Employment, ecotourism, smelters

Indeed, some may recall smelters were the main feature in a three-part series of articles on the Revised National Environment Policy earlier this year – on March 17, 26 and April 2 to be precise . . . so much so that Alcoa invited me to be part of the media jaunt to Brazil to see their smelter “in situ.”

However, circumstances beyond my control prevented me from accepting that tempting invitation. Alcoa also offered to take me on a helicopter flight to see the Chatham site but backed off when I asked if the flight might be extended to include a Newsday photographer and side trip to photograph the appalling destruction caused by quarries in the Northern Basin from the air. Well, you can’t blame a girl for trying. Or Alcoa for not wanting to get involved in controversy with the construction industry as well as vocal environmentalists.

Yet I had such high hopes that Alcoa would put its money where its mouth is and prove the company is really as sensitive to environmental issues as it claims to be in Australia and Brazil. But it didn’t and it wasn’t.

I crave readers’ indulgence now to revisit a paragraph or two of that three-part series on the Revised National Environment Policy – with particular reference to the smelters.

Government invariably hedges its bets when passing laws concerning the environment – or so it seems to me after a first, cursory reading of the Revised National Environmental Policy, which begins in cloud cuckoo land with Government, its eyes firmly fixed on Vision 2020, looks forward to a TT in which “all persons treasure the environment and voluntarily use its resources wisely to ensure its protection, conservation and restoration”. The policy then quotes the UN mantra (complete with split infinitive a la Star Trek) “to equitably meet the needs of present and future generations and enhance the quality of life.”

However, the next paragraph reminds us (and this is the snag, aka Government’s escape hatch) “The policy may be revised from time to time.” And continues thus “In recognition of the rapid industrialisation of Trinidad and Tobago, major development in the housing sector and significant expansion and upgrading of infrastructure,” (does one hear a hollow laugh from communities begging for roads and water?) “the Government saw fit to invoke Section 18(5) of the E M Act” (the section which allows the powers to revise the National Environmental Policy).

As, so it now appears Government has, for despite all protests to the contrary villagers in the Cedros Chatham Vessigny areas in the Southland may soon be forced to leave their homes to make way for one, two, or, as threatened, three aluminium smelters. Already huge areas of forest have been cleared to make way for Alutrint and allied industries.

It’s curious, to say the least, that for the past quarter century no aluminium smelters, however environmentally “friendly” have been built in the US, yet US companies in the aluminium industry are erecting plants in Underdeveloped countries and Developing countries assuring them, all the while, that they pose no threat to the natural environment or hazard to human health. And yet one of the definitions of the word ‘environment’ in my trusty Oxford Reference Dictionary reads as follows: “external conditions affecting the existence of plants and animals.”

There is no arguing with the fact that massive land-clearance without so much as an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) let alone the granting of a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CIC) “affected the existence of plants and animals” by destroying the lot – trees, herbs, grasses, orchids (and other flowering plants), tirite, vines, epiphytes, ferns, mosses, fungi leaving not a morsel of food behind for monkeys mongoose, morocoys, manicous, matapals (Poor-me-one) and macajuels, agouti, silky anteaters, armadillos (aka tatu or tatoo), bachacs, bats, birds, and butterflies, crapauds and tree frogs, centipedes, cigals, deer and wild ducks, egrets, Manicou crabs, galaps, hawks, hummingbirds, iguanas, several million insects, ocelots, parrots porc ? pic (porcupines), quenk, lizards and lappe, scorpions, spiders, squirrels, termites . . .

Trinidad is, has been, singularly blessed with an astonishing range of flora (plants) and fauna (animals), all within easy reach of the average, often middle-aged, usually affluent tourist. Tourism, particularly eco-tourism, is the fastest growing industry world-wide and where eco-tourism is concerned, we have, or had, a wealth of naturally renewable resources (flora and fauna) essential to a flourishing eco-tourism industry.

We’re told the smelters will provide employment, we know labour is needed to construct the plants but, once constructed, how many permanent jobs will there be, how many men and/or women will be needed to run the plant? If Point Lisas industries are any guide, although thousands may be employed in building the smelters (and, if the rumours are true, many of those jobs may go to labour imported from China) once they are completed the automated plants only need a handful of highly skilled technicians to run them.

On the other hand, tourism, by its very nature, generates plenty of permanent jobs after the hotels, lodges, guests houses, etc. have been built. Consider this – continue to destroy the natural environment willy-nilly to make way for smelters and suchlike and what happens to our Tourism Industry? Which industry is more sustainable for the average citizen of Trinidad in need of permanent employment, the aluminium industry or the tourism industry?

As for the poisonous pot-liners generated by aluminium smelters, I leave those for another time, and those with a greater knowledge of chemistry. Meanwhile, never let it be said that I didn’t put in my two cents’ worth on the smelters . . .

Next week The Automobile Environment