, is World Earth
Day.
The significance of this day is ever-increasing as the world struggles
to control the decimation of the environment, changing climates due to
global warming and the ensuing threats to food and water security.
Our country is not exempt as our small island faces the possibility of
over-industrialisation - which would likely result in the extinction of
agriculture (along with the ability to feed ourselves) and our compromised
health. The Anti-Smelter Alliance has planned a celebration of World Earth
Day at the site of the proposed Alutrint smelter at Union Village on
Sunday.
Your presence would be greatly appreciated.
It is hoped that this ceremony will send a message of solidarity to all
concerned citizens and organisations.
Everyone is asked to gather at Square Deal Corner at 8:30 a.m. This will
be followed by an Interfaith Service to pray for the future of our country.
The Alliance also feels it is important to leave a green 'flag' to mark
the occasion - as such, you are invited to bring along and plant a tree or
shrub at the proposed smelter site. Included the day's activities, which
will run until 11.30 a.m., will be a cultural section.
Comrades, as the clock ticks and we draw near to a decided fate for our
land, it is imperative that anti-smelter activists show steely strenght and
determination.
It is of the utmost importance that our numbers be many.
We ask you for a firm comittment to help us make a statement on Sunday.
Please come out and let it be seen that the movement remains, that we grow
and that we will not give up or give in. The message must be clear - NO
SMELTER!
We thank you for your support.

Is EMA a puppet for the Government?

2007-04-10T05:26:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor
April 10, 2007

After deafening public outcry from all sectors of the national community and conclusive research studies from eminent environmentalists on the dangers of the operations of smelter plants in south Trinidad, the Environmental Â Management Authority (EMA) had the audacity to grant a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) to Alutrint! How insensitive, disrespectful and blatantly insulting this agency could be to people's constitutional right in wanting a healthy, chemical-free environment!

It is indeed strange to know that the EMA's dreaded decision came mere hours after environmentalists met with the Patrick Manning-led Cabinet's Energy Committee to present their case against the smelters. Based on this strange sequence of events, many questions can now be asked of the PNM Government's role in EMA's decision. Is the EMA independent and impartial in its decision-making? Or is it a heavy-handed puppet of the State? Â

According to the Town and Country Planning Act there are zoned areas for industrial development. Was there a compromise and/or breach of this law because of the whims and fancies of a higher authority?

Given the overwhelming public outrage over this latest development, the country demands honest answers from the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Planning and Development.

Colin Ghouralal

Another way to manage our environment

2007-04-10T05:22:00.000-04:00

by Prof Julian Kenny
Trinidad Express
April 10, 2007

"The task the EMA will now face...is one of monitoring and understanding what the baseline conditions are, so we can examine any shifts in terms of the human health of the area or impacts on vegetation and wildlife."

EMA official release

The headline of the story in the Sunday Express of April 1 stated bluntly - "Tiny blind animal halts $b Aussie mine". No it was not an April 1 joke. But it certainly illustrates the differences between us and the Australians. A tiny cave dwelling arachnid is the grain of sand in the machinery. The species, or I should say the few species involved, are relics of a group that once lived in rainforests in Australia, forests that dried out in time, and have retreated into cave environments and continued to evolve, feeding on organic matter underground. These tiny creatures measuring a few millimetres are now eyeless.

The thing is that Rio Tinto wants to develop a $12 billion iron ore mine in the environment occupied by these creatures and the creatures are in the way. Australia has an Environmental Protection Agency and the EPA's Chairman has ruled, on behalf of the EPA, that the mining proposal is environmentally unacceptable. The EPA's ground for rejection? The Environment Impact Assessment studies, conducted by the company, discovered five new species of these creatures unique to the proposed mining site. Of course, Australia has the appropriate legal and institutional mechanisms that permit appeals or resolution of the problem. While the EPA makes a decision on scientific grounds, the minister in the end may make the final decision, taking into account social and economic factors, as well as political risks. There the matter rests for the time. Conflicts of this kind are relatively common in the developed world - an owl, or salamander or fish standing in the way of "development".

We, on our way to developed country status by 2020, also have an agency that is charged with "managing" the environment. That body, the Environmental Management Authority, was established during the first Manningadministration, as a conditionality of a World Bank loan for business expansion (and don't be fooled into thinking otherwise). Note that its name is "authority", not "agency". For the first few years the Authority was powerless, in the absence of the Environmental Commission. Many hoped that the Authority would be independent of political influence and would make decisions on technical grounds, more or less like the Australian EPA.

Of course, it was only a hope. Although members of the EMA were "appointed" by the President, who signed their instruments, they were Cabinet appointments, like any other board appointment.

The first stumble of the Board was the celebrated case of the CEC application by Talisman to conduct a 3D seismic survey at the edge of the Nariva Swamp. The application was rejected outright without giving a hearing to the company - the wetland lobby. The Company's appeal to the Commission was allowed, without hearing any technical arguments, supporting the rights of the company to a hearing, and the irrelevance in domestic law to the Ramsar Convention and the National Wetlands Policy. Eventually Talisman successfully conducted its 3D seismic survey.

Ironically, the EMA could have used the same approach of outright rejection of the NEC application for land clearing for an industrial estate at Union Estate, but on stronger legal grounds, that of the National Physical Development Plan adopted by Parliament in 1984. The Australian EPA would have done so and left it to the politicians to make the decision. In the plan Union Estate was designated for agriculture and intensive agriculture while Point Fortin was a growth centre. The NEC could then have appealed to the Commission. But no, a CEC was granted for clearing about 800 acres of mixed agriculture and forested lands with three artificial lakes and the lunar landscape is now to be the site of the Alutrint smelter. And the citizens of Union Village have had to endure in these past two years noise and dust, and the on again off again resettlement of their village. As I suggested earlier the NEC and the EMA are really provoking citizens. I hazard a guess that the anti-smelter groups will now more than likely take legal action for judicial review of the EMA's decision.

The grounds? Amongst others, original failure to take into account the approved National Physical Development Plan; deciding to conduct baseline environment studies as smelter construction progresses; deciding the matter in the absence parliamentary approved air pollution standards and rules; failure to show confirmation that the United States has agreed to accept spent pot liners in accordance with the Basel Convention; failure to show that our neighbours have agreed to shipment of hazardous wastes through their waters.

And now the EMA will monitor the effects of the smelter on the vegetation and wildlife of the area, 800 acres of which have already been cleared of vegetation and wildlife with EMA approval.

Another Industrial Revolution

2007-04-09T07:12:00.000-04:00

by Mary King
Trinidad Express
April 9, 2007

The EMA has given its approval for the construction of the Alutrint smelter. An important consideration is that Alutrint is 60 per cent owned by us and it will be using electricity, as its largest single expense, derived from our natural gas resources. Hence we as the majority owner have to be satisfied that the economics are efficient.

It simply is not good enough for Alutrint to say that it is satisfied with its business model; i.e. given the gas price it was able to obtain from our Government it will be profitable. The question is, profitable for whom, the Venezuelans? Surely, we have to monetise our natural gas reserves so that we can obtain the resources to develop ourselves economically and socially. But the major metric of economic development is by how much have we improved the productivity of the additional natural gas used by the creation of the industry. Also we need to provide the wherewithal to replace the energy sector rents with foreign exchange earnings from the on-shore sector as the former diminishes.

At last the Minister of Energy has been forced to admit that we are short of proven reserves to supply our commitment to Jamaica, embarrassingly so, and even for a new LNG train. He hopes that we will find and produce more gas from the joint T&T/Venezuelan field or the deep sea fields, which were in general refused the last time the blocks were out for bids. Surely, any natural gas reserves we still possess, have to be utilised to provide us both with local energy security and increasing returns on their exploitation.

If we sell gas to the smelters so that the smelters make the normal international return on investment, and gas prices are severely subsidised, then this is economic un-development. We can all recall the statement by Colin Pratt, an Alcoa expert, that smelters are put where energy resources are stranded, i.e. there is little else you can do with the energy, selling it for anything you can get, even for a handful of brightly coloured beads (Minshall). For example, Norway's hydro electric energy is stranded and is used for smelting while its natural gas is pumped into the European pipeline fetching much higher prices.

The international figures suggest that the price of electricity for competitive smelters, which depends on the price of natural gas used to fire the gas turbines, is around US 1.5 cents per KWh which is below what T&TEC sells at, US4 cents, even with its subsidised gas prices. The gas price to Alutrint appears to be a national security secret, hidden away even from our Parliament.

We are certainly not building the smelter to provide local employment. One of the experts at the PNM Government symposium, Paul Lochner, showed us that smelters do not provide much employment. Possibly we are building the smelters so that we can benefit from downstream activity. i.e. the creation of locally owned companies that use the aluminium to make finished products. Our experience with the iron and steel plant, ISPAT, is that though the plant produces more flexible primary products, billets and wire, it has not been able to stimulate a sophisticated downstream private sector industry.

The Alutrint smelter is expected to produce some 125,000 tonnes per year of primary products as ingots and wire, like ISPAT, and intends to export 80 per cent of these products with the balance allocated for local production of motor car wheels plus another 5,000 tonnes per year. In reality, Alutrint does not include a significant local downstream industry. But we were told at the PNM Government symposium that downstream plants are not located where there is cheap energy, but where there is a large market for the finished products. Hence Alutrint is about exporting its primary products to these established markets. Surely then in our scenario, where gas supply is limited, where smelters, like the Pt Lisas model, provide little employment, where the returns on natural gas are uneconomic, the building of smelters is inexplicable.

But the comment by the Prime Minister as he launched the e-Teck flagship building is enlightening. He sees T&T as embarking on a second industrialisation thrust. Other countries are involved instead in a knowledge-based thrust even in the use of their natural resources. If we examine what our human resource intends to do at Alutrint we see that the knowledge and innovation come from abroad, from the Chinese who are adept at poisoning their own environment while we again manage, operate and maintain heavy industrial plant. There are none as deaf as those who will not listen.

maryking@tstt.net.tt

EMA under Manning's thumb

2007-04-09T07:09:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor
Sunday Express
April 8, 2007

The EMA is Manning's footstool. The EMA's decision to permit a smelter plant in our tiny isle clearly demonstrates that they have no men of independent thought and action within that sorry body.

Their decision flies in the face of massive public opinion. Their actions have only confirmed and reinforced my view thatÂ we have a strong dictatorship in Trinidad and Tobago, a host of coward sycophants bowing and genuflecting to the Manning's regime.

Clearly our system of government has produced a nation in mental slavery.

Sadly, these are the people that hold the reins of power and act in favour of the Party in Power are there no independent thinkers who are capable and able to damn this demigod, this clay-footed megalomaniac who stamps on the people's rights with impunity.

Manning's public life is a colossal failure, but what is most disturbing, his failures are now leading us in the path of destruction which will probably make us one of the most depressed countriesÂ in the world. While he builds monuments to himself our people suffer for a lack of water, a proper educational system, a poor health service, massive congestion on the roads, leading to a waste of time, money and energy, and he has the gall to go running around the country, kissing babies while the country goes down and down into the quagmire of hopelessness and desperation.

Wake up T&T, before it's too late.

CF Ramcharan
St. Augustine

No Answers!

2007-04-08T21:23:00.000-04:00

by Anne Hilton
Sunday Newsday
April 8, 2007

“No answer” seems to be the stern reply to the questions posed in last week’s Environment Watch column. The EMA — well, the less said about the Environment Management Authority the better, in view of the, to my mind, questionable decision to grant Alutrint what I understand to be a conditional Certificate of Environmental Clearance.

At any rate, to date neither WASA nor the Authority has felt inclined to tell us who is going to police the Water Pollution Rules, and how — with particular reference, as the late Dr Eric Williams was so fond of saying, to back “street garages” and “mango tree mechanics.”

Nor has WASA cared to reveal whether or not the proposed scale of charges for polluting our water resources are likely to cover the cost of dealing with those pollutants. And there’s another thing I omitted to mention last week.

Are those pollution charges written in stone — by which I mean, are they a part of the Water Pollution Rules that can only be increased to meet increases in the cost of living by Act of Parliament, so that, as years go by, polluters laugh at the paltry sums imposed for poisoning the nation’s water resources (NOT, I hasten to point out, supply)?

And here’s another point for your consideration as you applaud or condemn the EMA’s decision on the smelter issue.

Remember the old adage “Prevention is better than cure” or, as Henry of Bratton (Henricus de Brattona or Bractona wrote concerning the laws and customs of England in 1240, or thereabouts — I give you a rough translation of the words written in Latin) “it is better and more useful to meet a problem in time than to seek a remedy after the damage is done.”

We all, well most of us, know that it’s easier to stop developers ruining an environment before ever bulldozers or backhoes carve out roads, or blocks are laid and cement trucks line up to pour foundations, than to have them tear down a completed building.

If I remember the La Brea case rightly, hectares of bush were cleared in preparation for an industrial complex without so much as a “by your leave” to the EMA.

It’s happened already — and one gets the impression the EMA’s attitude is that now the damage is done industrialisation might as well go ahead. Nor is the La Brea smelter the only industrial development “in the pipeline.”

To the Alutrint smelter add the proposed new methanol plant, new ethylene plant, another steel mill, new urea and ammonia plants.
The prospect is frightening — it is for me, at any rate, following Jared Diamond’s warnings in his book Collapse, and Al Gore’s documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

There’s no doubt in my mind that that smelter or (Heaven forbid) those smelters, those new methanol, ethylene, urea, ammonia plants and steel mill are bound to accelerate the process of global warming leading to sea level rise as night follows day.

Of course, it won’t be the natural gas-guzzling industries, the sleek, modern office buildings, the million dollar homes that will be swallowed up by the sea — at least, not at first.

As Jared Diamond pointed out when he described the end of the Norse settlement in Greenland, first to go, first to be engulfed by the Gulf will be squatters’ homes in Sea Lots and houses in the Beetham.

The up-market, high-rise towers at Cocorite and Westmoorings may only be accessible by water taxi but the more modest townhouses built, like the Beetham, on swampland could be inundated.

Sooner or later the luxury towers must yield to the waters, sooner or later even the richest of the rich are affected. But while they can enjoy all the good things of life at the expense of others, while they can ignore the signs of disaster, of things to come, we are all at risk.

Yet, perhaps, we could, if we would, turn aside from the reckless course charted by those who refuse to face facts.

We could take up Professor “Gus” Speth’s challenge in his book Red Sky at Morning, and Jared Diamond’s advice in “Collapse and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

It takes courage, it takes discipline, it takes self denial and a kind of re-birth to do what has to be done to save ourselves from the Inconvenient Red Skies of Collapse — which is a thought to ponder well this Easter morning.

Flee from smelter shame, Sister Penny

2007-04-08T06:59:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor
Sunday Express
April 8, 2007

This is an open memo to Minister of the Environment, Pennelope Beckles from a very concerned sister.

My dear sister Penny, today would be a good day to resign. Put two wheels on your heels and run from the shame.

We would like to think that you have had no part in the planning of "development" options that seriously endanger our environment, no part in the mamaguy of the EMA granting "permission" to build a smelter two years after the site was confidently cleared (savaged) for the building of said smelter.

Early in the game your Prime Minister told the nation that the smelter project was a "done deal" (translation: "Shut up!"). So the EMA Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) was already included, from morning, in the done deal?

Would our caring Government have spent our money to bulldoze acres of our land, destroying precious forest and wildlife, if they didn't have this permission in the bag since then, long before the EMA went through the motions of "consulting" and "assessing"?

Clearly, then, this CEC is a sad mamaguy. They mamaguy the country and they mamaguy you, Madam Minister of the Environment.

Through your Ministry's reafforestation programme you are busy planting trees all over the country, and they busy mashing down trees by the acre, not only on the south-west peninsula (Smelterland), but also Fort George, Tucker Valley coming up, and God knows where next.

We can't believe you are part of that. We can't believe you are in on the smelter "done deal" and all the other vandalism that your 2020 government is perpetrating on our environment. It has to be that they exclude you from their decision-making and treat you like another rubber stamp.

So get out of there, my sister. Run while we can still think of you as a woman of the people and a community activist devoted to service rather than to power at any cost. Write your name into the distinguished tradition of women in politics who dared to distance themselves from Party when their conscience told them to, thereby making a resounding statement against policies and actions that they considered wrong. These women chose principle over political power-women like Hulsie Bhaggan, Deborah Moore-Miggins, "Sister Pam" Nicholson, Gillian Lucky.

We wouldn't want history to count you, instead, among those who helped bring irreparable harm to our environment, to us, our children, and our future generations, by not taking a stand against the abuse of political power. Yours in sisterhood,

Merle Hodge

St Augustine

Not breathing easy

2007-04-05T21:27:00.000-04:00

Editorial
Newsday
April 5, 2007
Politically speaking, the granting of a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) to Alutrint was badly timed. The announcement by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) came mere hours after environmentalists met with Prime Minister Patrick Manning and the Cabinet’s Energy Committee to present their case against smelters. To get this announcement right after their meeting must make the environmentalists believe that the Government only wanted a basis for claiming that “consultations” had taken place.

The EMA’s already unimpressive reputation is also going to take a hit from this decision. This is not to say that the EMA did not have good grounds for giving Alutrint the green light to build its plant at La Brea. But the Authority now faces the challenge of making clear to the public the basis on which it has decided that pollutants from Alutrint, according to EMA chairman Dave MacIntosh, pose no threats to human beings or the environment. Indeed, in making the announcement, Mr MacIntosh showed he was aware of this challenge, emphasising that Alutrint would be shut down if it did not conform to the environmental guidelines set by the EMA and that the Government had not pressured the EMA to grant the CEC.

This latter assertion is already being scoffed at by environmentalists. Respected scientist Professor Julian Kenny went so far as to question the impartiality of the EMA Board which, he says, includes PNM Deputy Political Leader Nafeesa Mohammed. “The Government puts people who will give the appearance of professionalism and independence but who are political appointments who will do whatever the Government says,” Professor Kenny told Newsday.

Mr MacIntosh will have to refute Professor Kenny’s assertion, but the chairman has already stumbled in claiming that the Government was not pressuring the EMA. After all, Prime Minister Patrick Manning has made it clear in various public statements that he is set on having two — maybe three — aluminium smelters set up in Trinidad and Tobago. Given this country’s political culture, we find it unlikely that, if the Prime Minister can send such a message publicly, even more pressure would not have been brought to bear behind closed doors.

The EMA will also have to deal with the legal issues raised by Professor Kenny — to wit, that the Alutrint CEC breaches the Town and Country Planning Act. If this is so, it will strengthen the perception that the EMA is nothing more than a public relations tool for the Government. If it is not, however, then the EMA will be able to show that the environmental lobby is not treating with the issue in a fair manner. Yet, even if the EMA is given the benefit of doubt and it turns out that there were good grounds for granting the CEC, the issue of monitoring remains problematical. Is the Authority really going to ensure that Alutrinadheres to the reportedly strict standards imposed by the EMA? Would the EMA really defy the Prime Minister and shut down the plant if it didn’t?

The fact is, there is nothing in the EMA’s record which shows it is capable of such efficiency or even gumption. After all, since the Authority was set up, there has been no noticeable improvement in the environment of this country. It is also noteworthy that in its 15 years of existence the EMA has not commissioned an air quality or population health survey of the Point Lisas Industrial Estate and its environs. We hope the Authority will do better in respect to the smelters, but we are not holding our breath — although the residents of La Brea may have to.

Culture Jamming Trinidad style: Calling all Bobolizers

2007-04-04T07:27:00.000-04:00

Every Good Friday it is a common sight in communities across the country to see nationals beating the crap out of a Good Friday bobolee.
A bobolee is actually an effigy of that treacherous disciple Judas Iscariot who sold Christ for 30 pieces of silver.
Usually the bobolee takes on the likeness of whatever the community concern is
This Good Friday we're inviting all communities to dedicate their bobolee to one of the traitors of our national environment.
Take your pick and send us a pic of your portrayal of any of the Judas Iscariots who've sold out our country for thirty pieces of aluminum.

EMA a Toothless Bulldog

2007-04-04T05:48:00.000-04:00

Trinidad Guardian
April 4, 2007

The Environmental Management Authority (EMA) has been described as a “toothless bulldog” by the United National Congress (UNC).

A press release issued by the UNC yesterday said:

“So the EMA has given Alutrint the green light after ‘carefully’ studying information that itself is inconclusive. What rubbish from this toothless bulldog.

“The truth and the facts are—as we have always said—the EMA is a toothless bulldog! It is a puppet of the PNM. It cannot and will not stand up to the PNM.”

Chief executive officer of the EMA, Dr Dave Mc Intosh, came in for attack after he announced on Monday that Alutrint was given the green light by the EMA to go ahead with construction of the smelter plant in La Brea.

The release also said nothing in Mc Intosh’s statement “makes any sense and provides any justification for the clearance.”

The release made reference to Mc Intosh’s statement on Monday.

“The task the EMA will now face...is one of monitoring and understanding what the baseline conditions are, so we can examine any shifts in terms of the human health of the area or impacts on vegetation and wildlife,” it said.

The release questioned how could the EMA grant a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) to Alutrint if it was now setting out to understand certain information.

“How is the EMA protecting the lives and safety of the citizenry if it is taking this reactionary approach to see what adverse effects arise and, then, hope that Alutrint regulates itself?” it asked.

The release also noted it had no confidence in the EMA, which was tainted with political influence from the PNM.

“This Government likes to run roughshod against the wishes of the people and is demonstrating it is willing to kill every single citizen just to put a few dollars into the pockets of its friends,” added the release.

Anti-smelter groups plan court action

2007-04-04T05:45:00.000-04:00

Trinidad Guardian
by Shaliza Hassanali
April 4, 2007

ANTI-smelter activists and groups are waging war against the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) for its decision to grant Alutrint a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) for construction of a smelter plant at Union Estate in La Brea.

So outraged by the issuing of the CEC, committee member of the Anti-Smelter Movement, Dr Peter Vine, said the T&T Civil Rights Association intends to challenge the EMA’s decision to award Alutrint a CEC by filing for judicial review.

The organisation will be represented by attorney Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj.

T&T Civil Rights Association is also exploring the possibility of approaching the court to get a conservatory order against the Government for preservation of the status quo of the land at Union Estate in La Brea, and to stop construction of any smelter plant in T&T.

In a release yesterday, the civil rights body said the EMA’s decision to grant Alutrint a CEC was unlawful and unconstitutional.

It stated the public had a right to comment upon the standard before they were fully approved by the minister and by Parliament.

Anti-smelter activist Norris Deonarine, however, called for the immediate resignation of Prime Minister Patrick Manning, Minister of Energy Dr Lenny Saith and the entire EMA board.

Deonarine said his group would work with other civil society groups and anti-smelter activists to intensify protest action to stop the construction of any aluminium smelter in the country.

“We are not going to back down...We intend to hold strong our resolve to fight this matter to the bitter end,” Deonarine said.

“The granting of the CEC tells us that Government will stop at nothing.”

Vine and Deonarine were giving vent to their feelings at a press conference at their anti-smelter camp in St Augustine, yesterday, hours after the EMA gave Alutrint the green light to go ahead with construction of a 125,000 metric tonnes-per-year aluminium smelter in Union Estate.

The announcement was made on Monday by EMA’s chief executive officer Dr Dave Mc Intosh, who insisted the decision was not made lightly, that the EMA had done a year of evaluation of the parameters of hazardous waste, air and water pollution.

Addressing reporters, Vine, an agronomist and physicist at the University of the West Indies in St Augustine, said Monday’s granting of the CEC to Alutrint could generate widespread bitterness among citizens.

He said people, in particular anti-smelter activists and groups, had expressed disgust and disappointment with the EMA’s decision.

Vine said assurances given by the EMA about 27 compliance officers, who would take a keen interest in the operations of the plant, would not bring any measure of relief to those living on the south-western peninsula because they knew their health would be compromised.

He felt those villagers should be compensated and relocated to a safer place.

“When rain falls it picks up all those airborne pollutants...Where do you think it would end up?” he asked.

“They are only talking about the compliance officers to appease the residents...I am sure they are not going to stick to the environmental guidelines for the next 25 years.

“Why is this aluminium plant so important to the Government? We need to know.”

Having marched and protested against the three proposed smelter plants in the country, Vine said he thought the issue was dead and that it was no longer going to be a priority, but was surprised at the decision taken.

The morning after the night before.

2007-04-03T06:45:00.000-04:00

Environmental Management Authority CEO Dr. Dave Mc Intosh announced yesterday that they had given Alutrint the go ahead for an aluminum smelter to be built in La Brea.
This inspite of two years of extensive comment, research and investigation which conclusively shows not only that aluminum smelting is not a financially viable option for Trinidad and Tobago but that we are ill prepared for the environmental implications of such a hazardous industry.
The Rights Action Group, the St. Augustine Anti Smelter Front and other civil society organisations in Trinidad and Tobago are appealing to Trinbagonians, Caribbean people, human beings the world over who are concerned about global warming and the continued wanton destruction of our environment to pledge their support to common sense over dollar sense. To a vision for development that is not inimical to our natural and human ecologies. To a Trinidad and Tobago that is led by progressive and visionary leaders who would never dream of shoving some helter smelter development plan down our throats.
We do not accept it. We are prepared to defend our right to a cleaner, greener future.
In spite of the cowardice displayed by the EMA yesterday it is still our determination that not a brick will be laid for an aluminum smelter plant in Trinidad or Tobago and we intend to use whatever legal means are at our disposal to ensure that we are successful.
The fight is only just beginning.

For Immediate Release - Women Activists meet on International Women's Day

2007-03-07T06:18:00.000-04:00

On International Women's Day, March 8, women activists from across the
country will meet to discuss the triumphs and challenges of being
engaged in direct action in communities and organizations seeking
social transformation.
It is one of the first gatherings of its kind to be convened where
women from diverse backgrounds will gather to speak and share ideas
about their experiences on the frontline of various struggles and how
these interact with their other roles and responsibilities as
caregivers, heads of households and sole breadwinners.
From 10.30 women activists will gather in the conference room at the
Sir Arthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies (SALISES)
on the University of the West Indies campus.
Leading the discussion will be Working Women for Social Progress
activist Merle Hodge and Community mediator Catherine Ali.
The workshop for women activists is part of an all day programme being
hosted by the Rights Action Group a consciousness raising movement
based in Curepe.
The day of celebration of women's activism will continue with a press
conference at 2 p.m. at the St. Augustine Action Camp at UWI's south
entrance.
Women have been at the forefront of several issues that have been at
the centre of national debate for the past year: from mothers who have
lost children in gun violence, to survivors or violent crime, to last
year's confrontations between anti-smelter protestors and national
protective forces.
The day's events are aimed at giving support and recognition to those
women already involved in actions to continue their work and empower
more women to take positive action for change in their own
communities.
For further information please contact Attillah Springer at rightsactiongroupATgmailDOTcom.

Food before steel, aluminum

2007-03-06T02:39:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor
Trinidad Guardian
March 6, 2007

How does the Essar Group, one of India’s largest steel and energy corporations, get a certificate of environmental clearance to set up a US$1.76 billion iron and steel complex on former Caroni (1975) Ltd land at Phoenix Park to take over 3,000 acres of former sugarcane land when T&T has such a feeble agricultural sector coupled with a huge food import bill?

China and India, which were 15 years ago self-sufficient in food production with their large populations, now find themselves having to import much of their food since taking up the great industrialisation development path.

Nothing is wrong with development but at the end of the day affordable, nutritious, fresh foods and a healthy physical environment are what will sustain human life, not aluminium, steel, concrete or even money et al.

We need leadership that will think through these aspects of development that take into account the generations to come beyond 2020.

Gregory Sloane-Seale

This Thursday

2007-03-05T12:23:00.000-04:00

Where are the voices of these communities?

2007-02-28T10:26:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor
Newsday
February 28, 2007

Do the leaders of the La Brea Village Council and other groups from Sobo and environs expect us citizens to be convinced of their support for the Alutrint Smelter Plant? They have advanced as their argument the decline of industrialisation after 40 years and the impact such as mass poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment in La Brea and environs. What have they been doing after all these years but drowning in their compromising silence? What advocacy for renewed development have they championed before the advent of Alutrint, and why is it that they have now awakened to the smell of smelter?
It is very pathetic that after 45 years of Independence as a nation, for citizens and groups to believe that we must rely solely on foreign entities to develop our communities and provide basic amenities and services. For billions of dollars in revenue have been generated from the asphalt at the Pitch Lake throughout the years, and this commodity is managed by a local company (Lake Asphalt Trinidad and Tobago). The asphalt alone at La Brea can sustain that community and environs for generations what with its many downstream products. What percentage of the labour force at LABDICO comes from La Brea? Where is the true voice of these communities? No amount of football sponsorships, free tee shirts, full page advertising, maxi taxi caravans and political coercion can intimidate the real residents who are in favour of sustainable development as a right. These residents are demanding that consultations be held urgently with various State agencies to establish a blueprint for the community’s structural development, beyond the limitations of a smelter. New communities are being established a la UDECOTT and HDC but where is La Brea/Sobo/Rousillac in the matrix?
David Law
Former Union Village resident

The uncertainty of our times

2007-02-28T10:20:00.000-04:00

“The uncertainty of our times is no reason to be certain about hopelessness”
Vandana Shiva Indian physicist, ecologist, activist, editor, and author of many books.

Smelter issue concern of all

2007-02-20T07:35:00.000-04:00

Letter to the Editor
Trinidad Guardian
February 20, 2007

THE aluminium smelter issue is a national one and concerns every citizen, just like politics concerns all of us, and not only the residents that live in the area or the surrounding areas of the proposed sites.

I am a resident of John John and whenever there is an election, the PNM will send several big maxi-taxis to take the residents to various parts of the country to support its meeting. I do not see anything wrong with that.

However, I view the smelter issue as a more personal thing and every citizen is now aware of the dangers that will eventually arise out of the building of smelters, so there should be no outcry when citizens leave all parts of Trinidad and drive to Chatham and Otaheite to support the resident protesters.

This is an issue that involves not only us but our unborn children and grandchildren.

It does not seem as if PM Manning really loves his country or else he would have taken into consideration the cries of the people. Take note, Mr PM, the Bible warns, “Do not remove the landmark which thy fathers have set.”

Marlene George
John John

More Smelter Controversy

2007-02-19T07:37:00.000-04:00

by William Lucie-Smith
Trinidad Express
February 19, 2007

I have not commented on the many smelter controversies because I really don't know enough about the subject. And that's at the heart of my problem. After all this controversy and debate shouldn't we all know enough to form an informed opinion?

In my simplistic mind there are only two key issues to discuss and determine. The first is the environment and health issue. Will smelters cause a significant environmental and health risk in a small island like Trinidad, such that we should not include this industry in our industrialisation plans? Subsidiary to that issue is the decision about location once it is determined that the industry is safe.

The second key issue is economic. Does the industry provide Trinidad and Tobago sufficiently attractive returns that it should be part of our industrialisation programme and utilise our scarce and wasting energy reserves?

Surprisingly, despite all the debate, I don't have a clear idea about either issue. In the first place it seemed premature to me that before there was any real consultation the Government had already announced there would be two and possibly three smelter plants. This suggests that the Government had already evaluated both the above key issues and decided in the affirmative. It further had decided on the appropriate locations in La Brea and Chatham. However, having made these determinations there appeared to be a complete lack of consultation or even public justification for the decisions.

In the first place the appropriate agency to determine the environment and health issues would appear to be the Environmental Management Authority. But just as work started at Tarouba before the EMA gave consent, so a Government determination appears to have been made in the environmental issues even before applications have been made to the EMA.

Now I understand smelter plants have been built all around the world by Alcoa and they say that these have been well accepted in the communities. This includes Australia which is a very environmentally conscious country and not a Third World victim (but will we insist on the same standards?). Equally there are horror stories about environmental damage and health risks.

Both sides of the debate are now so committed and emotional that we really can trust neither to give us an impartial opinion. We certainly can't trust the Government, who have become so committed to smelters that they have linked opposition to the project to drug lords. That red herring is quite irrelevant to the smelter debate.

So what I need is an impartial assessment of the smelter industry telling me conclusively whether it should be allowed in Trinidad at all. Shouldn't the EMA do this for us? And while at it, could they also publish the framework in which smelting could be allowed if their answer is that it is not a banned industry (e.g. buffer zones). It would also be useful to have similar guidelines for cell phone towers. Should I panic if I see one within 200 yards of my house or are they harmless? I don't know and need guidance from an independent authority.

I hope future governments learn from this debacle. They should not commit to projects before the appropriate agencies have approved plans through due process. The Government may query the motives of the opponents but it is equally fair for opponents to query the motives of the Government. Why is the Government championing the cause of a foreign investor to such an extent that it appears that it is their project? Indeed if the EMA turned down the plans would the Government find itself in breach of obligations to Alcoa because of premature promises? Is the EMA now subject to undue pressure?

The second issue of economic benefit is essentially very straightforward. What's in it for us? With an overheated job market and construction at full capacity the creating jobs arguments don't wash.

All our gas production is fully utilised or can be sold elsewhere, so this project must compete with others and show a better return. As public resources are involved it is essential that we are convinced that the resources utilised (energy and land) are the optimal available usage. This requires an economic rationale that has yet to be published.

What we have had is a simple assertion that it's a good deal for us. It would be nice, too, if we could get some independent comfort that all the terms of these projects are in our best interests. I wonder how many others out there, like me, just don't know.

Is PM tied to Alcoa contract?

2007-02-14T09:08:00.002-04:00

Is Manning for real or is he living on cloud nine? Does he think that the people of T&T are a bunch of fools?

His frequent changes where the smelters are concerned, jumping from one place to another, surely points to a man who cannot make up his mind, but is possibly tied to a foreign contract, with Alcoa, of which we know nothing.

Or is it possible that the Bombardier plane which was recently demonstrated to him is part of a massive deal to hoodwink and confuse the nation?

It bothers me tremendously to have a mere geologist leading us all into destruction and bankruptcy.

His idle boast of industrialisation rings hollow in the face of changing positions, the latest of which is the drug question behind the anti-smelter protests.

Dr CF Ramcharan

St Augustine

We can't believe that, Mr. Manning

2007-02-14T09:08:00.001-04:00

If Manning truly believes that the Chatam smelter activists are motivated by drug-running, then he is either living in a dream world or is poorly advised.

If on the other hand he expects that we will believe his outrageous pronouncements, then he clearly thinks little of our intelligence as a people.

In either case we are truly labouring under a crisis in leadership of the highest order.

If he is free to explain the apparent reversal of his decision regarding the smelter, then we must be free to put forward a studied alternative view. Try this one:

The failure of Ibis Deep to prove up commercial hydrocarbons and the poor showing in the ultra deep bid round, which only attracted one bidder, created a delay in the rate at which new commercial gas reserves could be brought on.

This required that gas-based projects including the smelter be similarly delayed. The Government’s delaying strategy was to relocate the smelter to an island that would take 12 years to build and settle, essentially giving the Government an additional 12 years to find more gas.

Then came the heavy lawyers and it is quite likely that this latest reversal in thinking has more to do with the Government’s precarious legal position with Alcoa than it does with the assertion that drug-running is what is driving the protest.

Nigel Darwent

Maraval

Info needed on gas for smelters

2007-02-14T09:06:00.000-04:00

Contrary to misinformation stated by the political leader of the PNM, Fishermen and Friends of the Sea (FFOS) supports sustainable development. We must however have reasonable answers for reasonable questions and so we repeat for the leader the same questions the entire country asks, which to date remain deafeningly unanswered.

What exactly are the penalties that taxpayers will be forced to bear if we “give” the gas originally intended for ALNG to other new projects such as Alutrint and Alcoa, and are unable to supply gas to ALNG for the life of that project?

What are the exact netback, well head and all other named revenues and taxes from gas supplied to ALNG Trains I, II, III and IV? We know that the actual royalty revenues from Trains I to IV is only 1.25 per cent of the value of the gas, or US$50 million, compared to the US$4 billion projections of exports in gas for 2007. But what and how much exactly are the other taxes, if any?

How do these total gas revenues compare to similar underdeveloped countries with gas processing agreements similar to ours, such as East Timor and Malaysia?

What is the price which the people’s gas is to be sold to Alcoa and Alutrint and why is this price being hidden from parliamentary scrutiny?

How does the price of gas to be sold to aluminium compare with the existing price to other energy consumers such as the seven existing methanol facilities, the ten existing ammonia plants, Essar, Methanol Holdings, ethylene, polypropylene etc?

How does the average price of gas sold to the named sectors compare with the world market price which gas obtains currently?

Our country is a gas and oil-based economy, the wealth of which must be preserved/invested for future generations. After decades of corruption and boom wastefulness, the public has lost confidence in the integrity, accountability and transparency of governments.

The PNM would have a surge of support if only it would listen to the calls of the people for decency, sustainability, integrity, transparency, prudence, accountability and consultation.

Gary Aboud

Secretary

FFOS

Alutrint is the Tipping Point

2007-02-09T11:53:00.001-04:00

For Immediate Release

The Anti-Smelter Alliance (ASA) has written to the Board of the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) requesting a meeting to explain why ALUTRINT’S application for a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) to smelt aluminium at Union Industrial Estate should be denied.

For the second time the ASA has written to the Chairman of the Board of the EMA requesting a meeting to explain why the “Precautionary Principle” provided for in the National Environmental Policy should be invoked to deny ALUTRINT’s application for permission to build an aluminium smelter at Union Industrial Estate (UIE).
The ASA comprises more than ten non-governmental organizations opposed to the introduction of aluminium smelters into T&T.
Environmental Engineer and ASA spokesperson Cathal Healy-Singh, said “there are four main reasons why no CEC should be awarded to ALUTRINT:
(i) a detailed integrated cost-benefit analysis was never carried out , which means that the social, economic and environmental impacts – both positive and negative - remain unquantified
(ii) the cumulative impacts of the cluster of heavy gas based industries proposed for Union Industrial Estate also remain unknown
(iii) unreliable toxic emissions predictions made by ALUTRINT are on the borderline of the EMA’s proposed air quality guidelines
(iv) the EMA lacks the appropriate regulatory instruments to contain the toxic operational impacts of an aluminium smelter.”

“There are too many people living too close to the ALUTRINT smelter to proceed. The toxic releases are no joke. There has never been any final resolution to what ALUTRINT will do with their spent pot liner – a very hazardous waste. First they suggested burying it on-site. Then they said they could mix it with cement and now they want to ship it to the USA. In my estimate, it would be unprecedented and frankly ridiculous to assume the USA would accept on-going toxic waste shipments from Trinidad,” Healy-Singh said.
The NGO’s that constitute the Anti-Smelter Alliance hold the position that it is irresponsible for ALUTRINT to be exploiting the economic dispossession of a large sector of the La Brea community as a means to advance their smelter, knowing fully well that the lion’s share of jobs is for the Chinese.
It is unconscionable for ALUTRINT to be compromising the integrity of the local Village Councils by financing full-page press advertisements saying the Councils “cannot afford to lose ALUTRINT”, knowing fully well that no cost-benefit analyses have been done, and knowing that ALUTRINT has never made public any data on the actual toxic emissions or health impacts on surrounding communities from similar Chinese smelters.
The ASA has prepared an outline of the cost-benefits, which they wish to share with the EMA at the proposed meeting. “Because of the widespread public opposition to smelters, we saw the withdrawal of the Chatham smelter and introduction of the O
Otaheite smelter as smokescreens to advance ALUTRINT through the side door. But if the EMA approves this smelter it will erode what few gains they have made in trying to emerge a platform for national sustainable development - we are at the tipping point of unsustainability” said Healy-Singh.

It's a Lie, says professor

2007-02-09T11:47:00.000-04:00

by Louis B Homer
Trinidad Express
February 9, 2007

Prof Peter Vine, who has been involved in organising anti-aluminum smelter campaigns in Chatham yesterday described as "nonsense" charges that the campaigns were being encouraged by people involved in the drug trade.

He said, "It is a lie and the organisation needs to look carefully at what the Prime Minister said and if it is slanderous we should take him to court."

He said the expenses to carry out the campaign come from the pockets of the supporters.

"It costs $120 to rent a public microphone and to defray these expenses we ask each member to contribute $10," he said.

Vine said the tent and other fixtures were generally donated by people "who are in sympathy with our movement."

President of the Chatham/ Cap de Ville Environmental Protection Group, Fitzroy Beache, was not available for comment but Fitzroy Jeffries,public relations officer of the La Brea Arts Council, said he had received reports from some members of the community that they were being threatened by people who were opposed to the construction of aluminium plants in Trinidad.

Another proposed aluminum smelter is to be built by Alutrint in La Brea.

"Some have been threatened with physical violence, and in one case threats were made to burn a supporter's home in La Brea," Jeffries said.

Plan for $3b offshore island hits snag

2007-01-15T13:04:00.000-04:00

by Richard Charan
Trinidad Express
January 15, 2007

If government's energy experts get their way, a 14 -square kilometre island will emerge off Trinidad's south-west coast.
It will be bigger that all five of the Gasparee Islands combined, and span three kilometres of coastline between Mosquito Creek, La Romaine, and the Aripero wetlands, near La Brea.
The island will jut five miles out to sea and linked by a road leading to the mainland.
But 14 months after the National Energy Corporation (NEC) made an application for a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) from the Environmental Management Authority, the $3 billion project appears to have stalled.
The EMA requested further information from the NEC about the scope of the work proposed before the application is considered, according to EMA documents.
Up to last week, the company had not submitted the information requested by the EMA.
The Express could not contact the EMA's communication officer Alicia Charles yesterday.
In a Christmas Eve address to the national last month, Prime Minister Prime Minister Patrick Manning said plans for the controversial aluminium smelter at Chatham, Point Fortin were virtually scrapped and said "instead, we shall accelerate development of a new industrial estate offshore Ohateite Bank from which aluminium production can now be pursued together with other industrial plants". In the EMA's letter acknowledging the NEC's application, it was stated that the required infrastructure and utility development included "Corridors for tenants, cause way link from the coast to offshore reclamation, utilities for industries and drainage to be provided as part of the requirement for developing site and accommodating heavy gas based industry".
The NEC also gave details on the preparation of the site, the amount of material to be used, and how it intended to limit damage to marine life during the five- year development.
The NEC stated in its application that it was mandated to to pursue the development by the Standing Committee on Energy.
The EMA has asked for a scaled site plan showing the
l Location of the proposed reclaimed area in relation to existing development along the coastline.
• Conceptual location for the proposed causeway.
• Provide details on the source and estimated quantity of dredgematerial to be used in the proposed reclamation activity.
• Provide a description of the proposed methods that will be used to ensure the stability of the proposed reclaimed area.

The NEC was advised that the information requested needed to be submitted before the application was assessed.

Of Jep Nests and Marabuntas

2007-01-09T06:03:00.000-04:00

by Julian Kenny

Trinidad Express

January 9, 2006

Neither Mr Overbey nor Mr Hughes, the point men for Alcoa, can say that they were not warned. And I imagine that after the "aluminium symposium" last month, it must have come very much of a surprise to hear of the withdrawal of the proposal for an industrial estate at Cap- de-Ville/Chatham. And on Christmas Eve, at a time when many expected a pastoral message restating the values that Christ brought to humanity, the message had absolutely nothing to do with Christ.

They must have been as startled, as most, that the Government had decided, despite the "assurances" of the "aluminium symposium" that it had withdrawn (I did not hear the word abandoned) the proposal to establish an industrial estate at Cap- de-Ville/Chatham. Neither can say that they were not warned, and I am sure that they will now have to do some explaining to their CEO and shareholders for the millions spent on PR, geophysical surveys and the EIA study that must be well along the way. I did in fact warn them about a year and a half ago - "the jep nest that you have stirred up may in fact turn out to be an angry marabunta swarm".

Our wasps come in various forms and go by different vernacular names. Some of the highly social wasps go by the names of maribones, jeps, Jack Spaniards and marabuntas. Of these the maribones have least painful stings. The marabuntas are so bad that at one time a vicious gang of thugs terrorised the rural area of Plum Mitan and Biche at the edge of the Nariva Swamp and adopted the name. Howler monkeys, however, know how to avoid them. I have been stung many times by maribones, jeps and Jack Spaniards, but all on account of my carelessness, in not keeping my eyes open, not reading the warnings of nature, and bumping into the territories in which they make their homes, although not actually into their nests.

Having seen many, I have not felt the fury of a single marabunta, being very early warned what to look for by - you guessed it - from people who use the forests, country folk who can read nature. Marabuntas make large heart-shaped and ribbed nests on tree trunks and on the undersides of large horizontal branches. Maribones make much smaller papery nests of a stalk and a cluster of papery brood cells, just about everywhere, even in homes and one even commenced nesting on the ledge above my computer. And I can assure readers that even though maribone stings are even less painful than a tac-tac ant, a sting near one's eyes can close that eye temporarily to reality.

But by and large our wasps are not vicious and aggressive creatures. They are beautiful, peaceful creatures, only reacting to threats to their nest and territory, their brood being raised in the papery cells that comprise the nest. I have encountered many a wasp of one kind or another, usually at a flower that I happened to be photographing. They have all ignored me and my macro-lens, which may have been less than five centimetres away from their nectar feeding activities. But the remarkable thing about many of our social wasps is that one can approach their nests without risk, provided that you move slowly, and understand that they are doing what comes naturally - protecting their next generation, the existence of their species.

Which brings me back to Chatham, and I expect that all loyal Chathamites, as well as citizens of the country, will not mind me singling out three articulate citizens from three generations simply defending their space and territory, in the interest not of themselves, but of future generations.

Yvonne Ashby, a retired district nurse, is a person of my generation. She was the individual around whom Chathamites rallied when they saw the threat in the Union Village disaster. She and the Chatham Environmental Protection Group led and sustained protests over two years and were able to enlist the support of a wide segment of the national community.

And Muriel Amoroso of a younger generation - did you hear her message? This is not the Government land, nor PNM land, nor Manning's land to do what they want with it. This was land given to people by God. Again people and land. And the third generation - young Tazia Abdul, a mere schoolgirl, more articulate than some parliamentarians four times her age - again, the land of her grandparents and the future of her generation.

Three women of three generations, all but with a single view, the future of the land and community, a timeless vision of humanity in harmony with itself defending an environment that sustains life, a fulfillment of the first line of the foreword of the National Environmental Policy - "a country in which all persons treasure the environment ", beautiful peaceful marabuntas protecting their brood. Don't mess with them!

Oropouche residents unclear of new smelter site

2007-01-03T05:16:00.000-04:00

by Radhica Sookraj
Trinidad Guardian
January 03, 2007

Just over a week after Prime Minister Patrick Manning announced a decision to build an industrial estate on the Otaheite Bank, Oropouche residents say they are still trying to find that location on their maps.

Geologist John Keens Dumas from the group Neighbours Incorporated said yesterday he had no idea where the Otaheite Bank was located. “If you check the map, there is no listing of the Otaheite Bank,” Dumas said.

He explained: “Manning says the industrial estate is being planned for the Otaheite Bank but there is no Otaheite Bank . However, there is the Oropouche Bank which is situated to the front of the Oropouche River stretching westward to Otaheite.”

In a telephone interview, Dumas said his group had not made any decisions about what form of action they would take to stop the smelter. He said Government officials had not met with the people to provide any answers on exactly where the proposed industrial estate would be located.

He said he and other members of the group met on Old Year’s night but little discussion was held because of the lack of information.

We need to know exactly where the industrial estate is planned and superimpose this on our cadastral maps,” Dumas stated.

Last Friday, the Environmental Management Authority’s corporate communications manager Alicia Charles disclosed that the Government had made an application to build an industrial estate on the Oropouche Bank and not the Otaheite Bank.

Charles said the application had been submitted on November 29, detailing plans to construct an offshore estate in the Gulf of Paria on 1,400 hectares of land.

A battle not yet won

2006-12-28T06:10:00.000-04:00

Dear friends
The anti-smelter movement in Trinidad and Tobago has had a significant victory. On Christmas Eve in an address to the nation, Prime Minister Patrick Manning announced that plans for a smelter in Chatham/Cap de Ville would be scrapped. While Manning still dismissed health and environmental concerns and announced that Alcoa's project would be moved to Otaheite, it is clear to the nation that the people of Chatham in keeping up the pressure caused the Prime Minister a moment of doubt.
The implications of this are far reaching for all involved in activist work in Trinidad and Tobago. There have been too few people driven successes against the might of the state corporation and the success of this lobby is a victory for all citizens.
The war against aluminium smelting and other visionless policies regarding industrialisation and monetisation of our natural resources is far from won. Let the Christmas Eve victory for the people of Chatham be a warning shot to the government and those in opposition that never again will we sit around and allow others to determine our destiny. Let this too be a time for the NGO movement to reach across the race, class, ideological divisions and begin to truly address the problems plaguing Trinidad, of which the smelter is merely a symptom.
The Rights Action Group looks forward to the New Year, to redoubling national efforts to have our voices heard. In the media, in the university, in parliament, in the streets.
We call on the people of Otaheite to gather strength from the unrelenting efforts of the people of Chatham/ Cap de Ville and for all those who have been standing on the sidelines observing to get informed and get involved. We commit ourselves to continuing the battle to save Trinidad and Tobago and thank you for your support thus far.
Yours in struggle,
RAG

Reflections on Christmas Eve

2006-12-27T18:30:00.000-04:00

Christopher Castagne
UWI MAD
December 24, 2006

By the time you read this you would have heard of the announcement by the `Honourable' Prime Minister Patrick Manning during his Christmas Eve address to the nation that the government is not going ahead with the Chatham/Cap-de-Ville smelter!

It must be noted at this juncture that this is simply a further manifestation (and a predicted one at that!) of the truth of which we have been reminded on more than one occasion before - i.e., simply stated, that THE PEOPLE HAVE THE POWER!!!

Contrary to whatever the media, the Government, and myriad other public sources of information will say, there is absolutely no other reason for this latest about turn by the Government outside of the relentless, sustained public pressure, of many forms including and especially the use objective fact-based, informed perspectives on the issue, but also the so-called "emotional" and "misinformed" displays, which were really grounded in truth from the beginning and which led to the former.

Throughout the life of this issue the proponents of the projects, especially the Government, have tried to use the tactic of intimidation by making the public feel like the fight was hopeless ("yuh doh like smelter, we bringin three!"), that the Government will go ahead regardless, that it was "a done deal"!

And throughout that time, they have succeeded to a great extent in that pursuit of weakening the resolve of persons concerned about the issue- but only among those who were the weakest links from the beginning! Among those really serious about it, those with pure unselfish passion for nature, nation and fellow man and woman, whose actions, untainted by ulterior motives, remained fuelled only by "Boundless faith in our destiny"- among these Power People- it only served to strengthen the resolve that much more!

And while this latest development may be given a lot of attention, it is important to recognize that these two fundamental truths- [(i) that the people have the power and (ii) that truth with Patient Perseverance brings success,] have been proven by small victories which have occurred during the life of this struggle, but which sadly were missed by the majority, and that this is only the latest of a long line of such victories. But as they say- "Those who have eyes to see shall see!"

As such, let us then understand that these victories will continue- but only as long as we continue the struggle. Let us also heighten our senses so that we are able to recognize even the smallest of these victories when they do occur.

The timing of this occurrence is fitting, for while the birth and message of Christ were great blessings to mankind, we have witnessed the perversion of both by the powers that were (and those that continue to be), sometimes unconsciously and often with the best of intentions, but ultimately for their own gain. Yet they will never be able to reverse nor erase the essence and power of these blessings. So too, let us remain vigilant in being grounded in truth, honesty and confident humility, lest we too get carried away in the perversions and misuse of this positive energy which will inevitable occur, or at least be attempted.

Merry Christmas Everybody, And May God Bless Our Nation.

Christopher E. M. Castagne

24th/12/06.

Save our Wetlands

2006-12-27T04:07:00.000-04:00

by Radhica Sookraj

While many are enjoying the Christmas festivities, residents of Aripero and Oropouche have put aside their celebrations and have started doing research on what they fear will be the impending destruction of the Oropouche wetlands.

The residents were catapulted into action on Christmas Eve when Prime Minister Patrick Manning announced the abandonment of plans to build an aluminium smelter at Chatham, stating that the plant will be relocated to an industrial estate which Government plans to create using reclaimed land on the Otaheite Bank.

Manning announced that the establishment of the offshore estate will be accelerated, to facilitate aluminium production.

But environmental conservator John Keens Dumas said the construction of the offshore estate will affect ocean currents, nesting grounds and the fishing industry in the Gulf of Paria.

Dumas, who is a member of the group Neighbours Incorporated, said they have started doing research into the effects of the proposed off-shore industry.

“We believe that this industry, if it is built off the Otaheite Bank, will have implications for the Oropouche Bank, the Oropouche wetlands and the Rousillac swamp, located further west of Otaheite,” Dumas said.

He said the swamp is a spawning ground for marine life. Dumas explained that the Oropouche swamp, located at Mosquito Creek, is also a wetland and there was a possibility that with industrial activity the natural habitat of the protected Scarlet Ibis will be affected.

“The other wetland is the Rousillac swamp and the Aripero Village is bounded by the Rousillac swamp, so undoubtedly there will be repercussions if that plant is built,” Dumas said.

He added: “The entire hydro-dynamics of circulation in the Gulf, as well as the ocean currents, will be affected. We have to be careful in how we affect the circulation of the sea. This is where we have the entire food chain and, once we affect that, there will be a domino effect once you start messing with the natural forces,” Dumas said.

He said that the fishing industry in Otaheite will also be affected.

“We are still doing our research to determine whether this offshore estate will destroy the fishing industry in the South.”

Meanwhile, another activist—Judy Mc Lean—said residents are planning to meet on Old Year’s Day to discuss their concerns. We are prepared to stage protests and do whatever it takes to protect our coast,” Mc Lean said.

She added that she has already started doing legal research to stop the construction.

—Alcoa responds on Page 5

Anti-smelter lobbyists still up in arms

2006-12-26T09:46:00.000-04:00

by Shaliza Hassanali
Trinidad Guardian
December 26, 2006

Representatives of two organisations who lobbied bitterly against Alcoa’s proposed aluminium smelter at Cap de Ville/Chatham, yesterday hit out at Government’s plan to accelerate development of a new industrial estate offshore Otaheite Bank, from which aluminium production can be pursued, together with other industrial plants.
The announcement was made by Prime Minister Patrick Manning on Sunday night in his Christmas and year-end review statements.
In light of that announcement, Government can expect massive protest from people living between Mosquito Creek to Aripero Village, who warned that they would give no support to Manning’s new plan.
Government will however continue with the Alutrint plant at La Brea, which could form the basis for further aluminium production facilities in the country.
In a telephone interview, secretary of Fishermen and Friends of the Sea, Gary Aboud said while anti smelter activists and supporters are claiming this stand down as a major victory for the community, it will not change the environmental impacts and health concerns that were highlighted by environmentalists months ago.
“These problems would not go away. We are just shifting the problem from one area to another,” Aboud said.
Aboud also complained that the relocation would wipe out all fish life in the Gulf of Paria.
As it stands, Aboud said, the fish industry was struggling to keep its head above water due to Government lack of support and interest.
Pointing out that the Gulf of Paria was prone to flooding, Aboud said that the Government would also have to spend million of dollars in pile driving to develop the area, which does not have firm soil.
Also of concern to Aboud are the disposal of spent potliners and the price at which gas will be sold when the smelter plant comes on stream, as well as the amount of water to be consumed.
“Citizens of the country continue to remain in the dark with regards to these issues. The Government is not coming clean. We need answers,” he said.
Chairman of Yes TT and the Keith Noel 136 Committee, Stephen Cadiz, described the news as utter madness, stating that his organisation and thousands of other people are not in support of smelters in T&T.
“I think Manning bounced his head by making this move. We have only shifted the issue to another area, which is even more populated, Cadiz said, adding that nothing would surprise him anymore.
“I don’t know what Manning was thinking when he came up with this idea. It makes no sense at all,” he said.

Aluminum Smelting - Speaking in Tongues

2006-12-26T07:43:00.000-04:00

by Julian Kenny
Trinidad Express
December 26, 2006

"With that in mind, if the currently proposed smelter goes ahead at Cap de Ville, it would be Alcoa's preference for the site to be designed so that room could remain available for expansion of the smelter and to enable consideration of an alumina refinery at some stage in the future".

Mr Randy Overbey, President, Primary Metals Development Letter to Express January 23rd 2005.

Presumably few readers will actually recall the substance of a long letter by Mr Overbey of Alcoa almost two years ago. The letter appeared in response to my January 18th column entitled "Bhopalising Trinidad". I had invoked the name of Bhopal, a city in India, in which Union Carbide, an American multinational, had established a pesticide manufacturing industry, in which there was a release of a highly toxic gas cloud that killed over 3,000 citizens and permanently injured an even larger number.

The column was responded to that very day through a phone call to me from someone who identified himself as president of primary metals of Alcoa. I did not actually record the conversation but I did make a record of the salient points raised by the caller, including the question as to whether I happened to be a lawyer.

The thing that struck me with Bhopal, and continues to strike me, is that the compensation arrangement following the tragedy was between Union Carbide and the Government of India. The victims had no say in the matter, as they would have had, had they been in the United States. An Indian life had been calculated to be worth no more than US$24,000! It is not that I expected an aluminium smelter to produce a toxic gas cloud. Indeed, if heaven forbid, we do have an industrial accident or "event", I would expect it within the energy industry. They happen, in spite of the best technology, even in the developed world.

The coining of the word "bhopalisation" was meant to focus attention on the risks of foreign direct investment in heavy industrialisation. Suppose a citizen at one of the foreign-owned industries is killed or injured, may the family take legal action in the country of the foreign direct investor? I doubt it.

But rummaging through archives I happened upon Mr Overbey's letter to the Express in response to my earlier column. The letter was written long before the smelter issue developed into what it is today. And I reflect also on Alcoa's "Smelter in a Park" proposal and integrating the smelter into the "ecosystem".

Now, the letter is obviously rather longer than the quotation above and I suppose that I may be charged with quoting material out of context. Nevertheless, I defy anyone to challenge the meaning of the extract, coming as it was near the end of the letter. Room for expansion of the smelter and the possibility of an alumina refinery! Read the quotation again! This is why it is of paramount importance that there be full disclosure of both the May 25th 2004 Memorandum of Understanding, and, the February 2006 Memorandum of Agreement referred to by Mr Alain Belda, President/CEO of Alcoa Inc.

But the story does not end there. And we must thank the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) and the accessibility of its Administrative Record. The Draft Air Pollution Rules 2005 were laid out for public comment with a closing date of November 11th 2005. Alcoa wrote to the EMA on November 18th after the closing date, the letter being received on November 22nd in which the Environmental Manager, one Mr Steven H Myers, stated inter alia - "Alcoa believes that the "Short Term Maximum Level" proposed for hydrogen fluoride 24 hour averaging is unnecessarily stringent and cannot be achieved using best available technology for an aluminium smelter", and "From and economic standpoint, the proposed limit would unnecessarily impose a cost of around US$200 million on the project for installation of either fresh or salt water scrubbers on the roof of the aluminium smelting potrooms". Just read the extracts again. The standard supposedly cannot be achieved using the best available technology, yet it goes on to say that it would cost US$200 million to achieve what is unachievable.

The symposium on smelters was also supposed to provide information on the proposed aluminium industry. And it did succeed in some ways, but raised more questions that remain unanswered. The invited expert, Colin Pratt, did not mention it in his presentation but a question from the floor elicited a response that had you alternative use for natural gas you would not use it for an aluminium smelter.

A question from the floor also elicited a response from the representative of the EMA that rather than lay standards in Parliament, the EMA preferred to retain flexibility and settle standards with applicants for CECs for industrial proposals. Will deviation from their published standard to accommodate Alcoa not destroy their credibility?

Manning shelves smelter plan

2006-12-25T09:45:00.000-04:00

Santa delivers early to Chatham residents
by Roxanne Stapleton
Trinidad Express
December 25, 2006

IN A shocking move last night, Government backed down from plans to establish an industrial estate in Cap-de-Ville.

This essentially means that there will be no smelter built at Chatham, much to the delight of the area's residents, who have united against the construction of a proposed Alcoa aluminium smelter in a series of explosively bitter, physical protests.

Instead, the Patrick Manning-led administration is to accelerate development of a new industrial estate offshore Otaheite Bank, "from which aluminium production can now be pursued, together with other industrial plants".

The highly charged statement came in the Prime Minister's Christmas and year-end review, which was aired to the nation last night from 7.30.

"We will continue with the Alutrint plant at La Brea, which could also form the basis for further aluminium production facilities in this country," Manning said.

Anti-smelter activists and supporters yesterday claimed this stand-down as a major victory for their camp, though this round is simply limited to a change in location.

Last night, strongly defending his Cabinet's stance that, come what may, it is unlikely that they would relinquish plans to establish aluminium smelting in this country, Manning described the recent symposium on the issue as being both "quite successful and helped in determining the direction we must now follow".

"Our symposium produced the very salient conclusion that the two proposed aluminium smelters present no unmanageable threat, either to the environment or to the health of the population," he said.

In fact, he said the symposium concluded, on health and environmental grounds, that there was no bar to the establishment of an aluminium industry in Trinidad and Tobago and that risks "as may exist are quite manageable".

Manning reiterated that the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) "has set the strictest standards for the pursuit of aluminium smelting facilities", adding that Cabinet will ensure the standards are met.

Commenting on the announcement, anti-smelter activist, Prof Julian Kenny, told the Express that the Government ought "to be commended for listening to the views of the people of Chatham/Cap-de-Ville and independent views from the wider public".

Kenny said that while the idea of building an island offshore Otaheite has been bandied about, it poses a threat to "the important fish and shrimp harvesting area at the Oropouche Bank".

"My point has always been if you want to develop an aluminium industry, my preference would be for importation of primary aluminium ingots, as does Japan, South Korea and other countries," Kenny said.

"My reasoning is the cost of smelting aluminium using natural gas is far costlier, by about a factor of ten to one, as opposed to the downstream use of aluminium."

Human rights activist/attorney, Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, who on Friday filed a constitutional motion in the San Fernando High Court to stop construction on the proposed Alcoa plant, slammed Manning's statements as inconsistent. (See Page 9.)

"Aluminium smelting, the Prime Minister agrees, is dangerous and needs to be managed. If it's dangerous to human health in Chatham, why have it in La Brea. You'll allow it to kill people in La Brea and Otaheite?

"The EMA, in any event, does not have the expertise, nor the human resource to police all poisonous emissions from aluminium smelters. We are going to oppose smelters in any location," he stressed.

Maharaj insisted that the relevant laws are not in place to assist Manning in his quest, adding that at the end of the day, the laws will be against the Prime Minister.

Opposition Senator, Wade Mark, said no information had reached his party as to the conclusions of the symposium, adding that it is incredible that the Prime Minister could have drawn such conclusive evidence.

"His statement appears to be ill-informed. He must understand that 89 per cent of the population in two surveys conducted... said that they didn't want any aluminium smelters.

"The Prime Minister should pursue a new line of industrialisation," Mark said.

A Grecian gathering

2006-12-11T05:52:00.000-04:00

by Senator Mary King
Trinidad Express
December 11, 2006

I was not invited to the one-day symposium on the aluminium smelters. However, I am aware of what took place because of video recordings and notes taken by a colleague. Neither have the views expressed at the symposium nor did those of our Government posit the proposal in the context of whether we can develop globally competitive aluminium businesses, owned by the citizens of T&T (the Demas/Porter development model).

However, it is obvious that the Alcoas of this world are clear as to what subsidies they require (e.g. in the price of gas to make electricity) and what pollution levels they are willing to accept so that they can develop their competitive industry.

Colin Pratt, one of the invited experts, explained that the FDI smelters are looking for sources of fuel for the smelters that are "isolated islands"of energy. In other words, there is little else the country could do with the energy so the investor can negotiate cheap prices for, say, natural gas from the NGC.

It is worth noting that a participant from the floor asked Mr Pratt whether he considered that T&T had little else to do with its energy resources. Mr Pratt said no, i.e. we have other more lucrative uses for our energy. He also reminded us that though Norway had many smelters that country uses its isolated hydro-electric power in the aluminium industry and reserves its natural gas for input into the European pipeline where returns to Norway are much higher. He added that the US has not built another smelter in a long time, not only because of environmental concerns, but because that country has more financially lucrative uses for its natural gas.

Further, Mr Pratt pointed out that what the investor feared could happen in, say, Australia where the fuel being used was brown coal that produced large amounts of carbon dioxide (green house gas), is increases in taxes via a carbon tax. Hence investors are looking for low-carbon sources like hydro and natural gas.

Gregory McGuire (UWI) told us that the maximum price that the investors are willing to pay today for electricity is of the order US1.5 cents per KWh. In T&T the commercial price of electricity is some US4 cents per KWh. NGC will have to offer gas to the smelters at a cost substantially below the price it can get from other commodity plants in the country. As a business venture the return on our depleting natural resources for aluminium smelting is below what we are getting at the moment-a reduction on the productivity of our resources. This would be a backward step in our economic development.

Of concern is whether NGC's gas pricing strategy leans towards facilitating the smelters or maximising return on our resources. Mr McGuire then postulated that the reason our people may be willing to subsidise the smelters is because they can produce jobs. However, Paul Lochner, another Alcoa expert, stated that smelters provide a low level of job creation after the plant is built; a US$2 billion investment produces jobs for 1,000 people. Hence it is important, he said, to downplay the inflated job expectations of the society.

Mr McGuire agrees with this column that the smelters simply extend the Point Lisas model, however, I may add, with the constraint also that their productivity in the use of gas is lower than other processing plants and LNG. He concludes that we need to examine also the benefit that we could receive for this subsidy from a downstream aluminium industry. Yet he was very cautious, since Point Lisas is only now, after some 30 years, beginning to go downstream. These proposed downstream plants, UAN etc, are not really a move into the investment or innovation stages, but one still in the exploitation of basic factors (cheap feed stock).

Further, Mr McGuire pointed to the claim, also made in this space, that FDI investment did not encourage technological dispersion in the country, i.e. the locals did not learn or use the technologies introduced. Point Lisas has shown that there is little local equity participation in the sector and in investing downstream.

But the Government is banking on the creation of an aluminium downstream sector. Prakash Saith stated at the symposium that Alcoa will not be allowed to build a smelter unless Alcoa goes downstream also. The hope there is for FDI to create more jobs is the added value part of the industry.

What the Government has failed miserably to understand is that for competitive economic development the downstream will only make sense if it is owned by local or regional capital. We have an opportunity to use our brains and we can make it globally competitive. (To continue)

maryking@tstt.net.tt

Mr. Manning's Industrial Explosion

2006-12-11T05:45:00.000-04:00

Dear Editor,
Today more than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day yet the world boasts about such high degree of industrialization and economic development.
Well here in our twin island, our beloved Mr. Manning is singing a mantra about this country is on the road to having the highest energy consumption per capita while the other 1st world nations are trying to reduce energy consumption. Now tell me, what type of sustainable development is this and is destroying the environment and depleting a nation’s natural resources part of your so-called vision 2020? -such strategically thinking individuals!
On the 6th of this month, I attended the symposium held to educate the public about the aluminium industry in Trinidad and Tobago. Shouts of pains echoed throughout the auditorium where the majority of people objected to the construction of the smelter plants, but what appalled me was on the same day the daily newspaper read-‘ Symposium will not stop smelter-Manning,’ I am now questioning whether this country really is a democratic one. Is the word ‘democracy’ erased form this government’s vocabulary or do their conveniently utilize it? Well as one of my colleague boldly stated if the voice of the people is ignored the only power we as a society possess now is our civil right- the right to vote.
Endless acres of nutrition packed soil lie naked due our government’s educated plan for industrialization. Mr. Prakash Saint, President Of The National Energy Corporation whose brother is coincidently Mr. Lenny Saint, Minister in The Ministry Of Energy and Energy Industries stated the main purpose of the two smelter plants is for economic diversification. When last did you buy food, because if you visit the supermarket with the salary of a middle/low income person you will realize that only a mere number of goods can be purchased as basic rice and flour is overpriced. So then why can’t the government diversify into more agro-based businesses?
It is a pity where this country has reached, where the gap between the rich and poor is widening and nothing is being done to help the ‘small man’ in society yet it is due to his taxes that government officials are able to live life in luxury and flaunt the country’s money to their fancy. Well there is an old proverb that fits well in this scenario-‘What goes up MUST come down.’
ALCOA is a multinational, which means most of the revenue that is earned, is pumped to the mother country NOT Trinidad. Once the natural gas is depleted ALCOA will have no interest with Trinidad and what we will be left with is- a scarred economy, damaged eco-system and memories of a place that was once an independent virgin, now an abused and barren Chatham.
The spatial dualism that exists in the country is far too evident to place a blind eye to. More than 50% of this country’s wealth comes from South but ironically development is at its minimal. We are now experiencing an oil boom but instead of improving the standard of living and developing measures for poverty eradication, we are plagued by increasing food prices, inadequate medical services, deteriorating education system, accelerating unemployment rate and the inflation rate that is heading to the history books.
Mr Manning, you have once again showed the population your mastery of shooting without aiming. It is evident that your administration only seeks to satisfy their needs while the society suffers from your narrow minded and irrational decisions but rest assured for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction. In closing, Mr. Prime Minister, myself and every other citizen who will be affected in some form or fashion have power- the power to vote! Let him who has an ear, hear, and let the will of the people prevail!
S. MOHAMMED
Fyzabad Anglican Sec. School

Smelter Deal under threat?

2006-12-10T19:10:00.000-04:00

by Camini Maharaj
Sunday Express
December 10, 2006

Republic Finance and Merchant Bank has obtained a US$8.6 million judgment in default against Sural CA, Government's joint venture partner in the aluminium smelting company, Alutrint Ltd. And sources report, that Republic Bank is looking at seizing the assets of Sural's 40 per cent interest in Alutrint and its 60 per cent stakeholding in another government venture, Alutech Ltd, in its bid to recoup the outstanding US millions owed by the State's Venezuelan partner.

The Sunday Express obtained a copy of the judgment in default which was registered on October 10 this year in the local courts and which orders Sural CA or Suramericana De Aluminio CA to pay Republic Bank US$8,678,066.63 for debt and interest at a statutory rate of 12 per cent per annum plus TT$3,270 in legal costs.

Republic Bank took Sural to the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago after failed attempts to call in the outstanding debt from the Venezuelan company, headed by Alfredo Riviere, a director in Alutrint, Alutech and a Ken Julien firm, called Pan American Development Company Ltd.

In the uncontested claim filed in the local courts, Republic Bank said the money represented the balance owed on four outstanding loans to a wholly-owned Sural subsidiary, Techno Metals Ltd, also a Venezuelan registered company. Leopoldo Rodriguez, a manager and director of Sural, signed a guarantee bond in May 1997, naming Sural as a guarantor and giving an undertaking to accept full liability for credit facilities extended to the company.

Under the terms of the guarantee bond, signed by Alfredo Riviere and his son Carlos Riviere, Sural is legally obligated to Republic Bank until full settlement of the debt. Sural failed to respond to the bank's demand for payment, legal letters or even a court warning issued by the High Court that judgment could be entered against the aluminium smelting company.

The Sunday Express understands that Republic Bank is also considering going after Sural's Venezuelan operation in Los Palos Grandes, Caracas. Alfredo Riviere and his associate Renda Butler, both electrical engineers. are listed as directors in Alutrint Ltd and Alutech Ltd, a planned aluminium wheel manufacturing facility to be set up in Trinidad.

The two men are also directors in Julien's company, Pan American Development, which the Professor, in an initial response to Sunday Express enquiries, disclaimed any knowledge of. Anthony Bullock, one of his attorneys, in a threat of litigation against the Sunday Express, said the truth was, "he (Julien) forgot about its existence".

In detaling what he termed imputed defamation against Prof Julien, Bullock said: "With regard to the company Pan American Development Co Ltd, you are correct in reporting that there is such a company registered and that Prof Julien is recorded as a director. The company was registered at a time when it was intended to be used as a vehicle for a business venture which eventually was not pursued, The company never got off the ground and has never traded."

Bullock said it was his client's instructions that: "There has never even been any directors' meeting. More importantly, this company has never had any relationship with UTT. It is for these reasons that Prof Julien's immediate response to your query concerning this company was that he knew nothing of it. Simply put, he forgot about its existence."

Attempts by this newspaper to reach Alfredo Riviere on Friday was unsuccessful. Butler, the managing director of Alutrint was reported to be "in meetings" and failed to return several messages left at the Pasea Main Road, Tunapuna base. Efforts to contact Alutrint's finance director, Adrian Bernard and Philip Julien, project development manager at Aluntrint also proved futile.

Finance analysts questioned why government has gone into joint venture deals without conducting the requisite due diligence of its business partners.

Government breaking the law- Prof Kenny

2006-12-10T18:52:00.000-04:00

by Kayode James
Sunday Guardian
December 10, 2006

Professor Julian Kenny emerged as one of the more vocal protesters of the Government’s smelter plans during last week’s symposium, where he presented compelling points against the construction of the controversial facility. The presentation by the prominent environmentalist entitled Heavy Industrialisation in Trinidad - the expansion into the south-western peninsula and the problems of processes constitution, law, national policy, international obligations and carrying capacity is summarised below.

Political note

At its core, Kenny’s presentation argued that the very process used to establish the planned aluminium-based industrial estates in the south-western peninsula was flawed at best, and arguably illegal.

According to Kenny, Cabinet’s unilateral decision to establish the smelter runs contrary to several laws and policies, including the Town and Country Planning Act, the Environmental Management Act (2000), and the Constitution itself.

Cabinet, Kenny explained, neglected its constitutional obligation to account to Parliament, particularly due to its failure to ensure that members of the National Energy Corporation and the National Gas Company answered questions posed to them by a Joint Select Committee chaired by Senator Mary King.

Kenny wrote, “Cabinet has refused to acknowledge receipt of an alternative regional developmental plan conceived by citizens, NGOs and CBOs based on sustainable use of the renewable natural resources of the south-western peninsula.” The move conflicts with the National Environmental Policy (2006), which states that community groups and NGOs “should be given an opportunity to share in managing their local resources and the right to participate in decisions.”

Kenny also pointed out the smelter plans conflict with several international treaties, including the United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity and the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat.

Legal and technical loopholes characterised each of the five treaties identified, however, as was apparent with the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1999), which seeks to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions. T&T was an early signatory of the convention, but has not yet determined a limit for its industrial emission of the harmful gases.

Geographical implications

Kenny briefly outlined a wide cross-section of the flora and fauna of the peninsula’s ecosystem, and described the Carlisle and Quarahoon Rivers as the country’s only stable examples of tropical intermittent streams. Among the unique species of plants and wildlife he listed were the Oncidium Lanceanum orchid, the Cedros Balisier, the silver hatchet fish, and a local species of capybara.

“The peninsula would meet all the requirements for declaration as an Environmentally Sensitive Area under the Environmental Management Act and fulfil requirements of obligations under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity” he wrote.

Kenny dismissed the current scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment, saying that a proper scientific survey of the area would require more time and expertise.

Such scientific investigation, he explained, would also be necessary to further satisfy the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act as well as the lapsed Planning and Development Bill of 2001.

Kenny added to the discourse surrounding the state of local agriculture by condemning the industrialisation of the south-west peninsula as a “further alienation of agricultural land that would seriously compromise the country’s agricultural future.”

“Many human settlements in the area will be seriously affected by displacement and lifestyle changes from rural self-sufficiency to factory wage dependency.”

Small-scale operations

Kenny acknowledged the significant advances made in the pollution reduction technology used by the aluminium industry, but questioned Alcoa’s stated intent to export spent pot liners.

“It would be unreasonable for the Environmental Management Authority to grant a Certificate of Environmental Clearance on the grounds of future export of spent pot liners in the absence of the required legislation and without formal agreements with the countries that may be affected,” he argued.

Like several other presenters, Kenny urged the panel to consider the feasibility of establishing a downstream aluminium manufacturing industry in T&T instead of a primary smelting facility.

“The Union Industrial Estate that has now been cleared of vegetation and graded might be considered the prime site for such industries, a savings in scarce land and energy,” he said.

He suggested a regional aluminium industry more in line with the vision of the late Dr Eric Williams, consisting of smelting facilities in Guyana and downstream industries in T&T and Jamaica. Guyana, he argued, would be better suited to handle a smelter facility because of its large size, whereas smelters in T&T would not augur well for a country with one of the highest population densities in the world.

Transparency in gas pricing

2006-12-10T18:46:00.000-04:00

Dear Editor,
Dr Pratt, an expert at the Governments aluminium "symposium",
emphasised the pre requisite importance of the worlds cheapest gas for the success of the aluminium industry.
Dr Pratt is a technical advisor to Governments and Companies engaged in the aluminium industry.
Mr Charles Thavnot, an executive of British Gas here in Trinidad,
has last week written in the business section of the Guardian, warning that there will be burdensome financial penalties if Trinidad cannot meet its supply obligations to ALNG for the life of that project, that Trinidad has not had any new discovery of gas which would provide a justification for rushing into several (high gas consumption) aluminium enterprises, and that the Government ought to first find new gas before engaging in new gas intensive obligations.
Mr Thavnot's warning suggests that unless we find new gas, we will either pay burdensome penalties, or will need to buy gas from elsewhere (at higher prices) in order to meet supply obligations for the life of the ALNG project.

Why have the ALNG contracts and agreements been kept secret from public, and technical expertise?
The gas belongs to the people.
The old secret closed door deals must be stopped if we are to stamp out the slippery reputation that Governments have earned.
What exactly are the penalties that taxpayers will be forced to bear if we "give" the gas originally intended for ALNG to other new projects?
Industry sources have informed FFOS that these penalties will be 7 Million USD per day for failure to supply Train IV alone!
We direct the following three questions to Minister Lenny Saith,,
What are the exact Royalty, Netback, Well Head and all other named revenues and taxes from gas supplied to and processed at ALNG Trains I, II III and IV?
How do these revenues compare to other underdeveloped countries with gas processing agreements similar to ours, such as East Timor and Malaysia?
What is the price which the peoples gas is to be sold to Alcoa and Alutrint? Why is this being kept secret by Mr Manning and Saith? Is something being hid?
How does this price compare in actual value to other supply
agreements to other energy consumers such as the seven existing methanol facilities, the ten existing ammonia plants, Essar, Ansa McAl, Methanol Holdings, ethylene, polypropylene etc?
Every right thinking citizen is asking for complete, and not
selective, transparency in natural gas pricing so that we are all
better informed.
Why is Mr Saith, and his Prime Minister Patrick Manning avoiding the essence of the peoples concerns? Is honesty still the best policy?

Gary Aboud

Fishermen and Friends of the Sea

Chatham women to hold smelter talks

2006-12-09T09:53:00.000-04:00

by Lara Pickford-Gordon
Newsday
December 9, 2006

Chatham Women for the Protection of the Environment will be hosting a symposium next Wednesday from 5 pm to 9 pm at the Learning Resource Centre, University of the West Indies’ St Augustine campus.

“This symposium will illustrate in a simple and logical manner the costs and any potential benefits of the proposed aluminium smelting industry in TT,” Muriel Amoroso, head of the Women’s group said at a media briefing yesterday at the office of YES TT at Roberts St Woodbrook.

Amoroso said the group was prepared to take the issue internationally . “We have taken it to the highest person in the world and that is God. We are saying the PM is forgetting who is the creator of heaven and earth,” Amoroso said.

She added that the group is looking for more people to join them and have more pressure groups formed in the country. Amoroso called for religious groups to hold prayer and fasting sessions and she extended an open invitation to interested persons to attend the forum. She stressed that the group did not have a political agenda although Amoroso admitted she once was a candidate for Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj’s now defunct party Team Unity. Dr Peter Vine, Industrial and Agriculture Physicist; Doolin Maharaj of the Women’s group and Wayne Kublalsingh, UWI lecturer in Liberal Arts, were present at the meeting.

Vine said the reliability of data being put out by the proponents of the smelter should be questioned. He said there were problems getting a technical report on the emissions and performance of the Chinese smelter which is the type proposed by the Alutrint smelter (at La Brea). He said there were flaws in the data collection exercise. A map produced by Environmental Impact Assessment indicated that the vegetation at Alcoa’s proposed site (at Chatham) was scrub and abandoned plantations. However, he said a large percentage of the area to be used for the factory was high forest. Vine said Alcoa has put PVC in two areas at the site. He believed this was done to test soil permeability.

Vine said, “On the basis of measuring in two places on a highly variable site puts a lot of doubt on the data they are collecting.”

Kublalsingh said projections should be done on the impact of the smelters on the flora and fauna.

He said “modelling” has been done indicating that the smelter would only eliminate small amounts of particle matter. However, Kublalsingh said the cumulative impact of these particles posed a threat to fisheries, flora and food supply in TT. He said the Health Ministry should do a study on the health impacts.

“A smelter is not going to knock you down in a week or two it is in 30 years, 40 years,”

Kublalsingh said relocation of residents and installing of gas pipes were other costs. The symposium will have three panel discussions. Speaking on the Health and Environment panel will be members of the Women’s group, economist Dennis Pantin, Professor Julian Kenny. The Economics and Energy panel will comprise Senator Mary King, Vine and a representative of the National Energy Corporation (NEC). And on the Alternative Industries panel are Professor John Spence, Petra Bridgemohan and former Agriculture Society President Wendy Lee Yuen.

My Lord, I rest the people's case

2006-12-05T08:36:00.000-04:00

Prof Julian Kenny
Trinidad Express
December 5, 2006

My Lord, at the end of this trying hearing, which has consumed so many months of your patient attention, it is now my honour to summarise the people's case. This I assure your Lordship can be done in just a few paragraphs. The thrust of my argument is the legality of processes employed.

As your Lordship is undoubtedly aware, Section 75 (1) of our Constitution, while giving authority to the Cabinet for the general direction and control of the government of Trinidad and Tobago, goes on to state "and shall be collectively responsible therefore to Parliament". Our official language is English and the use of the word "shall" is clear - Cabinet is responsible to Parliament.

And My Lord, here is the first point of my argument. A constitutionally appointed Joint Select Committee of our Parliament did formally invite all of the major participants in the smelter issue to attend, give information and answer questions on the issue. Few of the senior persons actually attended, giving dubious excuses, and one even refused to attend. My Lord, I argue that this is a contempt of Parliament, and of the people, and I suggest that had Cabinet so wished, it could easily have instructed its agents to attend and give all the requested information.

My Lord, the second pillar of my submission is that the extant law regarding physical planning development is the Town and Country Planning Act Ch 35:01. It may be true that this Act is obsolete and it is true that during the past two decades desultory steps have been taken to replace it with a more up-to-date law. Ch 35:01 is nevertheless the law of the land, a law that all Cabinet members have sworn on Holy Books to uphold. Section 3 of the Act states unequivocally, when referring to the Minister, that he "shall secure consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a comprehensive policy with respect to use of all in Trinidad and Tobago in accordance with a development plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part II".

I will not burden Your Lordship with the fine details except to note that after more than a decade of preparation and deep public consultation a National Physical Development Plan (NPDP) was prepared by the Minister and submitted for the approval of Parliament, as required by Ch 35:01. This was approved unanimously by Parliament in 1984. The plan was supposed to have been updated by the Minister every five years but no Minister has ever done this in the 22 years since Parliament approved the first plan.

The area currently under threat was reserved for agriculture, forestry and rural development. I argue, your Lordship, that the very least that might be expected in a true democracy should have been a preparation of a regional plan in accordance with the provisions of Ch 35:01 involving broad public consultation and ultimately approval by Parliament. I respectfully suggest that you consider these two important points.

There are very many other points that I could raise, Your Lordship, but I focus only on three. We as a sovereign nation have signed many international conventions, some of which are not forcefully binding and some that are. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity is one that simply urges parties to do everything possible to conserve biological resources by various means, including establishment of a system of protected areas.

This obligation is adopted in our recently revised National Environmental Policy. The other treaty of interest is the Basel Convention that seeks to manage transboundary transport of toxic wastes. We signed this 12 years ago. Unfortunately, the treaty requires domestic legislation that has not yet been drafted and it must be noted that we are not permitted to ship wastes to a non-party country, such as the USA, except through bilateral treaty.

The second point I raise, Your Lordship, is that the biota of the south-western peninsula has been demonstrated scientifically to be unique in our country, as unique as that of the Aripo Savannah or the Nariva Swamp, supporting a large assembly of continental species of plants and animals not seen elsewhere in Trinidad. Our National Environmental Policy is unequivocal on conservation of unique ecosystems.

My final point, Your Lordship, concerns the sincerity of the framers of our National Environmental Policy in proposing citizen participation in decision-making regarding the use of the resources in their communities. It states that they should be given the right to participate - there is no ambiguity.

My Lord, as I close my argument for the people, a slip of paper was passed to me by counsel for the other side, even as I address you. May I read it Your Lordship? I may! Thank you Your Lordship. "Trust us, we know what we are doing. Stop being dotish and talking foolishness. Shut Up". Your Lordship on behalf of my clients, the people, I rest their case.

12 Reasons for No Smelters in T&T

2006-12-01T22:53:00.000-04:00

1) Aluminium smelters are notoriously dangerous to human health and environment . These industries use large quantities of hazardous substances which, if ingested even in the tiniest of quantities, WILL result in cancer. Smelters generate complex toxic wastes which are very difficult, expensive and energy consuming to dispose of safely. Both ALCOA & ALUTRINT are proposing to ship their waste to USA. Toxic shipments from the developing world to USA would be unprecedented.

2) ‘Developed Nation States’ are eliminating aluminium smelters and other high risk heavily polluting industries and cleaning up toxic waste. No new smelters have been built in the USA in the last 25 years. These ‘heavy gas based industries’ are all moving into countries in the Southern Hemisphere where workers rights, labor costs and environmental legislation are weak and insufficient, and where “dotish” governments are prepared to sacrifice public and environmental health for perceived short-term economic gains.

3) All over the world, heavy gas based industries have contributed to a break down in climate and global warming. Aluminium smelters release green house gases which increase the scale and intensity of hurricanes. With these smelters, T&T will further sabotage the Kyoto Protocol and become the largest per capita Global ‘Soca’ Polluter. Smelters were noted as being particularly destructive in Al Gore’s book. The movie “an inconvenient truth” which IS NOW SHOWING AND MUST BE SEEN BY EVERY TRINBAGONIAN.

4) In July 2005, ALCOA and the National Energy Corporation (NEC) submitted a joint application to the EMA for a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (signed by Prakash Saith) for the Chatham smelter, even though the smelter is wholly owned by ALCOA. ALCOA went on to spend big dollars in our newspaper trying to whitewash the truth of elevated cancer risks associated with smelters with slogans like “Building Sustainable Communities” and “Supporting Women of Substance”.

5) ALUTRINT is owned by the T&T Government (60%) and a Venezuelan private company (40%) which is reportedly hostile to the Chavez Government. ALCOA supplies aluminium to the USA’s ‘Defense’ Department to fight their on-going “War of Terror”. THESE INDUSTRIES WOULD INTRODUCE INCALCULABLE HOMELAND INSECURITY INTO T&T (check ALCOA’s website for multi-million dollar sales contracts to armament industries).

6) In 2003, the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) approved the clearing 800 acres of land at Union Industrial Estate (UIE) to make way for ALUTRINT without knowing what the impact of the intended use of that land would be! It is now reviewing separate Certificates of Environmental Clearance (CEC) for aluminium smelting, electricity production, and port, harbour and shipping infrastructure, when all these are integrated components of ALUTRINT’S footprint. This fragmented CEC process is fatally flawed.

Furthermore, the land clearing for UIE was based on an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) written by the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA). They also wrote the EIA to clear 1,500 acres of pristine Chatham lands for ALCOA. This EMA decision is still pending. The IMA is arguably not qualified to assess the impact of a large industrial footprint on land. The IMA is currently without a Board and has been incorporated into the University of T&T (UTT). (check out “Something Smelting Fishy”, Edward Ramdass’ anti-smelter song).

7) ALUTRINT’s smelter technology was developed at the North Eastern University of China and is being financed by the Chinese Government. This technology has never been tested outside of China.
The ALUTRINT Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) failed to include a single shred of information on the health records of employees working at a similar smelter plant in China yet, this is the most important data that our EMA needs to assess the impact of this industry on worker’s health.

8) THE RECENTLY WATERED DOWN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT (2006) DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION TO WORKERS in an aluminium smelting industry, as it denies them the right to refuse to work in conditions they consider to be hazardous to their health.

9) A review of the ALUTRINT EIA submitted to the EMA in January 2006 revealed that their declared toxic emissions would contravene the EMA’s draft Air Quality Standard for Fluoride. In response to the EMA’s expressed concern over this, Renda Butler, Managing Director of ALUTRINT declared to the EMA’s CEO on 18th August, 2006, “We believe that the proposed draft 2005 Air Pollution Standards are unnecessarily stringent for industrial sites”. ALUTRINT WENT ON TO MAKE AN “ECONOMIC BENEFITS” ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT THEIR CASE (Alutrint Position Paper, Supplemental Report, August, 2006).

Over a year ago, in a letter dated 18th November, 2005, Steven Myers, Environmental Manager, ALCOA wrote more candidly in reference to the same Standard, that it was “unnecessarily stringent and cannot be achieved using best available economic technology for an aluminium smelter.” Despite this, ALCOA’s media personality and Director Wade Hughes has repeatedly sought to mislead the public saying “the proposed smelter will meet internationally accepted standards for the protection of the environment and human health…including those recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO)”.

10) Smelters require vast amounts of energy. If ALUTRINT and ALCOA together smelt their intended 466,000 Metric Tons of aluminium per year, they would require more than double the total amount of electricity consumed per capita in T&T in 2005 - for all sectors combined. (assuming ALCOA’s estimate of 15 KW-h of electricity to smelt 1Kg of Aluminium website information is reliable).

Retired Energy Expert Reginald Potter says “we have 12.9 years of proven gas reserves and in a few years shortages will occur” (Express 12th August, 2006)

Yet, despite huge energy needs of smelters, the current Government has failed to follow our National Environmental Policy (NEP), which requires “political, administrative and technical support to enable a SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF THE EXTERNAL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EXPLOITING FOSSIL ENERGY RESOURCES…These assessments will be used to determine those uses that contribute to DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ECONOMICALLY, SOCIALLY, AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE.” (NEP 2005).

The National Energy Corporation has failed to demonstrate why a smelter in Venezuela or Guyana using renewable hydro-power and development of a down stream aluminium industry in Trinidad, is not more economical than operating the smelters here on our non-renewable and shrinking gas reserves.

11) In 2003 Trinidad & Tobago became a signatory to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative which requires “full publication and verification of company payments and government revenues from oil, gas and mining.” It was signed by Senator The Honourable Christine Sahadeo at a 17th June, 2003 London Conference attended by Tony Blair. She said “I wish to reiterate my Government’s support for this Initiative and its commitment to adhering to the Statement of Principles.” Despite this international commitment to transparency, sometime in early 2005, without any consultation, the current Prime Minister offered ALCOA Chatham lands and signed a secret deal to provide them with cheap gas. To date he has refused disclosure.

12) According to residents of Union Village and environs, they only get water two half-days per week, if they are lucky. Yet, in a letter dated 14th June, 2006, WASA’s General Manager, Business Services, Mr. Godfrey Ventour, ambitiously “guaranteed ALUTRINT a daily supply of 2,444 m3 of water coming from the Caroni Water Works”. THIS MEANS THAT OVER 12,000 ADDITIONAL PERSONS IN T&T WILL GO WITHOUT WATER EVERY DAY!

The days when old party politics divided the national community to mask the capture of our wealth by foreign and minority local interests are over. The time is come for all Citizens of our Republic to reap sustainable benefits from our Nation’s wealth as the primary means to fight crime and poverty.

SAVE T&T VOTE “NO SMELTA”

For more information
write to stopthesmelter@yahoogroups.com and visit the Anti-Smelter Camp, South UWI.

MP Achong under probe

2006-11-29T06:59:00.000-04:00

by Richard Charan
Trinidad Express
November 29, 2006

Point Fortin Member of Parliament Larry Achong is being investigated by police about the language he allegedly used at a town meeting organised by TV6's Morning Edition programme.
The meeting was held to discuss construction of the proposed aluminium smelter at Chatham, which is in Achong's constituency. Statements taken from two people allege that he mouthed an obscenity.
The investigation was ordered by Senior Superintendent Samuel Jemmott, days after the broadcast of the meeting which was hosted by journalist Andy Johnson and held at the Chatham Youth Centre.
Jemmott spent his last days in the South Western Division yesterday after his sudden transfer to the Central Division.
He is being replaced by Snr Supt Krishna Maharaj.
The investigation is being led by an Acting Sergeant assigned to the Point Fortin police station.
The investigator has interviewed Johnson at CCN's Independence Square, Port of Spain headquarters.
The police have also viewed a tape-recording of the meeting.
CCN is the parent company of the Express and TV6.
Last night, sources said that two people interviewed had given statements and were willing to testify.
Achong is still to be questioned.
The woman to whom Achong mouthed an alleged obscenity, was visited yesterday by the police asking for a statement on what she heard.
The woman, who asked that her name not be used, said she refused to help the police.
She said she remained fearful of being a witness.
The public forum heard the views of several Chatham residents who rejected Government's plan to relocate the village and allow Alcoa to build the smelter.
Several groups have called for Achong to apologise to his constituents and resign as MP.
Achong has said he did not curse and has refused to apologise or quit office.
Achong has said that as an elected Member of Parliament he cannot be fired.
Prime Minister Patrick Manning and other PNM politicians have said nothing publicly on the issue.

From the Frying Pan into the Red Mud

2006-11-29T06:49:00.000-04:00

by John Maxwell
Jamaica Observer
November 26, 2006

We are all Maroons now, whether we know it or not, wherever we are on the face of the Earth, whoever we are, black, white or in-between, male or female, human, as long as we are alive, animal or vegetable, on land or in the sea or the air, our very existence is under attack.
If we want to survive we have to take action. We need to resist the destruction of our own and our planet's integrity, resist degradation and deformity and protect ourselves from extinction.
We are under siege by a system gone mad, an economic system gone berserk, unaccountable to anyone and responsible to nothing because this system has no rules. It can do anything it wants to anyone, any living organism.
It is destroying oceans, mountains and entire ecosystems, and with giant dams, even slowing the revolution of the Earth. It destroys everything in its way, creatingdeserts out of fertile land, submerging low-lying lands, poisoning the air webreathe, altering weather systems in unpredictable ways and producing more destructive hurricanes and typhoons, even slowing down the mighty Gulf Stream itself, destroying the ice-cover at the North Pole, breaking up the ice continent of Antarctica into icebergs bigger than Jamaica and threatening life itself everywhere on Earth.
It is a system described by George Soros, one of the world's richest men, as "Gangster Capitalism".
On the world stage it calls itself 'globalisation'. On the local stage, everywhere, its adherents call it 'Development'.
In this system, everything and everyone is for sale. Human dignity itself becomes a marketable commodity, affordable to those with enough money to buy themselves a little time.
In Vietnam 40 years ago, the Americans thought they were buying time and safeguarding progress. The Domino Theory was ascendant, and South-East Asia was to be made safe for democracy.
This ideal led to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people, some American, some Vietnamese. Here is the story of three Americans:
The son speaks: "The areas around us were heavily defoliated, so defoliated that they looked like burned-out areas, many of them. You know, almost every day that you were in riverboat patrol, you were being subjected to the Agent Orange factor."
The father speaks: "It is the case that the particular area in Vietnam in which my son's boat operated a great deal of the time was an area that was sprayed up on my recommendation, and in that sense it's particularly ironic that in a sense, if the causal relationship can be established, I have become an instrument of my son's own tragedy."
The son is Elmo Zumwalt III, son of Elmo Zumwalt II, Admiral and Chief of Naval Operations of the USA. Elmo the younger died at 42, destroyed by cancers induced by Agent Orange. His father died 11 years later, aged 79.
While serving as Commander of US naval forces in Vietnam from 1968 to 1970 the elder Zumwalt had ordered the spraying of the defoliant Agent Orange in the Mekong Delta, seeking to deny cover to snipers on the river banks.
The older Zumwalt killed his son. His son's genes, deformed by Agent Orange, severely damaged his grandson's nervous system resulting in serious learning disabilities. He is unable to speak for himself.
Hundreds of thousands of South-East Asians were also killed and maimed by Agent Orange and many of their children have been born and are now being born dead, disabled or hideously deformed.
Agent Orange is a mixture of two phenoxyl herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 2,4,5 trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T). These were developed for agro-industry factory farming to control broad-leaved weeds. In broad-leaved plants they induce rapid, uncontrolled growth, eventually killing them. There were used all over the world by the middle of the 1950s. At least one extension officer in Jamaica, my friend 'Buddha' Webster, was killed by exposure to this toxin.
It was later learned that a dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD), is produced as a by-product of the manufacture of 2,4,5-T, and was thus present in any of the herbicides that used it. This chemical is among those now present in the waters of Kingston Harbour, and as I pointed out five years ago, redistributed in the dredging of the harbour.
TCDD is a carcinogen, frequently associated with soft-tissue sarcoma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin's disease and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). 2,4,5-T has since been banned for use in the US and many other countries. Its initial effects include liver damage, loss of energy and diminished sex drive.
During the 1970s, at the height of the destabilisation of the Manley government, I saw at Newport East, a big transformer built for JPS dropped onto the quayside, breaking open and spilling into the harbour gallons of dioxins, which remain there to this day.
Almost all the countries now described as 'developing' or 'underdeveloped' share one major characteristic: for hundreds of years their people, their lands, their resources have provided the raw materials for the development of the so-called 'developed world'.
As one American comic has said: "What is our oil doing underneath Iraq and Venezuela?"
Almost every war ever fought and most of today's wars and civil wars derive from the idea that the strong are entitled to the resources of the weak because the weak don't know how to use their resources appropriately. In this perspective, Jamaican farmland is not serving its proper purpose by producing food. Jamaican bauxite is necessary for 'progress' to make more planes, more frying pans, more garbage and to stiffen the GDP.
In Rio de Janeiro, 14 years ago, political leaders and bureaucrats from all over the world (including P J Patterson) met to agree on a new compact to define development or 'progress' if you will. They signed the Treaty of Rio, otherwise known as Agenda 21, and it committed the nations of the world to work together to assure the survival of the planet and all the living things which inhabit it by adopting and practising sustainable development.
The first paragraph of the preamble of the treaty is worth remembering: "Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being."
Environmentalists put it more crudely: We are living beyond our means, overdrawing our credit from the earth, destroying finite resources for greed.

The oil industry is only now waking up to the prospect that its behaviour may condemn all of us to a future of darkness, disease and destitution; only now beginning to recognise that there is an imminent threat of catastrophic changes because of global warming. Even Mr Bush (USA) and Mr Howard of Australia seem to be seeing the light. The Chinese seem to have some way to go before they emerge from their tunnel of development.
In the Rio statement on sustainable development, the world's leaders acknowledged "the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home" and proclaimed as the first principle of development that: "Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature."
Progress is today defined by measuring how much of one's patrimony can be safely delivered into the hands of developers. We offer them incentives to come to despoil our patrimony, abuse and deform our social relations and generally disinherit us. In gracious exchange they will make billions of tax-free dollars and demonstrate how different they are to the rest of the miserable and oppressed of the earth. In return we can go live in the Bronx.
All over the world, indigenous populations are counselled to be investor friendly, to assist the despoliation of their holy mountains in Chile; the poisoning of their streams and the deforestation of their landscapes in New Guinea; the displacement, murder and rape of thousands to make way for oil pipelines in Burma (Myanmar). The progress-bringers are destroying the glaciers of Iceland, the Jarrah forests of Western Australia and the communal tranquility of the Cedros peninsula in Trinidad.

The 2005 Yale/Columbia Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) showed Trinidad and Tobago as having the worst percentage of negative land impacts of 146 countries, yet Trinidad's government is ignoring the protests of its people who don't want any more pollution and degradation of their small and beautiful island.

Public protests in Chile, Brazil and Vietnam have kept proposed aluminum smelters out of those countries. The Trinidadian citizens group Cedros Peninsula United say that when they managed to obtain a copy of Alcoa's (secret) environmental clearance, jointly signed by Alcoa and the government's energy corporation, they found it full of omissions, inaccuracies and outright false statements.
The Barrick Corporation of Canada, like Alcoa, a transnational despoiler of the environment, is proposing to mine 500 tonnes of gold from mountain peaks in Chile. The Barrick corporation intends (Listen to This!) to relocate three glaciers (rivers of ice) to get at the gold.
As you might imagine, the people of Chile are not accepting this proposed rape of their environment.
The proposed assault on the Cockpit Country is not simply an assault on the sensibilities of a few environmentalists. It is an affront to the whole of humanity. When the great devastation comes we won't be saved by bauxite or alumina, but by the species finding shelter in the land of 'Look Behind' and similar refuges around the world.
A hundred years ago Jules Verne described the Gulf Stream as "the sea's greatest river [and] we must pray that this steadiness continues because ...if its speed and direction were to change, the climates of Europe would undergo disturbances whose consequences are incalculable".
The sea's greatest river is slowing down, and the consequences have been calculated. A few weeks ago the British government published a report by Sir Nicholas Stern on the economic consequences of climate change. The report says the possibility of avoiding a global catastrophe is "already almost out of reach",
Stern says changes in weather patterns could drive down the output of the world's economies by up to £6 trillion a year by 2050, an amount equivalent to almost the entire output of the EU. This catastrophic prospect is the direct result of 'progress' as defined by people who have more money than conscience.
If the Gulf Stream slows to a stop or even if it simply continues to slow down, the effects on climate, farming and the populations of the world will be in one word, disaster.
Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize economist of 2001 and former chief economist of the World Bank says, "The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change makes clear that the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to act. [The report] provides a comprehensive agenda, one which is economically and politically feasible, behind which the entire world can unite in addressing this most important threat to our future well-being."
Neither Stern nor Stiglitz (nor Soros) is some wool-gathering tree-hugger. They are among the people recognised as the brightest in the world. I prefer to believe them rather than some public relations flack from any aluminium company or the Port Authority or any other agency of the Jamaican government.
The Spanish hotels on the North Coast are disasters in their own right and will soon become catastrophic losses because of sea level rise and hurricanes. And we will pay for that as we will pay for the 'Doomsday Highway' which is already obsolete.
As I pointed out in my column, People at Risk in February 2002, some of the geniuses of the Jamaican 'development' process tolerate no opposition to 'progress'. They will destroy our coral reefs and degrade the harbour to take bigger container ships - themselves extinct within 20 years. At that time I reported that the bottom of Kingston Harbour contained several extremely dangerous substances and warned that PAJ dredging would redistribute them unpredictably and in a manner which would almost certainly be hazardous to health, particularly to the people of Portmore.
I reported that among toxins present were: Arsenic, Cadmium, Dioxins (including derivatives of Agent Orange), Lead, Lindane, Hexachlorobenzene, Tetrachloroethylene and good, old Mad Hatter's Mercury.
"Progress' has brought civil war, genocide and HIV/AIDS to Africa. It has deformed our politics, driven away our best and brightest all in search of the Holy Grail of 'development',
We can eat Trelawny yam and gungo peas. We can't eat Red Mud, although we may have to drink it, if progress has its way with the 'Land of Look Behind'. Prosit!

Copyright©2006John Maxwell
jankunnu@yahoo.com

The Smelter: Manning's Tipping Point?

2006-11-26T08:29:00.000-04:00

by Selwyn Ryan
Trinidad Express
November 26, 2006

The outcome of the American Congressional elections may have some relevance to contemporary politics in Trinidad and Tobago. That election saw the Republicans, who had been hyper-dominant in the American political firmament at all levels, taking a "thumping" that served to change the mood and the landscape of American domestic and international politics for sometime to come.

In 2000, George Bush narrowly "won" the office of the Presidency, courtesy the Electoral College and the Supreme Court. Bush however governed as if he had won power by a landslide. His majority was amplified considerably by the events of 9/11. Following that event, Bush seized the reins of the Presidency and bullied a frightened nation into submission.

America was at war and one either did things his way or ran the risk of being suspected or accused of being unpatriotic. All the separate branches of the Government became aligned as they had not been for some years. Congress became the "broken branch." The Republican hegemony seemed permanent as the mood of the country lurched to the right. Many Americans feared that they had not only lost the security which they enjoyed by reason of their geography, but their civil liberties as well.

In 2004, Bush again won the Presidency, this time convincingly so. A triumphal and imperial President boasted that he had won a chunk of political capital and that he was going to spend it.. He, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the other "Vulcans" were riding high and sought to reshape the world in general and the Middle East in particular in their neo-conservative image. America would not only be the world's super policeman and enforcer but would also spearhead a crusade to pacify and bring democracy and enlightenment to the benighted masses of the Middle East. All this was underpinned by America's concern for energy and physical security .

Things did not however turn out as expected, thanks in part to the resistance put up by a gaggle of "nasty" rogue leaders in Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and of course Iraq.

Until November 6, Bush was in denial. The more elusive victory became in those theatres, the more stubborn he, Cheney, and Rumsfeld became. Defeat in fact seemed to stiffen their resolve.

They boasted that they had a clear vision of what they had to do, and knew that it was right. As Cheney put it, "we are not running for office. We are doing what we think is right". The American people were told that they had to stay the course until victory was won.

The American people, or enough of them, however believed otherwise, and switched their franchise to the Democrats who notwithstanding pervasive gerrymandering, recaptured control of both Houses of Congress and several state houses after a lapse of some 12 years. Even while admitting electoral defeat, Bush is still seeking to persuade himself and others that all is not lost, and that victory will eventually be won.

What does this narrative have to do with Trinidad and Tobago? One is tempted to make a comparison between the leadership style of President Bush and that of Prime Minister Manning. My considered view is that Mr Manning means well, but that he is wrong to dismiss or ignore the voices of the citizenry on a matter such as an aluminium smelter which can affect the fundamentals of their life. It is clear that many feel very strongly about the matter, and nothing has been said that persuades them that the risks which they are being asked to take are worth the candle. The smelter is neither good economics, nor is it good politics in a society in which people have the opportunity and the incentive to vote and in other ways to make their views felt.

In the case of the US, Mr Bush's stubborn insistence that he "would stay the course" in Babylon (Iraq) no matter what, proved his undoing. He was punished. I have a feeling that the smelter would prove to be the "tipping point" that could lead to Mr Manning's undoing. Mr. Manning, like Bush, believes that his Government knows what is right and that everyone else is either dotish or driven by emotion, politics or ethnic competition. My instinct however tells me that history will adjudge Mr. Manning to have been the one who was wrong.

Mr Manning has since agreed to sponsor a symposium on December 6 where the issues will be fully ventilated, but he has however contrived to send a message that the smelter train is coming down the track at full speed and nothing will derail it. The general view is that the symposium is intended to secure legitimacy for a project that has already been baked into the policy pie.

It is not very clear just why the Prime Minister and some of his policy advisers are so intent that smelter must be built. One suspects that there is more in the mortar than the pestle, and that it is not merely the promise of jobs or economic sustainability that is driving the project. My hunch is that there is a geopolitical premise that has not been made articulate, and that the South West peninsula is being seen as space that is vital to American security and energy concerns. Perhaps this will surface at the symposium. In the meantime, I think it is reckless to insist on building the smelter, whatever the short or long term costs.

YES tt slams 'invitation only' smelter symposium

2006-11-24T04:32:00.000-04:00

by Kimberly Mackhan
Trinidad Express
November 24, 2006

A decision by the State-owned National Energy Corporation (NEC) to invite only selected candidates to a symposium on the construction of two aluminium smelter plants earmarked for South Trinidad has provoked a non-partisan group to brand the meeting as an illegitimate consultation.

YEStt chairman, Stephen Cadiz, yesterday criticised NEC and the South Trinidad Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who will be collaborating to host a public meeting on December 6 on the establishment of the smelter plants, for limiting the meeting to strictly invited members.

"It is absurd that the public meeting on the smelters for interest groups by means of a symposium, organised by the NEC, is by invitation only," Cadiz said.

"This symposium on the smelters is yet another smoke screen by the Government and cannot be considered a legitimate consultation."

He added: "The South Chamber of Commerce now says that 350 persons could attend the symposium but by invitation only. Who is the person making up the 'guest list' and what could possibly be the criteria for getting 'picked' for this all inclusive?"

Cadiz made reference to comments that were previously made by Prime Minister Patrick Manning. He pointed out that Manning had indicated that "Government has looked very carefully at the situation and believes the time has come to make some kind of positive intervention to ensure that the situation is clarified in the public domain".

Cadiz also stressed that Manning had publicly stated that Government had decided to ensure that the public would be properly informed in a forum that discussed the issue dispassionately.

He added that there was supposed to be a debate in Parliament following these public consultations.

Cadiz emphasised that YEStt was "totally against" the development of any aluminum smelter industry in Trinidad and Tobago.

"We must explore other options of development which would ensure sustainability for our country," he said.

"The Keith Noel 136 Committee, through its referendum earlier this year, got just under 50,000 respondents saying that for major projects-such as the construction of a smelter plant-there should be full disclosure before any decision is made. A select group of 350 persons does not, by any means, represent full disclosure and transparency."

More licks over smelter talks limits

2006-11-24T04:30:00.000-04:00

by Phooloo Danny-Maharaj
Trinidad Express
November 24, 2006

More criticisms were heaped on the plan by the South Trinidad Chamber of Commerce to invite selected stakeholders to a symposium on plans to build aluminium smelters in Trinidad.

The Oilfields Workers Trade Union and the United National Congress (UNC) yesterday hit out at the invitation-only plan to discuss the smelters, which have generated opposition from people from all walks of life.

OWTU president general Errol McLeod described the chamber's decision as a travesty. The UNC said the decision to invite only 250 people was "contemptuous" and nullified the promise of widespread national participation.

They were referring to the symposium to be held on December 6 at the Paria Suites Hotel, La Romaine.

Discussions will focus on the proposed aluminium smelter for Chatham and the opposition to it by environmentalists and residents.

Another smelter is to be built at La Brea.

The symposium was organised by the chamber in collaboration with the National Energy Corporation (NEC).

Chamber chief executive officer Thackwray Driver has said it would be by invitation and that some 250 stakeholders have been invited.

McLeod said the union was not invited and would not attend even if invited.

He said for the chamber to be the host of the consultation and the process used to determine who should attend was questionable.

"Even if we are invited we would not attend because the chamber organising this makes it a farce," he said.

The UNC, describing the chamber's decision as "shocking", said it "puts a lie to the promise of Prime Minister Patrick Manning of dialogue on all the disputed aspects of the proposed smelter. The move to curtail participation proves, yet again that the government has never been serious about national discussions on the smelters".

Chamber CEO Driver said foreign experts would attend the symposium and that it would be open to the public, religious groups, government workers, businesses, members of the public but priority would be given to the stakeholders, groups and schools from the south-west peninsula.

The objective of the symposium is to provide information and to promote discussion on the development of the aluminium industry in the country as outlined by Manning in his recent post-Cabinet press briefing, Driver has said.

Letter to the Editor- Still waiting for smelter answers

2006-11-24T04:22:00.000-04:00

I am the young woman who was told to shut up at the TV6 forum held at the Chatham Youth Centre on November 9. I would like to point out that MP Achong didn’t just tell me to shut up; he said it to every concerned citizen of T&T. It is my hope that we will all do the exact opposite.

We should not forget the reason behind the forum and the still unresolved issues. I think that we all need to refocus on the original issues here: the introduction of aluminium industries in Trinidad, the processes by which decisions are being made, and the feeling that the public’s opinions are being ignored.

I did not attend this public forum as an anti-smelter activist but as a citizen seeking more information and answers pertaining to the issues. The point I tried to make that night was that this issue is one of national importance and that all citizens are stakeholders and are entitled to information regardless of their place of residence.

Also, I want to point out that I have not yet received an answer to my question: “The people of Chatham have everything to lose…what do the people who are in favour of the smelters stand to lose?”

This is an important question as any development will have its gains and losses and the people of this country need to assess what they are willing to loose or risk losing for the benefits which aluminium smelting will bring to the country.

We must continue to let our concerns and questions be heard. Alcoa will be hosting two public consultation meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday at the Chatham Youth Centre and at the St John’s Ambulance Hall (Port-of-Spain), respectively. Also, the Government will be having a symposium on the issue on December 6.

Our Members of Parliament are (or should be) willing to listen to your concerns through a letter or personal visit. We have every right to know the price at which our gas will be sold; we are entitled to demand that our land and our water be protected by the strictest possible environmental laws and the most rigorous monitoring and enforcement standards necessary.

We deserve to have our needs, dreams and expectations taken into account in the development of the south-western peninsula of our island.

One of the most poignant sentiments expressed at the meeting in question was that the land that people in Chatham live on has been handed down from generation to generation. They are trying to protect their inheritance and we should do the same. The social, environmental and economic implications of what happens in Chatham will affect all of us. We cannot afford to “shut up!”

I would like to expand on a question raised by one of Achong’s young constituents: what do we as a nation have to lose in the face of this proposed development?

We are still waiting for an answer.

Srishti Mohais

Government has no back bone

2006-11-24T04:19:00.000-04:00

Much attention has been placed on the alleged remarks made by Mr. Larry Achong at the Chatham Youth Centre two Thursdays ago. What the public should realize is that the dogmatic approach of the Member of Parliament has emanated from the head of governance and transcends the smelter issue. It is the view that the honourable Prime Minister believes that he holds the ability to manipulate the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago in whichever ad hoc direction he feels. The Hon. Eric Williams held a unique position in our nation’s history as our first prime minister. The political arena was fairly virgin territory and he was able to invoke in nationals a deep sense of commitment and loyalty to him and his party. However, the Hon. Patrick Manning has not done anything that would cause nationals to senselessly and blindly follow him in any direction he chooses. We live in a time when more people are being educated and are able to make viable contributions towards the nation’s development. There is neither room nor any need for a dictator here, nor is there room for one who seeks to make mockery of the tenets of democracy.

This leads me to the plight of the residents of Chatham on what is and can only be described as a national issue. While those residents have been more vociferous than others, we in sweet Trinidad and Tobago should realize that these proposed smelter plants would affect us all. Maybe what we need to do is take it home, and not believe that because Chatham is an area some of us have never visited, that we are far removed from it. How would you like to be forced to change location after living in your home for years, after having your family history tied there with numerous cherished memories? Additionally, have we really thought about the farmers and fishermen of the area who after decades of perfecting these skills and passing on their knowledge to younger generations are now forced to learn a new skill for survival? These are just two of many social issues, but is the government of the day concerned with the negative social effects?

No government of our twin island Republic has had a good track record regarding preservation of our environment and proper management of our limited resources. We have always been contented with taking rather than replenishing; spending rather than properly investing; using rather than saving. Such mismanagement signals our lack of appreciation and ownership of this land of our birth. It is not surprising then how easily our government is willing to sell and dispense of what is ours for a few dollars. Power states and large conglomerates dangle the promise of money in our faces and as spineless worms we accept.

Basic economics teaches us to allocate our scarce resources towards the achievement of our unlimited needs. But the government is not even meeting some of our basic needs. Health care is one contentious issue plaguing our society, why does the government want to introduce yet another mechanism that can add to the already adverse situation? It has been reported that workers from smelter plants are at high risk from lung injuries due to exposure to quartz sand, clay, resin, loams, airborne metals and other substances. There are fears that the smelters will create electromagnetic fields (EMF)s. EMF from direct current causes cancer, other harmful emissions from aluminium smelters are clearly dangerous.

Studies in Australia found that hydrogen fluoride, inspirable dust, and sulphur dioxide from aluminium smelters caused respiratory problems such as asthma, wheezing, and chest tightness in workers. A 30-year study by the University of Calgari found in 2004 that aluminium smelter workers in Sardinia, Italy, exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were between 2.4 and 5 times more likely to die of pancreatic cancer. In Norway, the Department of Horticulture and Crop Sciences studied three aluminium smelters and concluded that even low emissions of fluoride caused serious damage to nearby vegetation. The question is; Why take such risks with people’s health?

To date, there hasn’t been an independent non-politically affiliated body, which possessed the will and resolution to investigate the true effects that current industrial sites have had on their surrounding environment. The south - western coast is always in a state of permanent sunset, as a result of the massive flare burning in Point Fortin. Which environmental authority manages that? We play Mickey-mouse games with laws and acts in this country, as they are never adhered to and executed. Who is to say that after agreements have been signed that any of these companies; Alcoa, Alutrint or Mitsubishi, will maintain accepted industrial standards? Who is going to oversee that emissions are disposed of in the standard manner? What about the toxic solid waste; spent potlining (SPL)? Where is that going to be disposed of? There are more questions than there are answers.

It is believed that when one values his land, he takes pride in it, he guards it with his life, and no amount of money, not even US$1.5billion would cause him to give it up. We expect that those we have entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding our legacy, our birthright will do so vehemently and passionately. We expect them to stand up against any super-power, because they posses a firm back bone. If this is not the case, then we have the wrong group of people as our leaders. Sweet Trinidad and Tobago does not need the Smelters, they need us. Where is our resolve?

A. Reid

Excluded!!

2006-11-23T06:17:00.000-04:00

Only people who receive invitations will be allowed into a symposium on the aluminum industry next month.
The event is being staged by the South Trinidad Chamber of Industry and Commerce in collaboration with the State-owned National Energy Corporation, at the Paria Suites Hotel, La Romaine, on December 6.
Chamber chief executive officer, Thackwray Driver, said yesterday that 250 stakeholders had been invited, but he declined to say whether Prime Minister Patrick Manning would attend, or the extent of Government involvement in the meeting of stakeholders on the controversial setting up of aluminum smelters in the country.
Driver said: "Invitations have been sent out to stakeholders from across the island. Some 250 people are expected to attend, but I cannot say if the Prime Minister would be there."
Earlier this month at a post-Cabinet media briefing, Manning said that the Government would hold a symposium on the plan at month end. He said depending on what comes out of that symposium, his administration would rethink its position on the smelters, which have drawn protests from environmentalists, villagers living near the proposed sites of the plants at Point Fortin and La Brea and politicians.
He had indicated that the NEC would hold the one-day symposium along with other groups.
As such, it was felt that the Government would have an input in the December 6 event. A source at the Chamber, however, said that Manning was not invited to that symposium.
Fitzroy Beache, president of the Cap-de-Ville/Chatham Environment Protection Group, one of the most vocal opponents of the proposed Point Fortin plant, said his group would not attend the symposium because "it is only by invitation".
He said: "If the Chamber was really interested in discussing the smelter and the effects on people's lives, it should have held it somewhere in Chatham for the public."
Beache said he would be leaving the country for three months to attend his daughter's graduation in the US, but assured villagers, "I am not deserting you. In my absence, the vice president and other members would carry on the struggle."
Chamber president, Rampersad Motilal, could not be reached for comment. He was said to be in a meeting
In a statement last week, Driver said international experts from the United States and other countries would attend the symposium, which would be open to the public, religious groups, government workers, businesses and members of the public, but priority would be given to the stakeholders, groups and schools from the South West Peninsula.
The objective of the symposium, he said, "is to provide information and to promote discussion on the development of the aluminum industry in the country as outlined (Manning) in his recent post-cabinet press briefing".
He said the Chamber had organised the symposium because "we are recognised as an independent, non-partisan association, which has consistently upheld the highest ethical standards and which has been actively involved in issues of national development for the past fifty years."

CPU invited to 'Shut Up"

2006-11-23T06:12:00.000-04:00

Hello Everybody,

I got an interesting e-mail from the South Chamber of Commerce
yesterday.
The Secretary of the South Chamber wrote and asked for contact
information for the President of CPU to send him an invitation to the so-called
"Smelter Symposium" at Paria Suites.
My immediate reply, of course, was "are you asking the President of CPU
to make a presentation and speak at the symposium?"
The answer came back plain and simple "No"
I guess Larry Achong is not the only one that wants Anti Smelter
activists to simply 'Shut up'.
Please, members of all anti smelter groups, please make it clear to
these people that only invitations to speak and present will be considered by
us. We don't need another Alcoa P.R. lecture under the guise of 'consultation'

Cedros Press Office

Chatham residents demand apology from Larry Achong

2006-11-19T15:25:00.000-04:00

Residents of Chatham are demanding a public apology from Point Fortin MP Larry Achong for his behaviour at a recent public symposium held to discuss construction of smelter plants in their area.

Yesterday, residents, who joined together in the hosting of a Hindu puja in honour of Hindu deity Lord Hanuman, expressed disappointment at Achong’s un-apologetic behaviour.

A broadcast of Achong’s apparent use of obscene language at a public symposium in Chatham, which was held two Thursdays ago, has caused a public outcry.

Yesterday one resident called Sundar, addressing villagers said:

“I want to endorse that we are totally against people abusing people.”

The resident said Achong should immediately apologise—not only to citizens of T&T but to “the world, because this has reached the world (through) CNN.

“He has abused the whole country; we don’t condone this behaviour,” he added.

The Sunday Guardian learnt that pundits in the area had refused to perform the puja at the campsite, fearing reprisals.

But one pundit, who only gave his name as Pundit Maharaj, agreed to perform the puja. He admitted, though, that he, too, was afraid of reprisals and requested that his photo and name not be published. He said this was a condition for his participation in the puja.

He said the puja was being done out of love and that “this is not a protest or demonstration; this is devotion, devotion to the Lord.”

Father Wilfred John, together with pastor Muriel, delivered words of prayer and solace to the embattled residents.

John also petitioned God to give the residents strength “so they will not lose heart.”

Pundit Maharaj told the residents that “one of the worst situations can be turned into the best.”

He warned that “what you do with this human body, what you do with nature and creation is your gift back to God.”

The pundit also said, let the flags hoisted “fly for victory and protection not only for Chatham but for the whole of T&T.”

Letter to the Editor Govt must pause on smelters

2006-11-15T19:55:00.000-04:00

The Editor
Trinidad and Tobago Newsday
November 15, 2006

THE EDITOR: As a dedicated supporter of the PNM, I have thought long about expressing this opinion publicly. I have read the news and tried to be as impartial as possible and I now feel it important to call upon the honourable Prime Minister to seriously consider the path he is walking.

There has been so much condemnation of the smelters and more than just talk, people are bringing vital information on these projects to show how negatively it can impact on everyone in our country.

I myself visited the sites in the south and at the UWI campus where my son is attending and I must ask why has the Government taken such a highhanded approach? If people have concerns, whatever party they belong to they have a right to express those concerns and be heard. Mr Prime Minister, it is extremely wrong to attempt to label those concerns foolish! I heard Winston Dookeran on the Parliament Channel on Friday and he made some very substantial points about the lack of transparency in these projects and also about the level of manipulation that could be taking place with the environment agencies. These things cannot be brushed aside.

I am therefore calling on the Government to do as Dookeran has said and as a show of good faith, stop all activities on the smelters and only continue once their is popular support.

It would then be up to the Government to prove its case that what they are doing is in the interest of everyone.

JACQUELINE FRASER

Conflicting interests

2006-11-15T19:35:00.000-04:00

by Julien Kenny
Trinidad Express
November 14, 2006

"Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words," said Eliza. Sometimes the speaker uses the same two or three words or phrases to mean the same thing. Does anyone remember the Revised National Environmental Policy that has been through the EMA, its Board, the Ministry of the Environment, the Minister, Cabinet and both Houses of Parliament? In the same paragraph - environmental justice and ecological justice.

Now we have before the end of this month a single symposium, seminar or consultation on what? The aluminium smelter issue. And who is organising it? The National Energy Corporation (NEC), the very same state agency that refused to co-operate with the constitutionally appointed body, a standing Joint Select Committee of both Houses, in providing answers regarding aluminium smelters, now presumably to be answered through the mechanism of a symposium/seminar/consultation!

A symposium is generally accepted to be a conference of professionals to discuss academic or specialist subjects, very often to chronicle progress in the development of knowledge of the subject material. Symposia involve many presenters and generally take considerable time in their organisation, months or even years, for a session that may last one, two, three or a few days. The organisers are usually highly experienced experts in their fields as well as good administrators. Usually symposia produce published proceedings some months after the event. There is an alternative meaning of the term - a drinking and hilarity party (derived from a Greek word). Presumably now that drinking alcohol is frowned upon there will be no such thing happening at the NEC symposium, although there might be some hilarity.

A seminar is also generally accepted to be a conference but is of a slightly different kind. Mostly it is a meeting of students or professionals in a university environment to discuss academic or specialist subjects, and a seminar usually involves a single presenter. The word is derived from the Latin seminarium, a place of teaching or learning, and is itself derived the Latin word semen or "seed".

Seminars are routinely employed today not only in universities but amongst diverse organisations. Some seminars will cost you plenty as the specialists in some fields make their living from chasing around the world extracting large fees. It is quite impossible to determine whether the upcoming event will be a seminar. It might adopt the form, with one or two specialist hirelings of the multinationals descending on us to tell us of the benefits of foreign direct investment.

A consultation can be anything you wish, from speaking to your banker or insurance agent or pharmacist or specialist physician, to a political meeting on a street corner when the world is promised. It could even be a meeting of a pastor with his church elders, a shining knight in the continuing battle against the evil of homosexuality, one who had the ears of Bush on a weekly basis, after being "outed" by his male prostitute. As for workshops - they are essentially day-release from boredom in the public service.

But let's be serious. If it is to be a proper symposium, can such a meeting really be organised in the mere three weeks left before the end of the month? As a general rule the longer the time available to the organisers, and the higher the calibre of the persons selected for lead papers, and the competence of the editors of the proceedings, the higher the quality and value of the symposium.

And the real questions are: Does the NEC have any experience in organising a symposium? Who will be the presenters? What will be the criteria for selection? If the performance of the NEC representatives before the JSC chaired by Senator Mary King is any guide I would be most surprised if they are able to carry it off. Remember that the NEC heavies as well as the aluminium smelter dons failed to accept a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request from the Chair to attend, while those who did simply could not answer many of the questions.

But there is an even greater cause for concern. By whatever standard one applies there is the issue of their fitness to organise such an important symposium in the light of their closeness to Alcoa, a clear conflict of interest. It becomes even more unsettling if one takes into account the fact that the original application for CEC by Alcoa came from the NEC, the Alcoa smelter being the principal bone of contention.

Consider also that the NGC clearly failed to meet the terms of the CEC granted by the EMA for the clearing of Union Estate. One can only guess that they are simply following their masters' orders. But just think. If the whole purpose of the symposium is a make or break issue about smelters in this country - why not simply freeze everything pro tem and go to Parliament with the final published symposium proceedings to have the matter debated thoroughly and democratically.

Former miners file suit against Alcoa

2006-11-13T06:24:00.000-04:00

By Nathan Blackford-Warrick Publishing Online
November 08, 2006

Former miners and their families have alleged for nearly three years that waste dumped at the Squaw Creek Mine north of Boonville was the cause of a multitude of physical ailments. Now, 41 people - mostly miners and their spouses - have filed suit asking for damages from the mine's owner, Alcoa.

Starting in 1965, Alcoa disposed of various waste materials at Squaw Creek, including hexavalent chromium sludge and coal tar pitch, into open pits. There are at least 12 identified waste disposal sites in the north field of the Squaw Creek Mine.

The former miners contend that the waste was toxic and that Alcoa knew or should have known the danger the material posed to those who worked near it. The suit asks for unspecified monetary damages from Alcoa for negligence, infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium.

The suit was filed with the Warrick County Circuit Court on Oct. 23. Attorney Peter Racher of the Indianapolis law firm Plews, Shadley, Racher and Braun is representing the plaintiffs.

“We feel very, very strongly that a responsible company would have exposed wastes of these types to a vulnerable population,” said Racher. “No one informed (the plaintiffs) that working with hexavalent chromium was harmful to human skin or human organs. No one told them that coal tar pitch contains many substances known or suspected of being human carcinogens.”

The suit contends that many of the plaintiffs have relatives or friends who have died from cancer as a result of exposure to toxic substances at Squaw Creek. That has caused them to worry about the “precariousness of their future health, the well being of their loved ones, and the looming imminence of premature death.”

Miners believe that they have suffered a wide range of health problems - though cancer is a main concern - from exposure to toxic waste. The suit claims that former mine workers “have been required to endure painful surgeries, radiation, chemotherapy and other treatments” due to effects from toxic waste.

But Alcoa says - as it has contended from the beginning - that the materials are not toxic and did not cause the health problems the miners have had.

“We've believed all along, and according to the information we've had, that those materials would not result in health impacts,” said Alcoa spokesperson Sally Rideout-Lambert. “These are not the type of materials that would cause these health problems.”

Racher disagrees.

“That is a very controversial position that Alcoa takes,” said Racher. “We think that the science had been in place for decades about the adverse human health impacts associated with the substances that were disposed of at the mine. And Alcoa knew that the people who would come in contact with these substances were untrained and unprotected.”

Racher says that the Material Safety Data sheets concerning coal tar pitch and hexavalent chromium sludge predict that chronic exposure to the materials will produce exactly the kinds of health effects suffered by the former miners.

“These people have suffered incredibly,” said Racher. “These are folks for whom honorable work at the mine was their livelihood. They expected that through hard work they would enjoy good lives. Instead, through hard work they got sick, and with illnesses that are life-threatening. Every one of these people, their lives have been completely upended.”

How much material was actually dumped at the mine is unclear. The United Mine Workers Union Local 1189 estimates that approximately 71 million cubic feet of chromium sludge and 69 million gallons of coal tar pitch were dumped. Lambert says those figures are estimates, generally based on how much waste could have been produced rather than by actual counts.

Alcoa owned the Squaw Creek Mine through a subsidiary known as Alcoa Fuels, Inc. Company officials have admitted that waste was dumped at the mine, though they have contended it was done by the rules.

Alcoa also set up a health screening program for the miners through the University of Cincinnati Center for Occupational Health. The final results of that study are not complete.

Mining ended in the north field at Squaw Creek in 1987, and the mine stopped all production in 1998. A 2004 report from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management indicates that the waste material has not moved or become a health hazard.

Another former miner, Bil Musgrave, had filed a similar lawsuit against Alcoa in February.

But that case has been delayed in federal court, and Racher said that the second suit, which is not a class-action, would be able to stay in the Warrick County courts.

Manning, Alcoa must come clean

2006-11-12T11:44:00.000-04:00

by Raffique Shah
Trinidad Express
November 12, 2006

I think Alcoa spokesman Wade Hughes is "damn farse and outa place" (let him go learn our dialect) to suggest that Trinidad is "ideally positioned to become the aluminium hub of the Caribbean". But Hughes got his license to make such insulting pronouncements from none other than Prime Minister Patrick Manning. When the PM referred to his fellow citizens, distinguished and ordinary, as being "dotish", what could we expect from a "preferred" alien? Hughes and Alcoa, thanks to the "dotish" stance adopted by Manning and company on constructing aluminium smelters here, have been given "rank" over all of us natives. It was always this way as governments genuflected to multinational corporations, making them overlords of our nature-given resources.

To get to the meat of the matter, the concerns we have about establishing smelters here demand clear and honest answers. Firstly do we need such plants for additional revenue?

I addressed this in my previous column, suggesting that we do not, except that when both government and citizens want to wallow in wasteful consumerism, there can never be enough money. Greed drives us to seek not what we need, but what we want. Second by, what is the impact the Alcoa plant will have on the surrounding environment, more so on the aquifer that lies underground the site chosen? Manning said water in that area is not fit for human consumption. I suggest that several independent tests be conducted to determine the truth of this matter.

I emphasise proper determination of the quality of water held in this aquifer in light of the UN Human Development Report, due to have been released yesterday.

This report focuses heavily on the importance of water to the world, and the grave dangers that lie ahead as nations go to war over fresh water.

It will indicate (according to The Guardian, UK) that one billion people live without clean water and 2.6 billion lack access to sanitation. If, therefore, the Cap-de-Ville aquifer has water that can help alleviate our own water woes, then no way should we consider putting any industry there. This country needs to trap, conserve and utilise the abundance of fresh water we are blessed with.

The third, maybe most important concern that must be addressed, is pollution. There is an overabundance of evidence that these pollutants are detrimental to the health of human beings and animals in many ways. In Quebec, where there are aluminium plants, there are more human deaths from malignant tumours according to a study.

Dr Michael Weiner, a New York oncology specialist, points to "aluminium overload associated with a wide range of diseases, from anaemia to liver and cardio-toxicity and bladder cancer." But I need to focus a bit on spent pot lining (SPL) that seems to be almost as dangerous as nuclear waste (which takes 1,000 years to become sterile!).

Mr Manning said, in his address at La Brea, that "waste matter would be sent to Arkansas". Really, Mr Manning? There is every indicator that over the past two decades, smelters have shifted from the North to the global South. The main reason for that is the North is finally waking up to the ill-effects of such plants. So why would they now accept the most dangerous of aluminium wastes, SPL? Is Arkansas the Ivory Coast?

It gets fishier than that, though. Since 1992, an Australian research team funded by several aluminium companies, Alcoa included, claimed to have developed technology to "turn this intractable problem into economically useful products."

With some 500,000 tonnes of SPL being stored across the globe, scientists behind the project claimed that it could extract toxic fluoride from the smelter and save it for re-use, thus saving much money and solving an environmental problem. They claimed, too, that the remaining SPL could be reduced to "synthetic sand" and be used for road-making and concrete production. The core "SIROSMELT" technology, according to its creators, "extracts fluoride and destroys cyanide".

Why has Alcoa not adopted this mode of dealing with SPL? Why, if Manning is to be believed, are they shipping this "toxic bomb" to Arkansas, of all places? Something does not quite register right here. Clearly, both Mr Manning and Alcoa need to come clean-in more ways than one-with the people of this country. We are not fools, sirs. And I am not against industrialisation per se.

What I am against is multinational corporations or local industrialists playing "farse and loose" with the health of the population and the environment of this country, to the detriment of the current and future generations.

Beckles still awaiting Alutrint response to EMA

2006-11-12T11:40:00.000-04:00

by Juhel Browne
November 12, 2006

Public Utilities Minister Pennelope Beckles says she has not yet received Alutrint's response to the Environmental Management Authority's deficiency report on the proposed Alutrint aluminium smelter.

Alutrint had reportedly submitted its response to the deficiency report on August 21, and the EMA was supposed to make a decision on the matter on October 16.

On October 17, the EMA said it had postponed its decision on the Alutrint response because the supplementary report was insufficient.

In its deficiency report, the EMA expressed its concerns that the hydrogen fluoride emissions from the 125,000-metric-tonne Alutrint smelter proposed for construction in La Brea would be too high and said the disposal of the potliners did not meet with the authority's approval.

Speaking in response to a motion raised by St Augustine MP Winston Dookeran during Friday's sitting of the House of Representatives at the Red House, Port of Spain, Beckles said the EMA had not yet concluded its analysis of the Alutrint proposal.

"Mr Deputy Speaker, as it related to the Alutrint smelter, the available information for all types of levels of emissions from the plant, any potential health risks to the residents and plans for waste disposal, I await the outcome of the EMA's review to the applicant's response to the deficiency report on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

"Once the EMA has completed its analysis of the Alutrint EIA the results would be available, and those results would be made public," Beckles said.

As for the larger proposed 350,000-metric-tonne Alcoa smelter, Beckles said the Government was not yet in a position to make an informed statement on it.

"To date, the EMA has issued the terms of reference for the conduct of an Environment Impact Assessment for the smelter. As this EIA has not been conducted, there is no technical information to support an informed position on the type of pollutants that are likely to be emitted or likely to be released from the plant," she said.

"When the information on the Alcoa plant is approved and reviewed by the EMA, the result of the resulting review will be made public. In fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, the EIA must include at least four opportunities for public consultation facilitated by an independent facilitator at various stages in the process. Additionally, the EMA plans to make available independent experts to the community."

CS who?

2006-11-09T19:54:00.000-04:00

This is Trinidad and Tobago, land of contrast and contradiction. Land of a thousand faces, a thousand gods, a thousand ways to please the eye and the spirit and the palate.
Where we confuse freedom and freeness. Where we expect people to take responsibility for us in ways that we don’t take for ourselves.
More than ever now we stand at a kind of social and political crossroads.
This is manifest in the burgeoning social movements; constitutional reform, mobilization around crime and child protection and of course the anti-smelter lobby which has taken everyone by surprise, I daresay even the Honourable Prime Minister Patrick Manning who seems finally to be heeding the call for transparency in deals that of such great national importance.
The truth is that we cannot begin to have a discussion about Corporate Social Responsibility in Trinidad and Tobago without recognizing that the state must be the first point of social responsibility.
It was state force that Alcoa called upon to crush the protests of women and children on Foodcrop Road, Chatham in August. The police officers who protect the Bechtel and Trintoplan workers are representatives of the state.
How then, can we trust corporate entities to have our best interests at heart?
All the evidence, from the glowing tributes suggest that we natives of Trinidad and Tobago must be either illiterate or stark staring mad to want to fight against the most benevolent and sustainable company that alcoa is.
We ungrateful natives, how dare we refuse their trinkets?
multinationals operating in trinidad have done their homework and they understand the notion of freeness taking precedence over freedom.
they've learned it from the political parties: give them a t-shirt and they'll vote for you. Give them a ten day employment and they'll love you forever.
If we make the distinction between CSR and charity then we see that we in T&T have a problem. Because people love to give.
Every PR person wants their picture in the paper handing over a nice fat check to some grateful priest or elderly nun.
They love to be seen as generous. Never mind the company has atrocious labour relations, dodgy environmental records and openly and apologetically discriminates along gender and race lines.
CSR, in theory sounds good. These nice companies want to be your friends. This is why they come into your community with armed guards to have meetings with women and children.
This is why they endorse unsubstantiated reports of rape in a community.
CSR especially when it comes to multi-nationals, is a legitimisation of modern day conquistadors with shining glass beads to a post-colonial, rapidly industrializing small island state, still reeling from the inherited and un-dealt with burdens of slavery, indentureship and an economy that is still set up to reflect the privileged ones who own the plantations.
In this part of the world, we HAVE to make companies act responsibly. We demand that they do, or we will, by any means necessary get them out.

Penal oil explosions cause for concern

2006-11-09T05:38:00.000-04:00

November 08, 2006

Dear Editor,
The current pipeline explosion in Penal raises serious questions. We
are extracting energy for over 100 years, and still we have no
emergency response plan in the event of a major disaster. "God is a
Trinidadian" stupidity is no joke.
In 2003, FFOS lost a major Judicial Review against the EMA and the
multinational BP for unexamined cross country gas pipeline risks. FFOS
lost since the judge considered it prejudicial against BP since it had
already spent 71 million US Dollars on 80" of gas transmission
pipelines. These pipelines pass dangerously close to schools, villages,
residential communities etc. Today we shudder to think of these still
unexamined risks and the extent of potential disaster. There is no
emergency response education in any areas including those of high risk.
There is no legal standard for the safe laying and testing of gas
pipelines, such as the globally accepted American Petroleum Institute
(API) Code 1104. The energy multinationals could never do in England or
the USA what they are permitted to do here.
In 1999 Finbar Gangar received a Draft National Emergency Response
Co-ordination Plan from a broad based Government appointed committee of
professionals. Regretfully, the now luxuriously retired Minister never
moved the document into Parliament, or anywhere at all, busy as he was
with secret closed door negotiations for the sale of minerals.
Succeeding Ministers of Energy were too busy (driving all over St
James) to act on the critical need for disaster response co-ordination
preparedness.
In 2000 the EMA was legally born, but they are still left out of the
central function of emergency response co-ordination of which they
should play a pivotal role.
In fact every one is left out since there is still no known or
published plan, and Parliament is snoring on the issue.
In 2001, after more than 300 hours of research, Fishermen and Friends
of the Sea (FFOS) prepared and presented a National Emergency Response
Co-ordination Plan and presented this plan to the energy tsars at the
Energy Conference held at the Trinidad Hilton that year. Regretfully,
no action was ever taken by the Government to investigate or implement
any such plan at allj.
A few years ago Techier Village exploded under another Petrotrin well
eruption. An entire village ran aground in the dark for three days like
mules without testicles. There was no plan for any aspect of emergency
reponse. Years later we have still done nothing to improve energy
disaster preparedness or response co-ordination mechanisms. There are
still no known shelters for displaced citizens, so where will they go?
St. Anns or Torouba? There are almost no ambulances on the National
grid, and so how will burn victims be transported in the event of a gas
fireball incineration from Guyaguyare or other remote communities? And
are there sufficient burn unit facilities to respond to a gas fireball
accident in any of the densely populated rural towns through which the
gas pipeline grid runs? Guyaguyare still has no fire station. There is
still no Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) firefighting equipment anywhere
in Trinidad, not even next to the gaseous ALNG facilities or in the
Plipdeco compound. The chicken fast food fire in Point Fortin a few
years ago showed us all that there is not even water in the POINT
Fortin mains to fight fire. Is Port of Spain better? How will different
State agencies be co-ordinated in the event of a major gas fireball? Is
this the brilliance of 2020 vision, or continued negligence and
irresponsibility of the gravest nature? Instead of building boastful
sky scrapers shouldn't a caring father first ensure the safety of his
family?
We continue to appeal to the Honourable Members of Parliament to call
on our big spending Government for these emergency response
co-ordination plans.
FFOS has been right too many times before: Please do not let us be
right on gas fireballs and the careless unpreparedness of communities
and Government agencies.

Gary Aboud
Fishermen and Friends of the Sea

Aluminiun Smelting Symposium

2006-11-09T05:36:00.000-04:00

by John Spence
Trinidad Express
November 08, 2006

The decision by the Prime Minister to have the National Energy Corporation convene a national consultation on aluminium smelting is to be welcomed. However, the time and process applied to this exercise must commensurate with the significance of the proposal, and with the extent and nature of the public reaction. The issues are very complex; the public policy formulation process therefore requires ample time, comprehensive and reliable information, credible process, and disposition to engage contrary opinions. The one-day exercise proposed by the Prime Minister must not be simply for the Government to insist that it is right.

What form will this symposium take? If it is to last for one day then even if each presentation is limited to 20 minutes there could not be more than nine presentations - six in the morning and three in the afternoon with appropriate periods for discussion and a final plenary session.

Such symposia, if they are to address the issues seriously, would normally require at least a year's preparation, particularly if knowledgeable persons are to be invited from abroad. Such persons are usually busy with engagements and have to be booked well in advance. It is to be hoped that they will be scientists (including doctors) and lawyers of international repute and not just Alcoa propagandists. It is nevertheless important that those of us who have a serious interest in the issue express our intention to participate and to make presentations.

I participate in discussions of a Sustainable Development Network which has been working on the smelter issue in order to bring to the national discussion a comprehensive, balanced and unemotional analysis of the associated issues, and also to indicate the kind of analytical approach to such proposals that we would wish the Government to take. This group could make a valuable input into the public consultation.

In view of the widespread national and, I suspect, international interest in this issue, the proceedings must be made available as early as possible. This should be done in two ways. Firstly, the proceedings should be televised using TV channel 4 (which is owned by Government). Secondly, the organisers of the symposium must require all presenters to make their papers available in electronic form in advance, and compact discs must be made available to all participants on the day of the symposium. Thereafter such CDs of all presentations (to include the discussions) should be on sale to the public.

The Ministry of Health must make a statement on the health issue. The Ministry of Planning must make a presentation to indicate how the smelter proposals fit into social and economic plans for the south-west and the whole country. The sustainability of these developments must be indicated in relation to reserves of natural gas. That Ministry must also indicate what alternatives were considered for the south west peninsula and why they were rejected.

I have suggested the development of livestock (buffalypso - water buffalo); production of high quality honey for which this country has an international reputation (both activities having been already practiced in that part of the country); and other modern systems of agricultural development. Tourism could be based on a nature park and including other attributes of that beautiful part of Trinidad.

The Prime Minister has made a very significant statement at the post-Cabinet briefing that has so far gone without public comment. That was to the effect that it is Government's intention to import aluminium to commence down-stream manufacture even before the smelters are constructed! I have repeatedly asked the question in previous articles - why must we smelt aluminium in this small island with limited land space when we could import aluminium and go downstream?

To my great relief the Prime Minister has answered the question - this is feasible since it is Government's intention to do so. Japan has one of the largest industries in the world in the manufacture of aluminium products but has only an insignificant smelting capacity (6,000 tonnes) but in 2004 imported approximately two and a half million tonnes of aluminium. The Prime Minister has settled the aluminium smelting question. We must not smelt; instead, we must import aluminium. Since the downstream processes require significantly less energy our gas resources will last longer.

What of securing long term supplies of aluminium? We can promote the concept of Caricom integration by this country's Government investing in the development of aluminium smelting in Guyana - a vast country where there is no problem of space. We can also invest in the development of hydro-electric power in that country to provide a source of energy which will reduce their need for utilising foreign exchange for importation of petroleum products.

Are we likely to make such investments? Hardly, for we can gain political mileage from fine speeches on the importance of the Common Market and Economy without doing anything other than allowing in a few workers who in any case are needed in view of our shortage of skilled labour!

REJECT ALUTRINT REQUEST TO RELAX EMA AIR QUALITY STANDARDS – INSTEAD REJECT CEC

2006-11-08T05:31:00.000-04:00

Dr Dave McIntosh

CEO – Environmental Management Authority (EMA)

St. Clair

POS

Dear Dr. McIntosh,

While Dr. Ahmed Khan of Rapid Environmental Assessment Limited (REAL) - engaged by ALUTRINT to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for their proposed aluminium smelter plant at Union Industrial Estate (UIE) - has made some effort to answer your basic concerns laid out in the ‘Deficiency Report’ prepared by EMA on the draft EIA, he still fails in his Supplemental Report to provide any actual performance data for air pollution control equipment. Why is it imprudent for him to obtain this from the Chinese smelter similar to the one proposed by ALUTRINT?

The results of the air pollution model used by REAL indicate that the EMA’s draft Air Pollution Standards for Fluoride (F) - among the most dangerous pollutants known - are exceeded at the edge of the smelter buffer zone. REAL has asked you to relax your Standards and at the same time propose to meet them if they ‘flip’ the plant around and use European air pollution control technology instead.

The question is can you be sure about the credibility of his air pollution model given that it has already marginally exceeded your Standard using hypothetical data?

Furthermore, what remain inadequately assessed in the Supplemental Report are the cumulative health impacts on surrounding communities from the whole estate when operational. We remain unsatisfied how this aspect of the EIA was handled. There are about 10,000 persons residing within 5km of UIE. The most predictable thing about climate and atmospheric conditions is that they are growing more unpredictable - this renders the air modeling even less credible. You need not be a sage to know that the age of heavy gas based industrialization in ‘developed nation states’ is closing for well documented reasons. But, based on ALUTRINT’s ‘philosophical’ reasoning for the reduction of the EMA’s proposed ‘Standards’ - based on an ‘economic benefits’ argument - this age should be dawning in T&T.

In all seriousness, since your Terms of Reference (TOR) for the EIA failed to require an ‘economic’ impact assessment of the smelter (despite this being mandatory according to the “Energy” clause of the current National Environmental Policy (NEP), how can ALUTRINT pose ‘economic’ logic to convince you to relax the environmental Standard you have yet to introduce? If the economic benefits argument is going to hold, then the question becomes: what about the economic costs? They remain sadly in the dark.

I believe that Dr. Khan is over playing the ‘techo-speak’ to give the impression that a hazardous industry of this notoriety for terminal cancer can be satisfactorily managed now in T&T - at the infancy stage of our regulatory instruments to ensure sustainable development. Who would have thought that at the last minute, with a flip of a plant and a trip over to Europe that the well being of Vessigny children would be assured against cancer from Fluoride poisoning over the next 20 years! Wonders never cease.

Despite these late antics by REAL, if you are not completely assured of the safety of these children, as we on the outside are not, then you are obliged to invoke the “Precautionary Principle” established by the Environmental Act 2000, as the grounds to deny ALUTRINT a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC).

Moreover, if modern air pollution control technology is actually being successfully operated by the Chinese, it still confounds most of us out here why it is not possible for ALUTRINT to secure any actual data on their employee health surveillance records. ALUTRINT promised to translate these and make them available to you (see verbatim transcript of Public Consultation). Similarly, if the newly proposed “European” technology is really as good as they say, how has it actually performed and where? In other words, the only proof is in eating the pudding.

ALUTRINT has argued that you should relax your 24hour F standards because they cannot be consistently met. You need to be very cautious here. The human health information provided for F by REAL/ALUTRINT is not consistent with research on F from other sources. We strongly urge you to become familiar with a host of readily available peer reviewed research on the dangers of F at very low concentrations, and compare this to the data selectively introduced by REAL/ALUTRINT – before you capitulate to their argument for you to relax your intended Standard.

We are also wondering if, after reading their Supplemental Report, you feel that REAL is assessing ALUTRINT’s smelter in a truly professional unbiased manner. Did you ever get the feeling that REAL may be wishing with all their heart that they can deliver the CEC to ALUTRINT? Did you ever get the sense that REAL is equally moved by concern for the well-being and health security of surrounding residents?

I need not remind you that the environmental – social – economic justice movement in T&T is somewhat frustrated by what it sees as an intentionally flawed CEC process, and sees the EMA but a rubber stamp for ‘done’ political ‘deals’ which, as history teaches, are never based on “social” and “environmental” values but on the narrow economic interests of a privileged elite. A Doomsday recipe!

Why is it not possible to know through the CEC process whether a smelter run on hydropower in Guyana or Venezuela, with down stream aluminium industry in UIE, Trinidad, is not far better socially, environmentally and economically for all? Or perhaps equally valid, how can we be sure that we would all not be better off to replant UIE with high commercial value organic food crops for export?

Please be assured that we are deeply committed to helping the EMA to evolve the CEC process towards a sustainable T&T.

In your moment of decision whether to award a CEC to ALUTRINT- or not - I wish the light of Christ to be with you.

Sincerely,

Cathal Healy-Singh

Environmental Engineer

Funeral provokes emotional response from concerned Londoners

2006-10-31T12:18:00.000-04:00

Environmental activists and concerned citizens from across Britain,
Iceland and Trinidad and Tobago converged on Sloane Square in London on Friday (27/10/2006) to protest against the aluminium invasion into these islands. They congregated for an emotionally charged 'funeral
procession' and demonstration, to mourn the loss of the wildernesses
in Iceland, the Kárahnjúkar wilderness in particular [1]; and the
rainforest and beaches in the Cedros Peninsula of Trinidad and Tobago
[2].
The aluminium industry, notably ALCOA and ALUTRINT are determined to turn these regions into heavy industry havens. The event was in the
style of a funeral for the 'dying lands', and featured a lone violin
playing between moving speeches and poems. Speakers included a student union president, several Trinidadians and Icelanders as well as former UK Member of Parliament Sue Doughty [3].

Miriam Rose, from the campaign 'saving iceland' said, 'today was very
important as we established a real link between the fights in Trinidad
and Iceland. People were truly moved by this solidarity and the
shocking truths about ALCOA's actions.' After the ceremony a
procession followed the symbolic coffin to the embassies of the
affected nations, where petitions were presented. Embassy staff
threatened to call the police when a woman from the Cedros Peninsula,
Trinidad, tried to hand over a petition to the Trinidad & Tobago
embassy. Staff at the Icelandic embassy refused to accept the
document, which asked for the Icelandic and Trinidadian and Tobagonian governments to reconsider their heavy industry policy.

A live phone link connected the crowd in London to a simultaneous
protest in Trinidad, where locals are setting up a protest camp at the
University of West Indies in objection to the building of two huge gas
powered smelters [4], one by Alcoa, one by Alutrint. Details from this
Trinidadian protest camp can be obtained through contacting
info@therepublicofcedros.org or rightsactiongroup@gmail.com
The London demonstration was organised by Saving Iceland and
www.NoSmelterTnT.com

If you would like more information on the London demonstration, please
contact Miriam or Dan. welliebird7@hotmail.co.uk 447765501687 or 44 7944 313974.

Wear black this Friday

2006-10-26T16:08:00.000-04:00

Dear Friends,
All roads lead to St. Augustine this Friday morning October 27 for the
launch of the newest anti-smelter protest camp on the southern
entrance of the UWI campus.
From 7am to 9am UWI students will distribute flyers at both main UWI
gates. The launch kicks off at 10 a.m at the campsite at UWI's
southern entrance just off the highway , you can't miss it!
And even if you can't be there, please show your support by wearing black.
Also for our London people, don't forget to check out the Funeral of the Wild in Sloane Square at 1pm.

Public must vote on smelter

2006-10-24T17:31:00.000-04:00

Newsday
October 24, 2006

Chairman of the Cancer Society Dr George Laquis yesterday said a referendum should be held for the aluminium smelters to be established in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Cancer Society issued a media release last month announcing that it was gathering information to determine the health implications of the proposed smelter plant.

“In order to provide a factual, evidence-based opinion on the potential health implications, the Cancer Society is working with health care and industry experts and will soon share the results of its findings publicly.

The Cancer Society is focused on the health implications and therefore has no opinion with respect to any economic benefits that may exist,” the release had said.

In an interview yesterday, Dr Laquis said the decision to build the plants should not be made by the Government only.

: “Something as important as this the Government should go out and educate on the facts not on the political level. Present the facts, benefits. We need to have a referendum.” He said the society needed to take a stand on the issue.

Laquis said the implications of the smelter would be felt by future generations if it should turn out to be an environmental disaster and the country “might not be able to foot the medical bill.” He said he was not passing judgement but stressing the need for widespread public input.

Laquis said he has been researching the smelter issue and getting different views, including those from Cedros residents and Alcoa officials. He said: “I find it very difficult to arrive at an opinion. Everyone on either side is glib.”

The smelter may be important economically or environmentally disastrous but Laquis said he wants to know the truth and that was “extremely difficult to come by.”

The Cancer Society will issue a statement “based on evidence.” Laquis said the evidence would be scutinised to ensure the conclusions were factual.

The Environmental Manage-ment Authority (EMA) has given Alcoa permission to conduct a comprehensive and public environmental impact assessment on the Cap-de-Ville site where the company proposes to construct its controversial aluminium smelter.

Alutrint plans to establish a smelter in La Brea.

New protest camp

2006-10-23T07:58:00.000-04:00

On Sunday, a new anti-smelter protest camp was erected, this one in north Trinidad. The camp is an initiative of the Curepe community in association with RAG, the CCEPG and other NGO's and individuals who have been on the frontline of the anti-smelter movement in Trinidad and Tobago.
The camp will be launched this Friday to coincide with the London Demonstration being jointly staged by savingiceland.org and nosmeltertnt.com
The anti-smelter movement in Trinidad and Tobago (and sympathisers around the world) is asking supporters and sympathisers to wear black on Friday as we join with our brothers and sisters in Iceland mourning the loss of pristine wilderness for the sake of Alcoa's aluminum smelters.

No EMA clearance yet for Alutrint

2006-10-23T07:34:00.000-04:00

A small victory, no? Enviro experts, I was told that the EMA stipulations are that once your supplementary report is refused you have to begin the entire EIA/CEC process again? Is this so? And interesting that this was not made a big fuss of in the media...

Trinidad Guardian
October 17, 2006

Alutrint will not be granted a certificate of environmental clearance until it answers all the questions outlined by the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) in its deficiency report submitted to the company.

Yesterday, the EMA was supposed to make its decision on an environmental impact assessment (EIA) submitted by Alutrint, but it was postponed.

Alicia Charles, communication manager of the EMA, said no decision had been made because the supplementary report is inefficient.

Alutrint submitted an EIA report to the EMA on February 2 for the construction of a 125,000 metric tonne aluminium smelter at Cap-de-Ville.

The EMA’s review and assessment report was sent to Alutrint noting several deficiencies:

• maps not drawn to scale;

• lack of consultation with a relevant stakeholder;

• mitigation measures regarding noise and air emissions; and,

• issues that pertain to the disposal of hazardous waste.

EMA issues oil spill warning

2006-10-23T07:28:00.000-04:00

By Shaliza Hassanali
Trinidad Guardian
October 23, 2006

The Environmental Management Authority (EMA) is warning that any person or company responsible for the Chaguaramas oil spill will feel the full brunt of the law.

The warning came yesterday from Alicia Charles, EMA’s communications specialist, as the organisation continued remedial work along the western peninsula coastline, in wake of a massive oil spill.

The spill was caused after a 500-foot long derelict tanker, the Kelly’s Mark, which was anchored behind Caribbean Dockyard for more than 15 years, started to sink on Tuesday after developing a small leak.

By Wednesday morning, half of the rusty boat, which had submerged, started to spill oil.
Charles said the EMA was yet to locate and speak with the owner/s of the boat.
“Anyone found guilty of breaching the environmental laws will face the full brunt of the law.

“We will deal with this matter very seriously,” a no-nonsense Charles said.

Charles said the EMA had done extensive remedial work, these past three days, to bring the beach back to its original state.

Close to 100 bags of peat moss and several gallons of Simple Green, known as biodegradable and non-toxic chemicals, were thrown into the sea to separate the oil from the water.

“We are trying to prevent the oil from spreading.”

Charles said water samples were taken by the Institute of Marine Affairs for testing.

“All we knew is that the oil came from the engine room of the boat.

“We don’t know if it’s engine oil. These tests will determine this.”

She also explained that officials of the EMA also toured Chaguaramas on Thursday and heard the complaints of yachties and fishermen, whose boats were affected by the oil.

“Their main concern was compensation. I can’t say who is responsible for that.”

Misfits

2006-10-22T20:47:00.000-04:00

Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently.

They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them.

But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.

Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

Jack Kerouac

Alcoa in Texas

2006-10-22T20:32:00.000-04:00

HOUSTON, Oct 19 (Reuters) -
A federal judge has denied TXU Corp.'s (TXU.N: Quote, Profile, Research) request for more time to build a proposed coal-fired power plant to replace an older, dirtier plant near an aluminum smelter in central Texas.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks denied a request from Dallas-based TXU and aluminum maker Alcoa Inc. (AA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) that would have allowed TXU to pay a fine in order to take more time to complete construction of the 600-megawatt plant, according to court papers.

TXU has said it cannot complete the plant by a 2007 deadline set by Alcoa. The plant was to be the first of nine coal-fired plants TXU has proposed to build in the state.
Alcoa, in the settlement of a lawsuit by environmental groups, agreed to shut aging coal-fired units at its Rockdale, Texas, smelter, and to build a new power plant by 2007.

Under TXU's plan announced earlier this year, the Sandow 5 plant was scheduled to be the first of nine new coal plants TXU will build in Texas to help meet growing demand for electricity. TXU said Sandow 5 would begin construction this year and begin operating in March 2009, not 2007.

TXU has selected construction and engineering company Bechtel to design and build the unit in Milam County.

Environmental groups have opposed delaying the new power plant beyond the 2007 deadilne that Alcoa agreed to in a consent decree to settle the lawsuit.

The groups, which include Environmental Defense and Public Citizen, now want to force TXU to seek a new permit for the plant that would include more stringent emissiosn standards than currently required.

"TXU wants to build a new power plant, but it doesn't want to get the necessary permits or meet modern standards," said Jim Marston, regional director of Environmental Defense.

Helter Skelter Smelter

2006-10-21T11:16:00.000-04:00

BC Pires
Trinidad Expres
October 20, 2006

You think life or the PNM easy? Last Friday, one measly week after I dismissed COP parachute-leader/UNC ship-jumper Winston Dookeran as unworthy, Prime Minister and PNM political leader Patrick Manning himself elevated Dooks to the status of senior electoral threat by singling him out for persecution (i.e., recognition) in Parliament, ahead of the nominees of Basdeo Panday. You'd think Patos would be a little grateful to anyone who said they didn't think Dooks has done what it takes to persuade us all to support him; instead, he makes me look foolish.

And it got weirder over the weekend, when the Prime Minister appeared to coolly announce an abuse of his position and/or power. A mind-numbing terror of losing the next general election to a pickup side headed by a best-we-could-do leader is the preferred one of only two explanations I can think of for Mr Manning's bizarre and dangerous declaration at the PNM convention last Sunday that he knew two COP members would soon be "snatched... by the long arm of the law"; unless it's a case of, once is mistake, twice is habit. Mr Manning, you would recall-and, if you can't, the Privy Council will soon remind you, at a cost of a several million dollars in legal expenses, when they deliver their judgement-that Mr Manning has opened his mouth before and let, not just 'tory, but possibly defence and counterc'aim jump out, when he suggested to Chief Justice Sat Sharma that Sharma resign and spare the country the embarrassment of the criminal prosecution of the leader of the judiciary.

The Prime Minister's declaration that he knows two COPpers will be snatched by the law comes "dangerously close" (as the judges say when they want to hint that something is in fact so, but they're not going to actually say so just yet) to giving credibility to the CJ's charges that he was set up for political reasons. It is unthinkable that a sitting prime minister could even contemplate such a statement-yet it has been made, with defiance, has drawn the fire of the DPP and his own Attorney General, and has not been retracted or passed off as a joke, like when he told people to watch TV instead of having sex; as if cable could ever be that good (Showtime's Late Night excluded). Since he has revealed he wants to go into preaching when he's done politicking, I have no doubt he prayed on it -but he obviously didn't firetrucking think about it.

If it wasn't fear of the COP that made Patos talk that faecal matter, it could only be delusions of grandeur. Has he exhibited those before? I'm imagining a line of intelligent people at the convention, groaning inwardly, even as they grinned and took it, thinking, "How we going to defend this now?" Who, amongst his loyal troops, will tell Mr Manning that he has by himself made Mr Duck & Run more palatable across the board?

My own guess is, the PNM ought not to be terrified of, nor even worried about the COP since time will probably show the COP support to be the same hopeful handful of people who voted in the Keith Noel Referendum and who think of themselves as citizens with responsibilities as well as rights. But Mr Manning, and his attitude to the COP and Dooks, may turn out to be the best weapon they have.

Non-aligned people-and perhaps even some PNMs-share the worry of the COP and UNC about what a PNM government with a constitutional majority will be like if one effectively elected by 1253 people in three constituencies treats the rest of us as poorly as this one. If they are willing to ram their version of morality down our throats now, what will an executive president with a direct line to God do? Will oral sex be declared illegal? Will fornication be banned? Will women be required to wear clothing that does not provoke lust in men? It sounds over the top, perhaps-but suppose I'd asked, last Friday, would a Prime Minister accused of trying to remove a Chief Justice for political reasons declare that two of his political opponents would soon be arrested? Or, would an abortion ban be sneaked into a Constitution? The over the top and the everyday are a blink apart in modern Trinidad.

If you want a metaphor for this administration, it is not the collapsed Tarouba sporting facility that Brian Lara is probably wishing they'd named after Ricky Ponting. Look behind the holier-than-thou posture adopted to cover what is actually the Devil-may-care handing over of our own precious agricultural land to heavy foreign industry if you want the sign of the PNM times: the smelter-in-the-park. Doesn't that sound suspicious, just from what they called it? If you advocate a smelter-in-the-park, what's your next bright idea? Daycare-in-a-crack house?

The more time passes, the more it is revealed that the PNM does not care about the country, only about staying in office-no matter how genuine their individual commitment to the country's interest might be. If you cannot disagree with something as monumentally stupid as a smelter-in-the-park or as openly threatening as the Prime Minister announcing criminal prosecutions at a political rally like Kim Jong-il, the time may yet, or even soon, come when an illegitimate-but-legal leader like Kamla or a just-as-illegitimate-but-more-popular leader like Dooks may become more attractive than one appointed by God-if only to prevent Him from acquiring the power to smite the wicked.

-BC Pires is only a messenger sinner. You can e-mail your Kevlar three-piece suits
to him at bcmaverick@tstt.net.tt

Direct Action Alert: Trinidad and Iceland stage joint protest in London

2006-10-17T14:29:00.000-04:00

Check out the story at Saving Iceland

More Comments on the Alutrint EIA

2006-10-10T20:45:00.000-04:00

Tuesday October 10th 2006

The Corporate Secretary

Environmental Management Authority,

8, Elizabeth Street, St Clair,

Port of Spain

Dear Madam,

We are pleased to submit the following comments in respect of the EIA Supplementary Report for ALUTRINT, August 2006.

Dr Peter Vine

Dr Wayne Kublalsingh

Comments on the EIA Supplementary Report for ALUTRINT

August 2006

5.1

It is unacceptable that ALUTRINT failed to meet the regulatory bodies, Town and Country planning and the Ministry of Energy and Energy Industries. Even the meeting with the Ministry of Labour, according to the minutes, did not lead to adequate arrangements for ensuring the safety of workers.

5.2

ALUTRINT’S response to the EMA’s question is flawed. An invitation to a member of PSAEL, private unpublished consultations with selected members of the La Brea community, and an ALUTRINT newsletter are no substitute for a public consultation as stipulated by law. Additionally, the applicant is under the misapprehension that a public consultation need involve only members of the La Brea community; any national of Trinidad and Tobago is legally entitled to attend and make comments. The applicant misunderstands the definition of consultation; questions and comments are expected to be answered. This did not occur in the public consultations. Second, a consultation must include the possibility that the majority of the participants reject the proposal to build a smelter; it is not meant to simply quiet the fears of participants and mollify opinion in favour of the applicant. The open rejection of the smelter by “a recently formed anti-smelter group” is not illegitimate and must be taken into account. The applicant’s notion that the so called “anti-smelter protest group had the sole intention of disrupting the proceedings” is unfounded; these persons sought genuine answers to questions, and desired that the applicant take note of their comments. Far from this intervention defeating the full potential of the community consultation process, it constitutes the very essence of consultation.

6.1

The EMA commented that the risk assessment did not address the long-term human and ecological health risks. The EMA also required a human health risk assessment. The applicant’s responses are unacceptable. It is incomprehensible that the applicant ignored the request from the public for health data from similar smelter plants in China. The idea of waiting for twenty-five years to know whether there will be any health risks is immoral and unacceptable. The applicant claims to have adjusted the emissions to be equal to the maximum allowable levels; this is unreliable, since any minimal positive deviation will send the pollution over the limit.

It is unacceptable to state that “the La Brea area is not an agricultural community and thus the need to protect food crops and farm animals with a stringent HF standard does not arise.” This statement implies that residents may not raise any type of farm animals or food crops in the La Brea community. This indicates intolerable living conditions.

If the pollution limits are now to be measured at the outer periphery of the buffer zone the idea of a buffer zone is defeated. One must not redefine the boundary in order for the pollution levels at the boundary to appear more favourable. Redefining the boundaries is an attempt to make the pollution figures appear favourable, without actually reducing the pollution.

7.5

ALUTRINT has not adequately answered the EMA’s comment on SPL disposal. Even though a hazardous waste disposal facility may become available, the EMA has not sanctioned its use for SPL.

9

No plus or minus accuracy limits have been supplied for the air emission maps. This was specifically requested by members of the public.

9.2

Merely citing the names of technical organizations involved is not a scientific method of assuring us of the adequacy of the analysis.

Micro climate factors have been disregarded but these cannot be disregarded especially in relation to emissions from the eaves and windows of the plant and in relation to turbulence near ground level.

10

It is estimated that 1572 foreign workers would be hired for the construction phase and 410 locals. However, the hiring company concerned has not given a guarantee on these figures, and there could be considerably fewer locals. This seriously diminishes the economic benefit of the project to Trinidad and Tobago.

Dr Peter Vine

Dr Wayne Kublalsingh

The University of the West Indies

St Augustine

Aluminium and Jamaica

2006-10-02T08:13:00.000-04:00

"I was a very young reporter at The Gleaner in 1952 when the first
shipment of Jamaican bauxite left for the United States aboard the SS
Carl Schmedeman, an ore carrier built for Reynolds Jamaica Mines. Since
that time, we have exported hundreds of millions of tons of bauxite and
alumina, we have lost mountains, valleys, churches , graveyards, houses,
and schools to the inexorable bite of the bauxite draglines and we've
sacrificed children's lungs and the roofs of houses to the pollution
from alumina refining.

We don't have much to show for it except some suspect foreign exchange
earnings figures and a small class of specially privileged people who
are supported by the industry.

One would have thought that in 50 years an industry as profitable as
this might have clubbed together to donate a trade school to one of the
communities they ravage. Only Kaiser, under Don Tretzel, ever seemed
conscious of its community responsibility. The others have simply gone
their merry way rejoicing at the fools who let them have their bauxite
cheap and do not insist on the proper restoration of mined-out lands as
specified in agreements and licences since 1944.

The aluminium industry is one of the worst polluters on earth, and in
Jamaica their record is dismal. Alcan, the Canadian twin separated from
Alcoa when Alcoa became too big even for the USA, has bequeathed to us
two environmental time bombs in the form of red mud lakes at Mount
Rosser and Mandeville. There is evidence that the St Catherine
groundwater has, for some years, been polluted by Mount Rosser."

John Maxwell

Chatham denies rape link

2006-10-01T19:32:00.000-04:00

by Kim Boodram
Trinidad Express
October 01, 2006

The Chatham Anti-Smelter Movement yesterday denied any involvement in last Monday's brutal gang-rape of a young woman. They have also called on Point Fortin Member of Parliament Larry Achong to resign.
A group of mostly women and children gathered at Food Crop Junction, where an anti-smelter camp has been set up, to voice their "disgust" over the incident and sympathise with the victim.
"We would like to categorically deny any involvement in this demonic act," said Fitzroy Beache, head of the Chatham Anti-Smelter Movement during a press briefing yesterday. "We are also pained that anyone would suggest that we would do this to one of our own."
Last Monday night, four men beat and robbed a known supporter of the aluminium smelter project, which has been proposed by the Government and is to be built by American giant, Alcoa. A female relative of the man was gang-raped. Alcoa officials later alleged that they had confirmed a link between the attack and the anti-smelter movement. Police investigating the matter have denied any known link. Alcoa has not responded to this newspaper's calls for a further comment or for evidence of the link.
In a highly emotional state, Chatham's elder, Yvonne Ashby, said they believed the attack was an attempt to divide and frighten the community. The movement wants the country to know that their fight is against Alcoa and the Government, not with anyone in their community or the Southwestern Peninsula.
"We want you to know that this has not split our group, we are now more in love! Our heart goes out to our sister and now we will only love them more," Ashby cried.
She said a culture of violence is creeping into Chatham with the arrival of Alcoa and the community will never allow them to settle there.
"Take your filthy lucre and go! We don't want you here! Leave us alone," Ashby shouted.
Beache said they are "extremely disappointed" that such a serious allegation was levelled against them with no supporting evidence. It is frightening, he said, that a foreign group wields this type of power.
Adding that Chatham has been treated as "nobody" by the Government, they have also called for the resignation of Point Fortin Larry Achong, who has frequently and publicly declared war on the movement.
Following the arrest of several activists two weeks ago, Achong remarked -"They shoulda arrest forty and beat them."
"Today we call for the resignation of Larry Achong," Beache declared. "Mr Achong, you have failed to represent us. You have failed to show the compassion and concern one expects from an elected representative."
Chatham has also appealed to the national community for support.
"We have tried every which way to meet with Mr Achong and Prime Minister Patrick Manning. We have met only brick walls of contempt. They have ignored us, as if we are nobody. If this is a community of 'nobodies', then what about your community? Are you next?

Regarding the Basel Convention

2006-09-26T06:06:00.000-04:00

Basel Convention
http://www.basel.int/

Date of Accession 18.02.94 (a)
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Public Utilities and the Environment
Sacred Heart Building
16-18 Sackville Street
Port of Spain
Trinidad and Tobago
Telephone: 625 60 83
Telefax: 625 70 03
environment@tstt.net.tt

Dr. Ronnie Sookhoo
Director
Basel Convention Caribbean Regional Centre
c/o CARIRI Compound
Trincity West Industrial Estate
Macoya, Tunapuna
Trinidad and Tobago
Teléfono: 662 7171, 662 2855
Tele-fax: 645 6734
E-mail: basel_ca@tstt.net.tt

Summary
A global agreement, ratified by several member countries and the European Union for addressing the problems and challenges posed by hazardous waste.
The key objectives of the Basel Convention are to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes in terms of quantity and hazardousness;to dispose of them as close to the source of generation as possible;and to reduce the movement of hazardous wastes.

Relevance to Smelter Issue
General Obligations
2. Each Party shall take the appropriate measures to:
(a) Ensure that the generation of hazardous wastes and other wastes within it is reduced to a minimum, taking into account social, technological and economic aspects;
(b) Ensure the availability of adequate disposal facilities, for the environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes and other wastes, that shall be located, to the extent possible, within it, whatever the place of their disposal;
(c) Ensure that persons involved in the management of hazardous wastes or other wastes within it take such steps as are necessary to prevent pollution due to hazardous wastes and other wastes arising from such management and, if such pollution occurs, to minimize the consequences thereof for human health and the environment;
(d) Ensure that the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes is reduced to the minimum consistent with the environmentally sound and efficient management of such wastes, and is conducted in a manner which will protect human health and the environment against the adverse effects which may result from such movement;
(e) Not allow the export of hazardous wastes or other wastes to a State or group of States belonging to an economic and/or political integration organization that are Parties, particularly developing countries, which have prohibited by their legislation all imports, or if it has reason to believe that the wastes in question will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner, according to criteria to be decided on by the Parties at their first meeting;
(f) Require that information about a proposed transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes be provided to the States concerned, according to Annex V A, to state clearly the effects of the proposed movement on human health and the environment;
(g) Prevent the import of hazardous wastes and other wastes if it has reason to believe that the wastes in question will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner;
(h) Co-operate in activities with other Parties and interested organizations, directly and through the Secretariat, including the dissemination of information on the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes and other wastes, in order to improve the environmentally sound management of such wastes and to achieve the prevention of illegal traffic.

Caricom Member Countries
All CARICOM member states have signed the Basel convention except for Grenada and Suriname. Haiti is the only one of these which has not ratified the convention.

Soca Stars join protest

2006-09-22T06:09:00.000-04:00

Richard Charan
Trinidad Express
September 22, 06

Cricket star Brian Lara will be asked to visit Chatham Village, Point Fortin to support the protest against plans to construct an aluminium smelter on Trinidad's southwest peninsula.

Football great Dwight Yorke will also be petitioned for help to convince Government to reverse its decision to allow industry giant Alcoa to build the billion-dollar plant on the 3,000-acre site.

The move to get the two sportsmen on their side was disclosed yesterday when protesters were joined by rapso artistes Roger Roberts and Wendell Manwarren from the band 3Canal who came from North Trinidad with members of the Keith Noel 136 Committee, and radio personality Anil Roberts.

This followed two weeks of camping out by residents and supporters at the entrance to the proposed industry site at Food Crop Road.

The visitors brought food and drink for the people keeping vigil at the site, where workers are using equipment to test the soil ahead of a decision on if to construct the smelter on the land.

Anil Roberts said an advertising campaign was being launched on the environmental and social impact of the plant.

He said: "The whole country is motivated. Brian Lara throughout his career has been involved in charitable work. He is very interested in the health of the people. I know this personally and when he comes back (from India) we are going to invite him down here."

The protesters briefly barricaded the road leading to the proposed site but police reported no violence or arrests.

The 3Canal group sang their anti-establishment songs, "Talk Yuh Talk", "Revolution" and "Salt" to a protest group of around 150 people.

Roger Roberts said yesterday was the start of a campaign where the camp would be visited by several singers including Destra Garcia, Shurwayne Winchester, Maximus Dan and Kees Dieffenthaller.

He said that the issue was now national in scope, and "not because we are living in gated communities mean we are not affected by this which is a backward step".

Into the Fray

2006-09-21T11:26:00.000-04:00

The changing positions of senior national politicians on the aluminium smelter plant to be built in Chatham on the Cedros peninsula have left many members of the public confused and unable to form personal opinions about the value of the construction of this facility in our midst.

Many who saw Basdeo Panday walking recently with the anti-smelter protesters forget that it was Panday as Prime Minister in 1998 who invited such an establishment.

Keith Rowley, Minister of Housing, speaking in Parliament, reminded MPs and the viewing public of a speech made by then Prime Minister Panday at the Hilton Trinidad on November 12, 1998. Occasion was the signing of an agreement with Norsk Hydro to construct an aluminium smelter in Trini-dad.

And it was Panday who described the establishment of an aluminium industry “as a new dawn” for T&T because it would bring a host of socio-economic gains for the nation.

Politicians are indeed strange animals. Basdeo Panday, Prime Minister and leader of the UNC inviting and supporting, while the PNM expressed opposition to certain aspects of the smelter. Today the PNM is supporting the aluminium smelter while Panday is marching against it.

In the meantime the simple people of the Cedros peninsula are being manhandled and brutalised by the nation’s defence force and police because they dare to express fear for the welfare of their community and the future of their children.

The Maha Sabha has a large Hindu membership on this south-western peninsula. In fact, there are 11 Hindu temples stretching from Point Fortin to Boodram Village at the southernmost tip of Icacos.

They are joined together by a Maha Sabha-sponsored organisation called the Southwestern Association of the Hindu Mandirs Inc and they have written to the Maha Sabha for our support and involvement.

Their letter to us:

Greetings in the name of Dharma. We are of the mentioned association which includes 11 Hindu temples which are located in the southwestern peninsula of Trinidad. This letter is to inform you, sir, of intended construction of an aluminium smelter plant in the Chatham-Cedros peninsula.

This project by Government will affect directly a number of Hindu residents as well as residents of other ethnic background.

We are therefore asking for your direct intervention on behalf of our community in lobbying the Government to desist from building such a plant in our area. Here are other reasons why the plant should not be built here:

i. The labour position—only a few thousand persons would be employed from this area during the construction of the plant. Upon completion only a minimum number who have the relevant qualification would be employed on a permanent basis. We have seen this done at Atlantic LNG.

ii. The proposed site is sitting on a natural aquifer. The ground water derived from this aquifer is pure spring water and needs little purification whatsoever to make it potable.

iii. We are dependent on agriculture and fishing. With regards to agriculture, the destruction of arable agriculture lands would go to waste. Most of the people in the surrounding villages depend on the sea as a means of earning a livelihood. With runoff from this plant, fishes are going to die or just move out of the area.

We have already seen a marked decrease in our fishing stock with the building and dredging for the Atlantic LNG. Fishermen from Point Ligoure, Hollywood, Fanny Village and Cap-de-Ville have suffered, and we do not want to add the Chatham/ Icacos area to that list.

iv. This peninsula boasts some great beaches and recreational areas, such as Granville, Bonasse and Columbus Bays. Cricket and football facilities in Chatham, Granville, Bonasse, Fullerton and Icacos will be also affected.

We are, therefore, asking you to recommend to the Government that they revamp the coconut estates, invest in the production of buffalypso, dairy farming, agriculture and tourism. In doing so, we will be able to lower the food import bill, generate long-term employment and conserve the environment for ourselves and future generations.

Sir, may I end here by pointing out the Indian and Hindu community is the second largest ethnic grouping in the peninsula.

We thank you and look forward to an early response.

The Maha Sabha has taken a decision to assist the people of the Cedros peninsula and to become fully involved in educating the national community of the dangers of the proposed aluminium smelter plant at Chatham.

SATNARAYAN MAHARAJ is the Secretary General of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha

The morning after the night before

2006-09-13T06:03:00.000-04:00

The invasion of the lands at Chatham continues apace this morning. As early as 4.30 am on Wednesday 13 September calls began coming in from Chatham that equipment was being rolled into Foodcrop Road with a heavy police escort.
The residents continue to keep watch and register their disapproval of this latest development.
At the time of this post (6.30 am), the Riot Squad is gathering at the Cap de Ville police post.
Heavily precepted police officers will again descend on the unarmed women and children of the south-western peninsula.

Protest Drama in Chatham

2006-09-13T05:42:00.000-04:00

by Radhica Sookraj
Trinidad Guardian
September 13, 2006

Screams echoed in Chatham yesterday when a tractor transporting soil-testing equipment almost crushed a one-year-old child as he lay on the road, huddled in his father’s arms.
Baby Omar Mohammed burst into tears when his father Abdullah Mohammed fell in front of a tractor during a mad rush to stop Trintoplan officials from entering the proposed site of Alcoa’s aluminium smelter plant.
Four protesters, among then UWI lecturer Prof Peter Vine were arrested by police.
The Trintoplan workers had gone to Chatham with a heavy police presence to begin soil testing but were met with a human barricade.
More than 80 residents, mainly women and children, stood on the road.
President of the Chatham/Cap-de-ville Environmental Protection Group Fitzroy Beache claimed that Alcoa had no permission from the Environmental Management Authority to do any soil testing at the site.
Resident Yvonne Ashby paced up and down the street chanting prayers while another resident Muriel Amoroso threw olive oil on the street.
She lit candles and held hands with residents.
Sources said instructions were given to have the roads cleared for the Trintoplan workers.
But some residents resisted by standing in front of the tractor.
A woman, Ann James, lay stretched on the roadway as if she had fainted before she was taken away by a policewoman.
Other residents began weeping. Some chanted, “Stop this Smelter,” as the Trintoplan workers advanced.
Professor Vine, a lecturer of science, medicine and technology at UWI, and Burton Sankerali, secretary of the T&T Right Action Group, were seen in front of the tractor.
Alcoa officials Randy Overby and Wade Hughes could not be reached for comment as they are out of the country.
But corporate communications manager for the Environmental Management Authority Alicia Charles said an investigating team comprising of three investigators were dispatched to oversee testing being done on the site.
She said the geo-testing and borehole testing, now being conducted by Trintoplan, did not require a Certificate of Environmental Clearance.

Rights Action Group condemns police action in Chatham

2006-09-12T16:50:00.000-04:00

For Immediate Release

The members of the Rights Action Group strongly condemn the arrest of members of a non-violent protest in Chatham by officers of the Trinidad and Tobago police service on Tuesday September 12, 2006.
As citizens of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, we would like to remind those officers and the seniors they report to, of the motto of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service, which is “To Protect and Serve”.
We are deeply concerned that officers who are also nationals are being used against the people of these communities.
We see this is as a further indication that this form of forced helter smelter industrialization is invasive and a wholly inappropriate way forward for Trinidad and Tobago.
We urge the Police Service to take a more proactive role in mediating this serious and stressful situation. As yet, this community has been given neither the technical support nor the emotional support to process the possibility of large multi-national corporations - goaded by the state coming into their backyards with an industry that we daresay the state does not understand the implications of.
The communities of Chatham and Cap de Ville are exercising their right to free speech, as enshrined in this nation’s Constitution. Their protest continues to be non-violent and the Rights Action Group will continue to support the communities in their efforts to bring attention to their concerns by internationally tried and tested non-violent direct action means.
While the protesters were released without charge, we would like to urge the officers of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service to put these continued protests in the context of a community's intervention against a project they see as a crime against them.
We urge the Police Service to seek out the real criminals in this matter and protect the residents of Chatham and those who stand in solidarity with them.

Update

2006-09-12T15:39:00.000-04:00

All protestors have been released from the Cap de Ville police post. No charges were laid against them.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was on the news tonight saying that he could not comment on the question of the protests because he had not been informed on what was going on.
This is only the beginning of the struggle. We stand firm with the communities as they continue continue to agitate for change in Trinidad and Tobago. Change in how the government treats the people. Change in how we treat with our natural resources. Change in how we relate to the environment.
It's an uphill struggle but a few of us are committed to it and we continue to believe that we are not putting our asses on the line in vain.

Chatham residents continue the fight

2006-09-12T12:50:00.000-04:00

Residents of Chatham, Cap de Ville and the surrounding communities on
the South Western peninsula of Trinidad kept up their fight against
the proposed Alcoa aluminum smelter plant in the face of armed
security forces that descended on the community in the early hours of
Tuesday morning.
Reports out of Chatham are that two residents have been arrested, along with Burton Sankeralli of the Rights Action Group and UWI lecturer Dr. Peter Vine were among those arrested.
Women are being pushed out of the way to allow workers from Alcoa and
Bechtel to enter Foodcrop Road.
The residents gathered at the camp where they've been keeping a 24
hour vigil since early August, having received word on the weekend
that the Trintoplan, Alcoa and Bechtel workers would be returning to
the community to begin a soil survey in the area.
The residents, formed a human blockade across Foodcrop Road, stopping
police and the workers from accessing the land.
Two weeks ago during protests, a police officer threatened to shoot
the unarmed villagers.
Despite claims from Alcoa that they received permission from
landowners to enter and conduct the tests, the community remains
adamant that no tests will be carried out. They are fearful that any
disturbance of the land will be an open gateway for Alcoa to press
ahead with building the smelter plant.
The villagers are also concerned that a situation similar to what took
place with the Union Industrial Estate where 1000 acres of land were
cleared with clearance from the EMA, exposing villagers respiratory
diseases.
Two weeks ago, Alcoa hosted a consultation to discuss the Draft Terms
of Reference for their Environmental Impact Assessment at the Chatham
Youth Camp where they were told in no uncertain terms that they were
not wanted in the south-western peninsula.
Fitzroy Beache, President of the Chatham/Cap de Ville Environment
Protection Group has promised that the community will maintain it's
non-violent direct action protest against Alcoa, until they abandon
all plans to build a smelter in Trinidad and Tobago.

As bauxite prospecting begins at Atiwa Forest OKYENHENE condemns mining activities in Ghana

2006-09-06T10:59:00.000-04:00

The OKYENHENE, Osagyefuo Amoatia Ofori Panin, King of Akyem Abuakwa, has censured the mining industry in Ghana, describing it as non-beneficial to the state. He has thus renewed his commitment to protecting the ecologically important Atiwa Forest Reserve (AFR) from the ravages of mining. Osagyefuo, an internationally noted advocate of environmental conservation, told The Chronicle in an exclusive interview at his Ofori Panin Fie in Kyebi that the history and record of the Ghanaian mining industry proved that the nation had not benefited from the industry as expected and as other countries with similar natural resources have benefited. “Let me correct this impression that I am against mining,” he noted. “I have all along suggested that the laws regulating the industry ought to be changed. There is no equity in the present arrangement; there must be shared benefits and shared burdens.” He Majesty was sure “this is because, the sector’s contribution to government revenue and to local communities have been relatively minimal.” The influential traditional leader noted that his position had always been that Ghanaians own the ore and for that matter they should be able to bargain with strength and negotiate hard for better deals. He said over the years, multi-nationals in the minerals extraction industry have enjoyed huge capital allowances, tax holidays, cheap labour and the practice of deferred royalty payments. “But despite this gesture from the nation, they have consistently been insensitive to the plight of the locals and I think it is morally wrong,” he opined. He said the city of Johannesburg in South Africa, for example, was completely transformed as a result of the gold deposit found there since 1886, stressing that today Johannesburg had become a major city in the world and was preparing to host the world cup in 2010. Narrowing down on the Ghanaian situation, he opined that Obuasi, Ghana’s richest gold town, had not seen any type of upliftment or transformation over the years; a situation that is “very say indeed”. “I think Obuasi and other mining towns such as Akwatia, where I grew up, Tarkwa, Prestea, Bibiani, among others, deserve better treatment. “These communities have suffered and continue to suffer various degrees of adverse impact of mining operations such as mining-related diseases, contamination of local drinking water, land destruction, youth unemployment and inadequate housing,” the Akyem Abuakwa overlord reiterated. The King pointed out that according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in 1981, 61% of the people in mineral exporting countries lived on less than one dollar a day, and that by the year 2000, the percentage had increased to 82%; a situation that clearly indicated that more and more people are coming to live under the poverty line, and which he considered very unfortunate. Expressing his know-how in economics and a bit of statistics, he noted that Ghanaians have been told that mining is the leading earner of foreign exchange in the country. He recalled that in the 2004 budget statement, it was captured that mineral export amounted to USD830, 000,000.00 out of the total export revenue of USD2, 397,200,000.00, constituting 36% of total exports. He analyzed that in real terms, the mining sector contributes only 1.5% to the gross domestic product. On the basis of the analysis, Osagyefuo argued that the extractive industries are not making any significant and decisive contribution to the economy and do not hold the key to the sustainable development of our country. He said the situation clearly indicated that more and more people were going to live under the poverty line, adding that the country did not have any visible socio-economic gains as a result of the mining activities in spite of what the proponents of mining would want to demonstrate. The King who agreed to the paper’s request to have him speak on his position on the mining exploration rights given to a bauxite mining company, Alcoa, for mining in the AFR, intimated that mining companies in Ghana operate under highly favourable and profitable conditions and yet do not care to make any meaningful contributions to the development of their operational communities. “We certainly hope that as far as the bauxite is concerned, Alcoa will be different and I’m sure the sector ministry and the leadership in this country will include all stakeholders in the negotiations to transact contracts that will be equitable to all sides,” he implored. His Majesty said he was reliably informed and assured by a team of experts who conducted a biodiversity survey at Atiwa, sponsored by ALCOA, that the numerous unique and significant species and the water bodies plus the flora will not be threatened. The overriding question is: what about the long-term economic and social development of the area? “For the most part, all they do is provide a handful of boreholes, a few classroom blocks and other petty charities in the name of social responsibility, “ he said. Osagyefuo, who has so far demonstrated his commitment to the preservation of the environment through his Okyenman Environment Foundation, indicated that it was the natural resources of developed countries that made its citizens wealthy, but lamented that Ghana with all its natural resources still found majority of her citizens poor. To him, the situation is so because mining laws do not offer the necessary opportunities for citizens to own mineral properties. “Let me give an example: recently, the Saudi prince who came to buy the Ambassador Hotel is capable of making investments all over the world as a result of the oil deposits in his country. But who in Ghana can we say is rich because of Ghana’s mineral endowment?” He reminded, “The President’s vision was to make Ghana a middle-income country by 2015; we support that. But for us to be a wealthy nation, the Ghanaian citizen must be wealthy and the only way to achieve that is for us to own and control part of our mineral resources. “Property ownership is a key component to successful economic conditions.” His Majesty reiterated. “If they are coming just for their profits, then we don’t need them.” Source: The Ghanaian Chronicle, Accra - 6.9.2006

Residents want more answers from Alcoa

2006-08-25T22:23:00.000-04:00

by Carolyn Kissoon
Trinidad Express
August 25, 2006

Chatham residents were overflowing with questions on the proposed aluminum smelter plant when an Alcoa Trinidad and Tobago Project Team visited their community. But by the end of the meeting they were no wiser as to how the construction of the plant would affect their lives.

The meeting, which was attended by more than 200 residents, was held under heavy security at the Chatham Youth Camp, Chatham, on Wednesday.

Some shouted insults, while others cried and begged the Alcoa 12-member team to pack up and leave their peaceful village. Scores of police officers, including members of the special branch unit surrounded the building during the meeting. And when it was over, the officers escorted the Alcoa team members to their vehicles.

The residents demanded that Wade Hughes, a member of the Alcoa Trinidad and Tobago project team, explain why the application for the Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC), which was submitted to the Environmental Management Authority (EMA) was signed by Randy Overbey. "The designation of Overbey was listed as chief executive officer of Alcoa Incorporated, when he is chief executive officer of Alcoa Trinidad and Tobago Project Team. We need to know why. I believe this document is invalid and should be redone," one resident said.

It was one of their many questions which went unanswered. Others included the effect of constructing an aluminium plant on a water table and setting up a port on the southwestern peninsula.

Yesterday, Alicia Charles, communication specialist at the EMA, said the CEC document was thoroughly investigated. "If anything was found incorrect I believe it would have been raised already. But the residents have an opportunity to view the document and report their concerns," she said.

"We got nothing out of this meeting. They came here to answer questions, but we got no answers. The Alcoa officials just stood there and blatantly refused to answer us," Fitzroy Beache, president of the Chatham/Cap-de-Ville Environmental Protection Group said.

The meeting got off to a heated start when residents chastised Hughes for not beginning the meeting with the national anthem. "That is not how we do it in Trinidad. We start everything with the national anthem. And then we have to do a prayer," Beache shouted.

Shamilla Maharaj, of the Alcoa Trinidad and Tobago Project Team, attempted to explain the CEC to residents, but was frequently interrupted by angry residents.

The residents demanded an apology from Alcoa, for reporting that they had been receiving threats from Trinidadians . "How can we be threatening you. Why don't you say that you are threatening our lives by building this plant here," an elderly man said.

Alcoa, in a recent television report, claimed that officials were receiving threats.

The residents called on Alcoa, the world's leading aluminium producer, to explain how they would be transporting material to the site, during construction. They demanded that Hughes reveal whether a port would be constructed along the peninsula.

They also wanted to know how Alcoa would treat people living near the smelter plant in case of emergency. Hughes said the issue of a port along the southwestern peninsula was a separate matter.

More circumlocution from Alcoa

2006-08-23T09:07:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Alcoa hosted a press briefing regarding the terms of reference.
Noticeably absent was Mr.Randall Overbey, who has become the voice of the strong arm of Alcoa.
When questioned about Mr. Overbey’s statements, Mr. Hughes in a room full of journalists, flippantly said, ‘well you can’t believe everything you read in the newspapers’. Are you sure that's what you want to say in a room full of journalists?
He also insisted that they were there only to field questions about the draft terms of reference. Anil Roberts of Power 102 stormed out of the meeting at this point.
However he then changed tack when pressured into giving the company’s position on violence against unarmed communities engaging in non-violent direct action, claiming that their surveyors were threatened. He also claimed that he and Mr. Overbey received death threats and this was justification for their taking guns into the community during a meeting with them last year.
Mr. Hughes, however was kind enough to acknowledge that citizens have a right to protest but that it should be non-violent. As journalist Tony Fraser noted this is a significant change from the original line of the company, which has usually taken a similar line to that of the government, that only residents of Chatham had a right to be involved in the discourse about smelters and that everyone else was an outsider.
Mr. Hughes dodged questions expertly, dealing in the typically circumlocutive manner that we’ve become accustomed to. He refused to answer questions about the cost of gas and when asked how then could people make a proper comment on the EIA without knowledge of the cost of gas, he shrugged and said that the government were the ones who had requested confidentiality and this was a common arrangement that they’ve made with other governments.
In fact he insisted that Alcoa had been invited here by the government, he didn’t say which one or when this invitation arrived in the mail.
He was unable to give a satisfactory answer to the question of why another set of consultations were taking place (this one regarding the Terms of Reference), even though the consultation process regarding the drilling of bore holes has been stalemated. He said they were in constant contact with the farmers on whose land they were doing the surveys (although several land owners in the area who do not want the surveys done have run surveyors off their land). When asked why these consultations were private and therefore being carried out in a way that could not be monitored, he replied that journalists were free to go and interview the farmers.
When asked whether they would leave if they were not given environmental clearance, he said they would not operate without the proper permissions but would seek to use all avenues to mitigate. He is on record as saying they’ve never had a problem they haven’t been able to mitigate.
In other words, who would dare refuse Alcoa? And if so, what possible reason could they come up with?