EFW Business Case Rubbish

"Statistics are like a bikini; what is revealed is interesting; but what is concealed is crucial." ~A.R. Feinstein

All the pro-incinerator politicians, including Chair Anderson, busily made known to everyone for the last year or more that incineration would be considerably more expensive than landfill or any other options, but they would bulldoze it ahead because it was their first choice, in spite of all the negative publicity, concerns from the public, medical and other studies showing the increased risk of cancers and environmental damage, etc.

Suddenly, lo and behold, the "Business Case" is revealed and attempts to convince us that incineration is cheaper than landfill.

This business case makes incredibly WRONG assumptions, such as assuming that:

"Site for EFW has been approved indicating level of local support for project." Oh really? Did no one at the Region (or our Clarington Regional Reps) tell them that Clarington is officially an unwilling host? Or that there have been demonstrations by the public, petitions signed and many letters to the editor with serious concerns related to this project?

"Transparency with respect to the study and disclosure of potential impacts on local natural environment and ecology." Transparency? I think not. Where is the public information centre meeting (PIC) regarding emissions criteria? That approval has been given by Region's Committees and Joint Waste Management Group (Durham/York) without prior PIC for the public. How about this Business Case, which will most likely be rubber stamped like every single one of the other so-called "studies" brought to Council for approval? What about all the information hidden deep within 1000 page appendices and NOT brought to the attention of Council except by members of the public, who are dismissed out of hand because they are not hired, paid "consultants" or registered lobbyists for EFW?

There is so much more - Greenhouse gas emissions assumptions. Income from as yet unrealized power purchase agreement assumptions. Cost assumptions related to Technology/Vendor (not yet chosen), bids not yet received as RFP (Request for Proposals) has not yet gone out to short-list vendors. Bottom ash haul and disposal assumptions (we don't even have a recipient for the ash yet!). Community Host Agreement not yet finalized - more cost assumptions.

There are so many more assumptions included within this business case, but why would anyone be surprised. All along, the road taken by the consultants and pro-incinerator Regional Reps has been to push through every study prematurely, without having important information available to them PRIOR to making these decisions.

This Regional Council (the majority of them) has approved every single "milestone" that has been brought forward WITHOUT being fully informed, whether because of hidden information (we can't expect every Councillor to slog through the hundreds/thousands of pages of tables and information hidden within the appendices - they simply don't have the time and the consultants have conveniently only presented the most positive of the results to them) or because of all the contrary information conveniently left out of the studies and presentations. So they are guilty of making uninformed decisions and they don't even seem to care. Or they are truly being hood-winked and haven't figured it out yet. Either scenario is terribly disturbing.

"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." ~William W. Watt

There have been a few (very few) Councillors who have actually asked probing questions, and who have not been afraid to ask that this process slow down. As it is, we've been told that this project now likely won't be completed until the end of 2012. So why not take the time to make sure it is done correctly, not just quickly. Fast has been the operative word, not accuracy.

It appears there are so many problems with this Deloitte and Touche Business Case that it would take many hours and many pages to even outline them all. Don't we see far too many cost/revenue assumptions being made, and far too many assumptions on health and environmental 'safety'? Remember that Deloitte and Touche did the "positive" business case for Clarington's Total Hockey, which closed recently as a huge bust. Clarington residents paid dearly for that mistake, paid twice the appraised value in the beginning and are still paying for it as there are even more costs associated with dismantling it today. A business plan by Deloitte and Touche projected attendance figures of 20,000 to 25,000 a year. At the end of the first year, in spite of great efforts by Community Services to attract as many people as possible, only 3,532 people had visited the Total Hockey facility in Bowmanville. Warnings from residents of Clarington prior to the approval for Total Hockey went unheard or unheeded, just like warning from residents about this incinerator project are being ignored by those who believe they "know better" (our egotistical politicians).

Deloitte and Touche can't be blamed completely for the erroneous assumptions contained within the EFW Business Case, since the "evaluation framework was developed in consultation with the Region..." and we know that the region is completely biased toward EFW, as are their registered EFW lobbyist consultants, and will always put the very best case scenario forward, leaving out the huge risks or concerns of residents and experts alike.

How can anyone be comfortable with all the assumptions found in this document? Please read this Report and Business Case and see for yourself. It is highly disturbing and even more disturbing is the knowledge that once again, Regional Committees and Council will rubber stamp it, as will our 3 Regional Councillors (Mayor Abernethy, Mary Novak and Charlie Trim). Once again concerns about the validity of this document from residents will be dismissed/ignored. Once again Regional Council will give Clarington a slap in the face as most are just glad it's not in their backyard. Sad that they don't realize it will affect all 8 municipalities, not only Clarington. Those nanoparticles travel easily much farther than the "point of impingement" used in the region's studies. Taxes will increase, despite the glowing endorsement of the business case. It won't be the first time.

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable. This Business Case reeks, but we seem to have a lot of sniff-challenged politicians in our region. This entire project is speeding its way to completion, and residents are powerless to stop it or to even slow it down. This Regional Council is hell-bent on bulldozing it through, despite their claims to the contrary. Look at their voting history do date. Push, push, push. Don't be bothered with the facts that have been left out of each and every study. Instead be convinced by the assumptions made by the pro-incinerator industry and claim your conscience is clear. When taxes and health impacts come home to roost, we will remember.

And you WILL be accountable, whether you like it or not; whether you are still in office or not (and we hope not).