V a t t e n f a l l - Sweden´s other face

-
Back in January, knowing that you were being falsely informed, I was concerned to ensure that you received accurate information. As I also wrote to you, the people of Horno regarded the involvement of a state-owned Swedish concern in the Lausitz mining business with a certain relief; such is Sweden's reputation – up to now! – for environmental protection and exemplary human rights policies. I am now forced to accept that this was an illusion. It has become clear, that Vattenfall lives off Sweden's reputation – in the same way that LAUBAG lives off the environment and uprooted people – while ac tively undermining it.
-
Having read your "Letter from the CEO" from October 16, 2001 (www.vattenfall.com), it is now abundantly clear, that with regard to LAUBAG's misinformation policy you have thrown all restraint to the wind:
-
" The village of Horno must be moved in order for these operations [brown coal mining and electricity generation] to continue. This is the assessment of the German federal state of Brandenburg (…). This means that we must show consideration and respect for our host country, for all the citizens of Brandenburg, and for their democratically-based decision-making bodies, authorities and courts."
-
The fact is, Mr. Josefsson, that there is no German law that requires the destruction of Horno. The Braunkohlengrundlagengesetz – also known as the "Horno Law" – from 1997 contains no provision that Horno be destroyed. The Act provides for the dissolution of Horno as a municipal entity and its incorporation into the municipality of Jänschwalde, but not for the physical destruction of Horno. If the legislators had intended this, they would have written it into the Act.
-
The Braunkohlengrundlagengesetz (Article 1 § 2) allows the devastation of villages if it is "unavoidable"; but nowhere in the Act is it stated that the devastation of Horno is unavoidable. The reason for this is that in 1997 not Parliament but the Brown Coal Committee (Braunkohlenausschuß) – a regional planning body – was responsible for determining that a planned resettlement was unavoidable.
-
The test of unavoidability can only be the public interest. In the case of strip-mining, the pillars of public interest are safe and cheap electricity as well as employment. Even the Chairman of the Lausitzer Braunkohle AG (LAUBAG) admitted in the summer of 2000, that lights in the Lausitz will not go out and electricity not become more expensive, even if the Jänschwalde power station were to be shut down altogether. And so far as employment is concerned, the Jänschwalde power plant can continue in operation and Horno can be bypassed by the mine, without appreciable loss of jobs. This means, t hat the resettlement of Horno is not unavoidable. Vattenfall would therefore not breech any German law, if it took the strategic decision not to destroy Horno.
-
< 1 2 3 >