Barbados Greenland Dump Had “Technical Flaws In Design” – Prime Minister Arthur

Just a quick post this morning before work…

Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur admitted yesterday in the House of Assembly that the design of the Greenland waste dump had technical flaws. From The Nation Newspaper

“When this current phase of operations at Mangrove comes to an end, that is the end of the operation of landfills at Mangrove. We will go to Greenland, having corrected any technical flaws in the design of Greenland as any responsible Government should do.”

So the “technical flaws in the design” have been corrected, Mr. Prime Minister?

That’s Great!

But seeing as this is the first time that the Government has admitted technical flaws in the design (that I know of), how about telling us what those flaws were and how they have been corrected?

We’re all big boys and girls here, and we know that we have to do something with the garbage, so how about releasing your “design flaw corrections” report? That would go a long way to show that the Government wasn’t hiding anything or just transferring the problem from one spot on the island to another.

And also remind us, Prime Minister… why haven’t we considered the new incineration technologies like the ones that are keeping Singapore so clean?

3 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Environment, Island Life, Politics & Corruption

3 responses to “Barbados Greenland Dump Had “Technical Flaws In Design” – Prime Minister Arthur

  1. John

    Sir Henry: Come clean on Greenland
    Publication: Sun on Saturday
    Paper Section And Page: 40
    Paper Date: Sat, Dec 16, 2000

    A SENIOR member of the Barbados Labour Party has urged Government to let the facts “hang out” on the controversial Greenland landfill.

    Sir Henry Forde also called on Government to take a leadership role in resolving the garbage problem.

    He said during debate in the House of Assembly yesterday that there was a large segment of the population which had doubts about the suitability of placing a landfill at Greenland. He called on Government to make available to the public all the documents and all the facts, and let them speak for themselves. If these facts showed that Government made an error, he said, then they should admit to the error and move on in the interest of the bigger picture of environmental protection of the island.

    “We have to get over Greenland. Government has to let the facts hang out, irrespective of what those are . . . and if Government was wrong, move on,” he told MPs during debate on a supplementary vote for the Mangrove Pond landfill.

    Sir Henry said Government also had to let people understand it acted on advice and recommendations. But if the advice and recommendations accepted turned out to be the wrong choice, Government should come out and say so and move on, he added.

    Even if Government accepted Greenland, Sir Henry said, the administration ought to “face up” to the facts of incineration to move quickly as possible with it once a decision was taken to accept this form of disposal.

    The veteran MP said the garbage woes at the Mangrove Pond landfill had passed the political realm and it was time to focus on the wider environmental problems.

  2. John

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22sir+henry+forde%22+greenland&btnG=Google+Search

    Sorry, should have acknowledged my source of the Nation Article.

    Decided to do a search on the internet and see what various politicians have had to say about Greenland.

    So far have looked at Sir Henry Forde and found the above article calling on the Government to let it all hang out. This was some 6 years ago!!

    Then there is George Payne, who callled it environmental madness. Think that was 12 years ago, … in the beginning!!

    Can anyone find any politician in Barbados actually going on record in support of Greenland over the past 12 years?

    Prof. Hans Machel at the recent public lecture clearly stated that all the reports he has surveyed shows not one expert in favour of Greenland.

    Why has this lasted 12 years?

    What is the problem?

  3. You raise very good points and answere need to be given. Thank you for keeping your blog, I think you would find mine equally interesting.

    David