All posts in the topic Fw: Apologies and Next Steps (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Jonathan Long at 2007 Jul 02 00:19 UTC
Alan Muller's post is absolutely priceless (and funny!)
Whether or not it was the intent of everyone involved, the scenario was
scripted by SOMEONE and it has played out exactly as Alan has described it.
Alan Muller wrote,
"My impression here, as an outsider, is that certain interests got together
and developed a burner scheme. Then, they developed a process of public
"discussion" intended to lock people in, intellectually speaking, to going
along with it. (For instance, by making it an integral part of a "plan"
that has other appealing aspects....) This is a standard technique. One of
many taught in seminars in community manipulation."
But Alan, where can the layperson get a good, government-subsidized course
in community manipulation these days? Hmmm... why wasn't I invited?
Alan Muller wrote, "Part of the intent is to cause frustration and goad
people into marginalizing themselves with intemperate language..."
Wellllll...don't we know it! Somehow when people are targeted as an
"acceptable risk" for sickness or death they seem to become terribly
impolite. Can't we do something about that?
Thanks for the laugh, this is great.
As leaders in the community working for sustainable energy solutions, the
Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Collaborative created this forum to encourage
discussion. Many of the opponents to the Russel Biomass Plant believe we are
either ill-intentioned or duped. I don't see anything funny here. Most of
the people in this forum want to do other things than listen to how
ill-intentioned or duped the leadership is. Since we have been unable to
invite people into a respectful dialog, I'm hearing from people that they'd
like to see the forum closed down.
As an alternative, we could have a moderated forum where only comments that
reflected the belief that thoughtful, good people believe there is a role
for biomass plants in our region and other thoughtful, good people
disagree. I'd personally like to be a part of that conversation. There are
things I'd like to talk about that I haven't been able to discuss given the
tone here.
Hi Lynn,
This post regards the current state of affairs relating to the e-democracy
forums and the Russell Biomass proposal. On July 2, 2007 you wrote in part "As
leaders in the community working for sustainable energy solutions, the Pioneer
Valley Clean Energy Collaborative created this forum to encourage discussion."
Personally speaking, I note it is quite apparent that this discussion is taking
place.
You further stated "...good people believe there is a role for biomass plants
in our region and other thoughtful, good people disagree. I'd personally like
to be a part of that conversation. There are things I'd like to talk about that
I haven't been able to discuss given the tone here." I would have to reply that
under the e-demo heading of "Pioneer Valley Clean Energy Discussion" there are
numerous groups providing "OTHER opportunities for participation." Lynn, I am
not being a wise guy with the caps, the previous phrase is simply what is
written on the page. One group category is simply marked "Biomass. This group
apparently has zero members. One would also think that the discussions relating
to other biomass plants should be directed to that specific forum, but this has
not been the case. In addition, I have been following news of the Swift River
hydroelectric project which is located just downstream of the proposed Russell
plant. I know of a couple of old mill dams in Westfield that might have similar
potential for development. Alas, the group marked "Hydro" also has zero
members. If I wasn't so wrapped up in the Russell discussion I would be posting
there. In any case, it is obvious the bulk of the activity on these boards
really revolves around the Russell proposal.
Lynn, please allow me to make a brief observation concerning the "tone" of the
conversations. On June 29, 2007 you wrote "Just to clarify what I meant when I
said I thought we needed to demand less and listen more, I was talking about
the tone of our conversation. I think asking questions is great. People just
don't respond when someone demands they do things." As most of the folks on the
Russell Biomass boards have noted, I have been posting criticisms of the data
found in the old 2005 Russell Biomass Expanded Environmental Notification Form,
along with its various appended studies. Despite the fact that the proponents
will in the next few weeks submit a new Draft Environmental Impact Report, the
old EENF and its related studies are the only data that has been made publicly
available concerning the project. For well over one year, I and others have
been asking for either new information, or data that clarifies the gaps in the
EENF.
I will state again that the Russell Biomass Public Information Officer has
refused to provide additional up to date information on the project.
Note for example that previous questions relating to water discharges have gone
unanswered. I noted on June 22, 2007 "...the EENF is getting a bit long in the
tooth. The paucity of recent information concerning the plant is staggering."
Allow me to also mention that Russell Biomass Information Officer John Bos has
rarely, if never, addressed any of the conclusions in my previous posts over
the last year. It is this state of affairs that has caused the "tone" of the
conversation to become more strident. On the other hand, I fully expect that
the soon to be published Draft Environmental Impact Report, or DEIR, will
address many of these concerns. It should be available in the next few weeks
and contain both recent and revised environmental studies relating to the
proposal.
Lynn, you also wrote "Many of the opponents to the Russell Biomass Plant
believe we are either ill-intentioned or duped." Allow me to illustrate a
slight of hand concerning the Third Party Review of the scientific studies. On
June 21, 2007 I posted "I am rather concerned that the Third Party will receive
"new" data that has not to this moment been made available for public
consumption." While this was a not too subtle allusion to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, it is curious to note that Phil LaBranche stated
in part the same day:
"ARI has become the other set of eyes to review what is going on and what has
been said. There will be no new studies done, as the job of ARI is to review
what Russell Biomass has already submitted/completed." END QUOTE
It is most puzzling that there is nary a mention of the new Draft Environmental
Impact Report in the post. The phrase "there will be no new studies done" oddly
even suggests that the Third Party will be looking at the old data. On the
other hand the new studies found in the Draft Environmental Impact Report will
most certainly be made available in the 90 day review period. Maybe he just
forgot to mention it.
Phil LaBranche also stated:
"The purpose of the Third Party Review is to have another set of eyes review
the data that Russell Biomass has submitted. Presently there has been much
contention as to which "facts" are true-Russell Biomass, LLC saying they are
telling the truth, while CCR saying they're not." END QUOTE
From my perspective, the "controversy relating to facts" concerns prior
statements found in the old EENF and related studies. It does not relate to
"facts" in the new Draft Environmental Impact Report, simply because it has yet
to be published. Again, there is no doubt this new document will attempt to
address many of the issues previously presented by myself and others. I will
further assume that the proponents will view this document as vindicating their
position. While I have no problem at all with the Third Party Review accessing
the revised material, what concerns me here is this line of discourse that
attempts to establish (my quote) "who is right and who is wrong."
It is curious to note that this "right - wrong" dichotomy is also a principal
feature of a recent post by Russell Biomass Information Officer John Bos. On
June 19, 2007 Mr. Bos wrote in the Russell Biomass II forum:
"If Jonathan is correct in his criticisms they will be verified by the Town's
consultant. On the other hand if Russell Biomass is correct that will also be
verified." END QUOTE
Bos also stated:
"CCR spokesman Jonathan Long articulates a number of important environmental
concerns about the proposed Russell Biomass power plant and questions whether
our health and environmental impact studies were done correctly. Therefore, he
should be should be eagerly looking forward to the results of a third party
review of our impact studies now in process by a highly qualified environmental
consultant." END QUOTE
Again it is curious to note that he carefully avoids mentioning the Draft
Environmental Impact Report in the post. Again, maybe it slipped his mind. My
unease stems from the possibility that this is an attempt to discredit critics
of the proposal, such as myself. My personal criticisms have been levied
against information stemming only from available documentation. Some of this
dates from 2005. While there is no doubt that the new DEIR will contain up to
date studies and data, the problem is that it has not yet been made accessible.
I have not yet read it. While Phil LaBranche and John Bos have not stated as
such, I have no doubt that the Third Party reviewing the data will be
referencing the new DEIR and not the musty old EENF.
To currently establish "who is right and who is wrong" on this basis is flat
wrong and I for one, refuse to be duped.
Regarding the folks who want this forum shut down. I say disregard them. It
takes civic courage to state your opinion through posting.
I'm sure those same folks were happy when Ms. O'Donnell left The View.