Archives

Ireland too needs whistleblowers—they might have averted our economic detonation. by Dara McHugh At the time of writing, WikiLeaks is preparing to release another cache of classified US military field reports, this time related to the Iraqi war. The previous leak gave an unprecedented look into the conduct of the Afghan war, dispelling the positive spin of Coalition PR, bringing attention to a number of human rights abuses and the cooperation of Pakistani security services with Taliban leaders. After nearly 10 years of war in Afghanistan, this is the most comprehensive picture of the conflict yet, with novel information about the prevalence of combative popular protests, coalition incompetence and increasing civilian drug problems. Unsurprisingly, the leak has also led to widespread condemnation of WikiLeaks, centred on its frontman, Julian Assange, who was reported to be sought for questioning by American security services and now faces investigation for rape accusations in Sweden. The argument against the website has centred on its journalistic responsibility, or lack thereof, as US officials claimed that the leak directly endangered the lives of US soldiers and Afghan informants. WikiLeaks shot back, saying that any such incidents would be down to military carelessness in reports. Moreover, they pointed out, they had contacted the White House in advance of publication, to ask for help identifying any such risks. Two months on, and there are no reports of deaths due to the leaks, but ‘responsibility’ remains the major point of issue between the US Government, mainstream media organisations and their new media rival. Since 2004, American journalists have sought a federal shield law that can protect them from the wrath of governments. This is an increasingly pressing issue, as the Obama administration pursues an unprecedented four simultaneous prosecutions against leakers from the military and security agencies. But in their zeal for protection, legislators and journalists alike are eager to distinguish the journalists who are worthy of protection from those who are not. As Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press told Time magazine, “It’s data dissemination, and that worries me…Journalists will go through a period of consultation before publishing sensitive material. WikiLeaks says it does the same thing. But traditional publishers can be held accountable. Aside from Julian Assange, no one knows who these people are”. Senator Charles Schumer, one of the legislators behind the Free Flow of Information Act, announced in August that he would propose new language to exclude WikiLeaks and similar organisations from its protections. The senator said that “[n]either WikiLeaks, nor its original source for these materials, should be spared in any way from the fullest prosecution possible under the law”. The Act does not propose total immunity, but enables judicial reviews of government-issued subpoenas for journalists to reveal their sources. If the judge finds that the story was in the public interest, the journalist can safely refuse to divulge the source. Initially spurred on by the jailing of Judith Miller during the Valerie Plame affair, the Shield Law has made progress through the House of Representatives, though it will be opposed by the White House. Schumer’s proposed amendment has been supported by media and journalist representative organisations, but political expediency may well be as important as accountability here. WikiLeaks has been the target of much US Government ire, and journalists seeking a favourable piece of legislation are understandably keen to distance themselves from their unpopular new media rival. Kevin Smith of the Society of Professional Journalists said that “this is the closest we’ve come to getting something moved, and it’s unfortunate that this WikiLeaks situation’s come up”. It is worth re-examining what exactly responsible journalism has meant in practice. As Dalglish’s comments indicate, consultation is key. In one sterling case, the New York Times delayed its story on an illegal NSA wiretapping program for a year while consulting with the White House. Important too is respect for official sources. This was ably demonstrated by much of the media during the build-up to the Iraq War. A barrage of misinformation, distortion and outright lies was ferried from the belligerent governments to their populations via the major news organisations. Nonsense stories about Al Qaeda links, nuclear capabilities and 45-minute WMD launch-times filled broadsheet and broadcast alike, while the drumbeat grew louder. With hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, we now know that these were fabrications, but the knowledge doesn’t much help us, or them. Irresponsible reporting bears much responsibility! WikiLeaks’ frontman Julian Assange has commented that “in order to make any sensible decision you need to know what’s really going on, and in order to make any just decision you need to know and understand what abuses or plans for abuses are occurring”. To pursue their bellicose ambitions, the American and British Governments required their citizens to be unable to make such sensible decisions, and they achieved this through lies and distortions, abetted by much of the media. It is for less earth-shaking reasons that greater access to information, and the capacity to make sensible decisions, are needed in Ireland, where senselessness from political leaders and business elites has brought the population to face perpetual penury. In two discussion documents for Tasc, Dr Nat O’Connor has assessed the role of information access in Irish democracy, and the economic case for its extension. Dissecting claims from Fianna Fáil ministers that Freedom of Information provisions were overly costly and time-consuming, he points out that the costs of providing these services are more than met by the benefits of greater public knowledge about policy-making. In cases such as the fabled Bertie-bowl of Abbotstown, Roddy Molloy’s expense account and the Skynet electronic voting machines, FOI requests have enabled public scrutiny of wasteful and absurd expenditures. Such cases, O’Connor suggests, show that FOI enables people “to act as efficiency auditors in relation to public policy decisions, especially large, costly ones” . It is telling, therefore, that Ireland has such distinctively poor access to information. In an article for Thestory.ie, O’Connor cites a comparative study

An overwhelming success story of private sector dynamism in recycling is set to be undone by an oversized incinerator at Poolbeg – at massive cost to Dublin’s businesses James Nix Minimising costs is something we expect local councils to do – especially in difficult times. But it’s an imperative that seemingly doesn’t apply to waste management in Dublin. In fact Dublin City Council already charges needlessly-high commercial rates to city businesses in order to operate its household black-bin collection below the cost of provision. Why cross-subsidise and run the service below its cost? Below-cost charging enables Dublin City Council to retain a big enough share of the black-bin market to suppress the payout due under the penalty clause in the incinerator contract. Penalty payments are expected to amount to €15 million each year from 2013 if the incinerator is built. But that’s only one side of the coin. Add to that the burden of operating the black-bin service below cost – €63 million a year – and ratepayers are needlessly being caught for close to €80 million a year. How has it come to this? Back in 2007 Dublin’s four councils – Dublin City, Fingal, South Dublin, and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown – collected around 300,000 tonnes of residual waste, made up mainly of black-bin waste from households, together with some commercial waste and street sweepings. Almost all of it was sent to landfill. And – if things stayed the way they were – this 300,000 tonnes would be destined for incineration. But, for the four councils, things have changed quite dramatically in the three years since 2007. Private operators have come in to capture large swathes of the market. Brown bins for kitchen and garden-compost waste have been rolled out. Recycling and recovery technology has improved significantly, cutting volumes in black bins. And, to crown it all, for waste, we’ve had the downturn. Current trends indicate that by 2013 it is unlikely the councils will collect even 165,000 tonnes of black-bin waste, which, along with another 30,000 made up of commercial waste and street sweepings, will give a total of about 200,000 tonnes for incineration. The significance of 2013 is that it’s the year the Poolbeg incinerator is due to open. Troublingly, the contract for the proposed 600,000 tonne incinerator, due to be built and operated at Poolbeg by a US-Danish consortium, has a penalty clause. If Dublin’s councils supply less than 320,000 tonnes a year, the penalty means ratepayers and residents pay for waste Dublin’s councils fail to supply. So now, for Dublin’s councils, calls to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle – central tenets of waste policy since the early 1990s – have become more than inconvenient. In fact, if their projections for the next ten to 20 years are anything to go by, Dublin’s councils will want to see waste increasing at implausibly high levels – all to ensure as much feedstock as possible for the incinerator. Before signing the contract in September 2007, Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, asked the councils not to proceed, advising them that their plans were out-of-date. Dublin City Manager, Mr John Tierney, acting on behalf of all four councils, ignored the advice and signed the contract. But, from 2006, private operators – first Panda, later Greenstar – secured waste-collection permits from Dublin’s local authorities and began serving households. And over the following two years the councils realised they had bitten off more than they could chew. In 2008, when it was clear they would no longer be in control of enough waste to avoid the penalty clause, the councils attempted to confine waste-collection to themselves and their chosen contractors, effectively sidelining private operators. Panda and Greenstar took a court case, claiming the attempt to confine waste-management to councils was an abuse of their dominant position and a breach of competition law. In a judgment issued last December, the High Court found that the councils had acted illegally and the court struck down a variation of the regional waste management plan intended to exclude private operators. As Mr Justice McKechnie put it, the councils had clearly “gone beyond what could have been contemplated by the Oireachtas in seeking to re-monopolise the market for household-waste collection”. The High Court judgment also affords some insight into the stance of Dublin City Council, which acts on behalf of all four councils in waste management. In attempting to confine waste management to councils, or their chosen contractors, the High Court noted that Dublin City Council had “massaged” reports, something that is “a strong indicator  …  of unacceptable influence in a process supposedly carried out in the public interest”. Former assistant city manager, Matt Twomey, acted with “bias and prejudgment”, according to the ruling. The judgment means that Dublin’s councils don’t ‘own’ waste generated by residents and can’t re-monopolise the market. (The councils have appealed the Panda judgement to the Supreme Court, but given the strength of the High Court ruling, one wonders if the motivation for the appeal has more to do with buying time and public relations than legal optimism). Private operators now control sizeable sections of the market in three council areas; Dun Laoghaire Rathdown, where the council has withdrawn from waste collection, only has private operators. Very few private operators plan to send waste to Poolbeg if the incinerator is built. Their reasons are simple enough: over the last five years they have invested in developing facilities to serve their businesses, and now operate more cost-effective ways of recycling, recovery and turning waste into fuel: in short, too many existing facilities would have to close. Since entering the waste market private-sector firms have driven innovation. They introduced fortnightly green-bin collections at a time councils only collected once a month and were the first to accept plastics and glass in the green bin. The councils were forced to respond, and later increased their own green bin collections to fortnightly and started accepting some plastics. Recycling of household waste has gone from an average of