Connect: 'Politicians get pay rises, we get dumps," read one placard protesting in advance about the now-opened "superdump" at Kilconnell, Co Galway. The sentiment is true for people in east Galway near to the Greenstar-operated Kilconnell landfill site.
It's true, too, for many other - generally small - communities threatened with unwanted "infrastructure" being foisted upon them.
NRGE/Reenard Farms, for instance, wants to build a huge and noxious anaerobic digester (for meat waste) at Killurin, Co Wexford. In bids to blight north Co Dublin, proposals have been made for a gigantic sewage works at Portrane and a prison at Thornton Hall to complement the superdump at Toomin. In many parts of the State, small communities are being targeted.
Mind you, it's equally true that the State must better manage its waste disposal. "It has to go somewhere," chorus politicians, waste-disposal profiteers and people happy to see their own localities spared. Yes, it has. Nonetheless, it takes a cavalier and insulting cheek to demand, in effect, that any particular community should accept the waste of others, whatever about its own.
Why, for instance, should the people of Kilconnell, a small village, accept rubbish from miles away? Why should they be dumped upon without compensation (even though many might argue no compensation could ever be adequate)? Clearly, it's a political manoeuvre in which the residents of Kilconnell, Co Galway, are considered more disposable than those of say, Killiney, Co Dublin.
Killiney does not deserve a superdump either. Fair is fair, after all, and populous Killiney (which I have chosen merely because it alliterates with Kilconnell) has less land available than that surrounding a country village. But the principle remains the same: the producers of waste ought to - as far as is possible and practicable - take responsibility for its disposal without harming other people's lives.
It can never, of course, be perfectly equal. Rubbish indeed has to go somewhere, but the political nature of decision-making in this State is reminiscent of Cromwell's infamous "to hell or to Connacht" diktat. Oh, there are elaborate and lengthy "hearings" about regional rubbish dumps, but Ireland's little "Connachts", now spread throughout the State, remain politically chosen.
It is - as always in politics - about power and money. It's just the rank hypocrisy - the "it's for the whole community" guff (except, of course, the unlucky ones) - that adds poison to a real problem. If power and money admitted what everybody knows instead of attempting to disguise its truth with insulting PR, we could become mature.
Still, there are matters of scale and compensation. Why "superdumps" instead of more local dumps? And why, for instance, ought private waste-disposal outfits, such as Greenstar - an arm of National Toll Roads (NTR) - make a profit from the Kilconnell superdump while local people, perhaps living in the area for generations, receive no compensation? Consider Indaver, a Belgian company with a Dún Laoghaire office, that has already applied for a 33 per cent increase for its proposed incinerator at Carranstown, Co Meath. It wants to burn rubbish from outside the north-east region of Louth, Meath, Cavan and Monaghan, thereby making the region a dumping ground for beyond its borders.
Are you surprised by this? Do you give a damn? So long as you don't live near the proposed incinerator, why should you care? After all, more trash burned at Carranstown means less for the rest of the country. That's up to you, but the political and commercial deception - Indaver told residents it wouldn't seek greater capacity - has implications for all.
It means nobody can trust the process of deciding on waste-disposal strategies. It also means waste-disposal outfits, despite their PR, are only in it for the money. Considering how Irish banks have behaved when there are profits to be made, can you believe anything the likes of Indaver or Greenstar - which this week denied RTÉ cameras access to the Kilconnell superdump - say?
Minister for the Environment Dick Roche has already said he'd oppose an incinerator in his Wicklow constituency. Yet he is prepared to dump one on Carranstown as evidence of him being a tough man taking a tough decision. Dear, oh dear! If he'd only admit the vile politics directing his actions instead of insulting everybody (even people in Wicklow) with political blather, it would help.
Anyway, back to compensation. What is the problem with compensating people in proportion to their proximity to any new dump, incinerator or other unwanted "infrastructure"? Somebody has to take the hit but why not try to alleviate the damage with money? After all, the companies operating such monstrosities are in it for the money. Why not put-upon members of the public? Of course, there would be squabbles over amounts, but at least the idea edges towards fairness.
Indeed, if the Government or private outfits were to offer sufficient inducement to communities to take unwanted projects, it's possible there would be competition for them. But no - dumping on local people is this wealthy Government's idea of cosying up to private business. Great, eh?