Post in Is honest discourse possible here?
I am troubled by the recent posting on this forum suggesting that is cynical,
dishonest, or unwise to answer "No" to the question of whether one endorses the
Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Draft Plan. I have uploaded a document in the File
Room that is Approximately 3-4 years old called "Category 8 Incentives, Biomass
Friendly Zoning, Siting Network and Buy Local Campaign." This document was
created by the Pioneer Valley Renewable Energy Collaborative (PVREC) and is
from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission web site. (This was back when they
thought Russell Biomass was a 20-25MW Plant.) At that time, the PVREC
expressed a goal of creating a "BIOMASS FRIENDLY ZONE" in the Pioneer Valley.
This work that the PVREC, led by the PVPC, and others had planned may not have
received funding, but now, within the larger "Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Plan"
we seem to be seeing many of the same elements: unqualified promotion of
biomass burning as "clean energy", biomass advertising, rewriting local zoning,
getting environmentalists to sign on, and keeping an eye out for those who
might cause trouble. On page 14, section 2.3 we read, "Among The most
sophisticated stakeholders such as the American Lung Association, when they
examine the best currently available and emerging technologies, legitimate
questions arise about particulate size, emissions dispersion, disposal of
biproducts, etc." I will let each of you read the document for yourself, but I
am worried that the "grave concerns" of Jeff Seyler, CEO of the Massachusetts
American Lung Association, are being ignored. He wrote, "The proposed Russell
Biomass power plant is a potential health threat to thousands of Massachusetts'
residents and requires the full attention of all Massachusetts citizens...Both
ozone pollution and particulate matter have been scientifically linked to
premature death and are of serious concern."
Lynn, your posting makes me ask whether this 'collaborative' renewable energy
plan was really setup to engage citizens, or is it just to promote "BIOMASS" as
"CLEAN" when it is not. We should only be promoting truly clean projects and
not projects that threaten the health of thousands of Valley residents. The
PVREC, led by the PVPC, knew years ago that the ALA would have concerns, and
they know now that the ALA has "grave concerns", and yet they gloss over this
and press on with promoting large-scale biomass proposals. If the ALA's words
continue to be disregarded, then each and every person that carries on to
promotion of this type of energy needs to be accountable to the thousands of
Valley residents whose health is at risk. I will NOT promote any plan that
wants to use 80MW from huge biomass facilities to reach their 100MW goal and I
have detailed my reasons in my survey comments. That is not being cynical,
dishonest or unwise. It is being an honest and proactive citizen of the
Pioneer Valley who is being cautious not to promote something that is not what
is appears to be at first glance.
The following file was added to this topic: