Planning issues may need new bodies
I hope that the EPA takes its remit a little more seriously. An Bord Pleanála refused to take environmental or health concerns into account when making its decision. This hardly seems a fit basis for the EPA to grant the green light.
If the EPA gives the go-ahead, I would suggest that both bodies be dissolved as totally unfit for their purposes, and a new body formed that democratically acts as one-stop-shop, dealing with all necessary aspects of planning, infrastructure, environment, health, etc.
The EPA director, Mary Kelly, argues that incineration is preferable to the backyard burning of rubbish since incineration would be responsible for only 2%-3% of dioxins in the environment whereas backyard burning contributes 84%. This is a false logic in reality, for surely it would be better to have neither backyard burning nor incinerators. Surely 0% dioxins are better than 2%-3%. Her argument is weak because it is fatalistic, as it assumes we must have some level of dioxins in the environment.
I read that Councillor Vivian O’Callaghan (the Irish Examiner, January 22) urged politicians to fight for incinerators. “Valuable jobs” would be lost without incinerators. This is a bit like arguing that if we want the revenue from tobacco we will have to put up with some ill health.
Nick Folley,
36 Ardcarrig,
Carrigaline,
Co Cork.
