Incinerator deal? : LUSENET : 1998 Guam Elections : One Thread

Much has been kept secret about the infamous incinerator deal, which has been said to be dangerous as well as expensive for Guam. I can come out with some facts myself, but I'd like to hear from others. Does anyone know why this incinerator deal in particular -- not just incinerators in general -- is GOOD for Guam?

Just wondering.

-- Lighthouse Keeper (, September 28, 1998


The Governor wouldn't push a project on us that was bad for the people of Guam. Haven't you seen how this Governor is STILL helping the people of Guam? We don't have enough land for a dump here. Got any better ideas?

-- Joe Blaz (, September 29, 1998.

I'm guessing that the post was a fake answer, but no matter. You postulated: "Got any better ideas?"

I'm glad you asked.

You are correct in that we don't have land to waste on a dump like Ordot. But is the incinerator the only means to reduce waste and conserve land? Nope.

Dr. Paul Connett, an environmental expert, was here for an incinerator debate against a man hired by the incinerator companies and Peter Scrotum. Connett said he's willing to come here, again at his own expense, to help Guam leaders implement his solution: source reduction, recycling, composting, and compacting.

Source reduction means legislation to bring in less waste into Guam. If we just burn it all, we have no incentive to use less waste. He proposed that we give companies and consumers incentives to bring less waste into Guam, to use less waste, and to take it out of Guam when we're done using it.

Recycling and composting are self-explanatory, but they are not being done on Guam in any meaningful way. Leaders need to get serious about recycling. The incinerator deal would include recycling, but with a minimum of something like 300 guarranteed tons of trash per day to the incinerator, what incentive do residents and businesses have to recycle? We have to pay to burn our trash anyway. Why recycle if we have an incinerator?

Because not all trash can be taken back off island, recycled, or composted, the remainder would be compacted. This means buying an effective compactor to preserve our precious land.

Yes, this plan might be almost as expensive as the dirty incinerator. But would we rather pay through the nose so we can pollute our island, or pay for an environmentally friendly system?

It's not a very tough decision for me. But I think we all needed to hear this debate, in public, before any kind of deal was made with King Karl's business pals. What are they hiding?

Now, anyone with good reasons we should accept this particular incinerator deal will be greatly appreciated in this forum.

-- Lighthouse Keeper (, September 29, 1998.

Yes there are a lot of better answers! And NO I don't see how this Governor is STILL helping the people of Guam.

Whats wrong with the in'sin'erater deal? Well, first off it is polluting our clean air with garbage. I don't think the full ramifications of this plan are fully realized. What we burn goes into our air. It doesn't disappear. It stays in our air and will cause harm to our environment in the future. Things such as acid rain, smog, ozone, and greenhouse affect should come to mind. The burning of waste solves one problem but could lead to others. Secondly, it doesn't encourage the people of Guam to cut back on waste. It's getting burned right? It's saving land? Do I really need to cut back?

I'm not saying that the Governor is trying to knowingly cause harm to Guam. Maybe he just doesn't know about the possible long term effects. Personally I know there are better options. Let us look at Oregon for example. They have a very good trash system. All households are required to pay for each can of garbage they put out for collection. The more garbage the higher the bill. An option for a lower billing would be a Free recycling pickup. Residents can put thier cans, paper, and plastic in a seperate bin and it gets picked up for Free. Having residents pay for there garbage would cause them to think about how much of thier money would they like to save. Thus inturn cause them to want to limit thier garbage through recycling(which is free). Recycling more would be better for our environment on Guam as well as the rest of the world. I could go on and on about this but I dont' think people would want to read a book.

Now what are the benifits of an in-sin-erator?

There are many different solutions for our problem on island. It's just up to our leaders to choose them for us. Maybe our leader now isn't the best decision maker. Maybe we need a new one.

-- Bill (, October 01, 1998.

I just want to remind people who are for the project that just because you incinerate trash doesn't mean it just "disappears". There's 2 things that get produced by burning trash: smoke/pollution and ash. Are you willing to give people lung disease? You still need a place to put the ashes, do you plan to dump it in the ocean? Maybe another Ordot? I don't think so. We really need to be less wasteful and recycling might be a helpful way of helping reduce part of our waste.

-- (, October 04, 1998.

Senators overrode the Governor's veto of 520. For now, the incinerator is dead.

Members of the administration were trying to distance themselves from GMP anyway. Political advisors to the Governor say GMP is bad for publicity. They do concede that "closing the Ordot could be a winner IF we close if before the election".

How many weeks till the election?

-- The Guam News (, October 05, 1998.

The incinerator may seem dead, but that's only because King Karl is waiting until after the election to move on the dirty deal. He knows that he can't win on it as an election issue, so he's sweeping it under the carpet, where it will lurk and fester until Karl no longer has to worry about what the voters think. He'll then have absolute power, no concern for re-election, and he'll continue to do what will benefit him, his family, and his friends.

Ever wonder why the first three years of his administration were filled with the King and his cronies shearing the government, and the last year has been nothing but vote-winning programs. If you haven't noticed the incredible change in government action in 1998, you're blind.

To say the incinerator is dead is misleading. And even if it is, we still must ask: why was the deal made, and why weren't the terms of the deal and the pros and cons of the deal discussed openly in public? Because whether the funding for the incinerator has been killed or not, Guam will still have to pay $8M to Karl's incinerator companies and friends for defaulting on the contract. Either way, he wins. In the end, buying off the contract will save us money, but why couldn't we have avoided signing the contract in the first place?

These tough questions must be asked. But no one seems to have the courage to ask. And the King is getting away with hiding the issue until after the election. When it will be too late.

-- Lighthouse (, October 06, 1998.

wouldnt you help your family out if you were governor?

-- (, October 06, 1998.

The decision to incinerate or not to incinerate shall be based on health, environment, and cost, and not on personal gain by certain business people and government officials. I don't know much about this issue so I don't know if a feasibility study and environmental impact study were done. This is a very important issue and experts in this matter who are not politically influenced should be consulted.

I hope future governors will promote long-range planning within the government agencies to avoid last minute fixes to problems such as this. Maybe if government agency directors were classified employees instead of appointed government officials, there will be continuity and progressive development as well as seasoned managers instead of directors who can't manage as evident with GTA and other mismanaged agencies.

-- Che'lu (, October 08, 1998.


Yes I would help my family out if I was governor. I'd do it by actually being a good governor as opposed to screwing the rest of the island. Like that? You can write me in.

RTT "Smart enough to do the job, dumb enough to want it"

-- RTT (Ratt@tat.tat), October 08, 1998.

Well, there's another possiblity... We could possibly compact our trash and cement it and makesure it stays like that! We then could dump it in the Marianas Trench since it is so deep. Our trash would be a small dot in the Marianas Trench.

-- Nat Salvador (, April 13, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ