Otaheite Village Doesn't Want Manning's Aluminium Smelter

I had occasion to be around Otaheite Village (Trinidad and Tobago) this morning, and snapped the picture to the right. It is apparent how the residents near Bay Road in Otaheite Village feel about ALCOA's Smelter that Prime Minister Patrick Manning has proceeded with despite warnings and resistance from the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago and the Environmental Management Authority. I'd written about this before.

The only people who seem to want this smelter are Patrick Manning and our loving, health and environmentally conscious 'friends' at ALCOA. There is a lot of room for speculation, and in Trinidad that means that there is plenty of speculation - everyone has an opinion. Some say that the threat of a smelter in Otaheite Village is simply a bluff, and that the smelter will end up in Chatham Estate despite what has been said. Some say that Manning has already collected something and therefore must build the smelter. Some say that 'Patos' (Patrick Manning) just doesn't care about places he doesn't visit, and still others say that the greediest representatives are the ones who are allowing the smelters in these areas.

Everything is speculation, rumination and allegation at this point. Nothing is solid as to why Patos is so desperate to build an aluminium smelter, and why he has been running pretty roughshod over anyone who has stood in his way (including the very people that cast enough votes for the President to appoint him... sound familiar? Maybe the Honourable Prime Minister knows something that the rest of the... planet... doesn't know... but I find that quite unlikely. His response in April 2005, quoted in a letter to an editor:

...IN HIS response to the residents of Cap-de-Ville/Chatham pertaining to their adamant objection to the construction of an aluminium smelter in their backyard, the Prime Minster emphasised “the national objective of creating meaningful employment opportunities particularly for our young people.”

He informs them in no uncertain terms that the plant will be built “in accordance with the Environmental Management Authority Act” (Guardian, March 30)...

The letter goes on to point out that in some areas with smelters, mothers have been told not to breast feed because of contaminants, and so on. Is this alarmism? To a degree, yes - but do we really expect companies to do everything possible to assure that there is no contamination - or instead do we expect them to do everything in their power to assure that they are not legally responsible for contamination? The latter would be the more intelligent choice, one would think.

And if you search the EMA website - which you have to do in some odd Flash site which doesn't allow indexing by search engines - there are no results for 'smelter'. None. Yet there is plenty of word outside of Trinidad and Tobago. From 'Trinidad's Smelter Switcheroo':

...In his end-of-year address, Prime Minister Patrick Manning informed the public that his administration had "decided to immediately discontinue all plans to establish an industrial estate in Cap-de-Ville".

The catch? "Instead," he continued, "we shall accelerate development of a new industrial estate offshore at Otaheite Bank from which aluminium production can now be pursued together with other industrial plants."

Last year, the Manning administration had insisted that the two aluminium smelter plants, including one planned by the U.S. firm Alcoa, would be built even though the "government understands the concerns raised by citizens regarding the construction of these smelters"...

...In his speech, Manning said that a symposium held in November "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"...

So glad it can be managed. The government in Trinidad and Tobago has such a stellar track record in managing crime ('manage', perhaps in the context of 'supervise'?) that the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago are supposed to accept it as 'manageable'? Odd, that. And then, from the same article:

...Seuridge Seepersad, public relations officer for the South Oropouche Citizens' Association, said his organisation would be mobilising communities in the area to oppose the construction of the plants as part of a wider industrial estate.

"We do not want any smelter here, what we need is to develop the fishing industry at Otaheite," he said, warning that effluent from the plants would affect the areas where the fish nest.

He said that destruction to the fishing industry there would affect more than 3,000 families that depend on the sector.

But the government has so far dismissed the complaints of local residents.

"What amazes me is that people, without the benefit of any study, would say that the fishermen would starve, the mangrove would die, and so on. On what basis do they do that? It is just emotion," said Energy Minister Lenny Saith...

The 'emotional' trump card has been played, and yet a government which has not been able to control crime and corruption is expected to handle the responsibility of the environment better in some way? A government that doesn't even supply hospitals with soap? I suppose that could be less than rational and yet... the problems of aluminium smelter contamination are well known. The police, who have not had very good luck with handling crime, had no problem locking up protesters. Industrialization by force is at least more direct than coercion, I suppose.

Plenty of information at NoSmelterTnT. Go look around. I'll keep digging in my own ways as well. ;-)