More questions than answers

National Energy Task Force chairman Ken Julien, National Energy Company president Prakash Singh, and National Gas Company/NEC chairman Keith Awong all failed to come before the JSC last Wednesday to give testimony. Apparently neither Professor Julien nor Mr Saith notified the JSC ahead of the sitting that they would not attend, while Mr Awong faxed the Committee just before the session started. Senator King, however, said that Professor Julien had indicated two months ago that he would not appear — this cementing his reputation as a power player who always stays behind the scenes. Ms King has promised to write Parliament about the disrespect shown to the institution.

But more than disrespect is involved here. The proposed construction of an aluminium smelter by Alcoa, and to a lesser extent, Alutrint, has become a political hot potato. Public consciousness has been raised on the issues of environmental degradation and the possible health risks. On such matters, however, it is very difficult to make clear-cut decisions. This is because those on the side of the smelter are prone to downplay the dangers posed by their activities, while environmental activists sometimes act as though flora and fauna are more valuable than human lives.

But all human activities involve trade-offs. If the aluminium smelters bring long-term economic and social benefits which outweigh the environmental damage and disruption of the lives of the citizens directly involved, then these smelters should be built. If, on the other hand, the long-term effects are deleterious, then these projects must be scrapped. But how is the public to know?

The behaviour of the three absentees may well indicate what side citizens should be coming down on. People who have evidence on their side do not normally duck such hearings. The reluctance of the top honchos to face hard questions from the JSC gives an impression, rightly or wrongly, that the people at the top do not have satisfactory answers on the Alcoa and Alutrint projects.

Such an impression is lent force by the answers which were given by the representatives of the energy sector, the Environmental Management Authority, and the aluminium smelter industry who did appear before the Committee. These persons made incorrect declarations about the kind of flora in the proposed smelter site; claimed that the residents of Chatham want to move out of their village; did not know the fees the aluminium smelter companies would be paying for gas or whether they would be given a tax holiday; and could not give specific details on how waste products from the smelters would be disposed. So it seems as though the concerns of the general public are not at all shared by the jefes who are spearheading these projects. JSC member Carolyn Seepersad Bachan seems to have hit the nail on the head when she said, “It is apparent that we will not get answers.”

This issue will not, however, go away without answers.

And, if the smelter construction proceeds without the public getting some clear assurances, the disaffection is liable to grow rather than diminish.

If the Government is really interested in addressing citizens’ concerns, it must therefore set up an independent panel of experts to investigate and provide answers to the many questions surrounding these controversial projects.