Grassroots Organization Appeals Biomass Decision

[Fledermaus]

I don't agree with the claims made by this organization, but I do believe people have the right to protest. I think it is reasonable to ask for proof regarding sustainable harvest of forest.

It is not the weather that is heating up controversy in Greenfield. It is the proposed Biomass plant.

In July, the Zoning Board of Appeals in Greenfield gave the go-ahead to the Biomass power plant developers. And that has fueled the opposition to file an appeal.

The rumblings of trucks going in and out of the future site of a biomass plant, won't quiet those who oppose it.

"It is going to eat up all the area trees to keep it going," said James Hume who lives near the site and filed an appeal.

The grassroots organization, Concerned Citizens of Franklin County are rallying, and appealing, the Zoning Board of Appeals' decision to grant a special permit to the developers of the 47 Megawatt Biomass plant off of route 2 in North Greenfield. They've filed an appeal in Land Court in Boston.

http://www.cbs3springfield.com/news/local/52912387.html

[kirby]

1. NIMBY...

No one ever wants these things in their backyard... Somewhere else is great, but not near me.

[kristopher]

2. I don't think that is quite accurate.

NIMBY is a pejorative used by proponents of land use projects to demonize and dismiss environmentally motived opponents of those projects.

I'm not saying the plant isn't justified, however, I also wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the word "biomass" makes the plant desirable. A plant that size requires a huge amount of wood for fuel, and if that wood isn't available from existing waste streams (and it would require some serious tree consumption to produce enough waste to fuel a generator this size) then the fuel either has to come from trees cut explicitly for the purpose or (more likely) there will be a move to use other waste streams - and that would very likely mean the plant ends up being a trash incinerator.

If trash is used as a feedstock you are opening up a big can of worms regarding toxins. There is work on extremely high temperature incineration methods that can safely handle garbage, but I don't think that has generally achieved commercial viability yet.

[kirby]

3. Using your trash example...

So what is the alternative? Why shouldn't a community that generates the waste, live with the results of their waste? Why is it more fair to ship it off to some other town/state/country?

A lot of the people I see opposing things are not environmentally motivated. Instead, they use the environmental laws, as their method to stop something from being built in their back yard. A lot of time its boils down to property values or spoiling the view. It seems the normal channels of opposition especially with the corporation influence of elected officials, leaves the people opposed to use the environmental laws as a last resort. In the end, it lumps all environmentalists in together.

[kristopher]

4. That's nothing but an irrational rant.

Why is incineration the only method of "liv(ing) with the results of their wastes"?

What is the evidence the waste will be shipped elsewhere if this plant isn't built?

I wholeheartedly agree there is a great deal of astro-turfing going on and that manipulation of environmental laws is one of their favored tactics. However, that isn't the basis of your remarks on this project. You automatically concluded with absolutely no evidence that people opposed to building an incinerator have selfish motives that are unworthy of consideration; which is, BTW, a right wing meme.

[kirby]

5. Thanks for accusing me of an irrational rant.

I live in an area that opposes an incinerator. We already overflowed our landfill. I've been to the town halls/zoning meetings. Citizens are content with shipping their waste to other counties where it is out of sight rather than having a local incinerator or god forbid figure out some method to reduce, reuse, recycle.