Resident walks along Chatham Road in Cedros.

Photo: Keith Matthews

Last week Thursday I took the advice of several people who have participated in the industrialisation debate and headed down to the southwestern tip of Trinidad (Chatham in particular) in the company of John Jones and Vijai Lall of the National Energy Corporation.

The trip began with a briefing at the NEC headquarters, located just outside the Point Lisas Industrial Estate, at which the issues of land acquisition and the location of industrial estates in Trinidad were fully ventilated.

We drove through the proposed Chatham site of the Alcoa aluminium smelter to the Irois Bay location of the proposed NEC port. When the rain cleared, the Trinmar platforms in the Gulf of Paria were clearly visible.

We then drove along Chatham Road to Erin Bay on Trinidad’s south coast where the outline of Venezuela could be seen with the naked eye.

The trip was enlightening on many levels, but because I did not have much time to speak with all of the occupants on the Chatham site, I don’t want to give too many details of my discussions and observations until next week, when I would have had chance to revisit the area.

What I can observe in general is that some of the commentary on the issue of whether T&T should continue its industrialisation thrust has been deliberately and mischievously misleading and premature. To find out which comments can be so categorised, you will have to buy next week’s edition.

I was asked a few days ago why do I publish letters from people when I know them to be riddled with untruths and misleading statements. The question came from a former journalist who said that I should be attaching editor’s notes to the views which I know to be inaccurate.

Now, most of the people who have taken the time to write letters to the Business Guardian on the industrialisation debate have been strongly opposed to the location of industrial estates in south west Trinidad for a variety of reasons, including the environmental impact and the relocation of people.

I hold the view that the impacts of continuing industrialisation must be weighed against the financial benefits that T&T has derived and will continue to derive (one hopes) from the location of petrochemical plants here.

As the editor of this publication, I feel I have a responsibility to the Business Guardian readers to ensure that I do not do anything that might be perceived as censorship of views opposed to mine.

My response to the enquiry from the former journalist was that I had done editor’s notes for some of the contributions to the industrialisation debate. But that if I were to attach notes to all, it might seem as though I was trying to place undue pressure on the contributions of correspondents.

As an editor, there is a very fine line between trying to influence public opinion and trying to dictate it. In this case, the line is even finer than normal as I have to balance the right of the opponents of industrialisation to be heard against the rights of the proponents of industrialisation not to be unfairly maligned.

It is my view that allowing most of the contributions to be published without editor’s notes, (but not without editing, which remains my prerogative) is the way to go.

What I do find interesting is that the tone of the contributions has changed since I opened the debate and started writing about the benefits that the country had derived from Point Lisas and Point Fortin and the possible benefits of T&T’s future industrialisation.

I cite three examples:

n Prof Kenny has cooled his attacks on the environmental issues surrounding the Cedros industrial estate. The last piece he wrote was critical of the lack of transparency in the gas price arrangements. (This is an issue that I am very concerned about and on which I agree with Kenny).

n Two Thursdays ago, the Prime Minister referred to a “silent majority” in support of the smelter projects. I would say seven months ago (on June 22 when scores of people marched in the rain to be precise) the “silent majority” would have been against the smelter projects.

n Writing about the Prime Minister’s statement in the Sunday Guardian, environmentalist Gary Aboud, wrote, “We all support the industrialisation process but there must be some transparency, accountability and consultation.”

The letter came as a complete surprise to me to the point where I was sure the letters editor got the name wrong.

That’s because Aboud has led some of the fiercest attacks on industrialisation in the past, taking a case all the way to the Privy Council (where he lost). I never thought he would write the words, “We all support the industrialisation process...”

By the way, I completely agree with him about the need for transparency, accountability and consultation.

On that score, if you turn to page 37, you will see a letter by someone purportedly named Steven White.

The letter is similar to several others that have been published in this series in that it focuses on the proposed Chatham smelter and not on the one that’s being built in La Brea by a joint venture of the NEC and Sural.

Why, I wonder, do people continue to attack the proposed Alcoa smelter in Chatham but not the one in La Brea. Different technology, less impact on the environment or fewer people to relocate? Is it a political argument that’s being made?

I also wonder, if the proposed Alcoa smelter in T&T will lead to acid rain, tainted ground water and tainted soil, what is the experience with the rain, ground water and soil in other countries with modern smelters?

Could someone tell me.