Sarah Lloyd, Cambrians for Thoughtful Development

Sarah Lloyd is a member of Cambrians for Thoughtful Development, a citizens group concerned about a proposed ethanol plant in Cambria, Wis. She also works at the Aldo Leopold Foundation and tends to a large garden from which she eats and sells vegetables locally.

Today should be an interesting day. At 12:30, I will be on a radio show with representatives from Didion Milling and a University of Wisconsin professor who is billed as an expert on energy and land use. The show will air for 30 to 45 minutes on the AM station in Beaver Dam. I bumped into Didion's PR consultant last night, and she said she would be on the radio with me. It is interesting how much money Didion is willing to spend on PR professionals and mailings when it refuses to pay for an independent assessment of the potential impact of its proposed ethanol plant.

In response to citizen pressure, the village board passed a motion in January to commission just such an assessment of Didion's proposed plant. The board's planning committee recommended that this assessment investigate a range of issues, including emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter, odor, noise, sewer and water services, train and truck traffic, storage and transportation of hazardous chemicals, emergency response plans, property values, options for setting up performance bonds, and so forth. Didion has refused to pay for this assessment, instead acting as if these kinds of studies are some sort of cruel and unusual punishment.

As citizens, we are told that it is improper for us to want independent assessments of air and water issues; we should trust the state Department of Natural Resources and EPA to protect us. The Didion ethanol plant would be allowed to emit up to 100 tons of VOCs per year, and people assume that if this is the permissible level, it must be safe. But we have been in contact with some people from Lena, Ill., where an ethanol plant is causing lots of grief. The plant has been out of compliance with regards to air emissions on a daily basis, yet it cannot be shut down. Tests in November showed that the plant was emitting three times the permitted level of CO2 and twice the permitted level of VOCs.

I have visited three ethanol plant sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin. All were at least three-quarters of a mile from any concentration of houses, whereas ours will be adjacent to a school. The prevailing attitude is that we are supposed to take one for the team and allow this plant to pollute our lungs and the lungs of our children. Anything else is dismissed as simple NIMBY complaining.

But what will the "team" gain if we give up our environment, our health, and our quality of life? Local farmers are being promised five more cents per bushel of corn to continue their economically and environmentally unsustainable farming practices. The key word here is "promised." We are told that ethanol will lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels (and of course then you have to mention war on Iraq and wave a flag; a homemade billboard down the road from my house proclaims "HECK OPEC -- Ethanol.") The problem is, several studies indicate that it takes at least 1 BTU of fossil fuel to produce 1 BTU of ethanol. The natural gas bill at the Monroe, Wis., ethanol plant is over $100,000 a month. We are also told that using ethanol in our cars will reduce air pollution. That seems to be true, but using ethanol in cars also reportedly increases NOx emissions, which play a larger role in the creation of smog in urban centers.

So I guess with all that in mind, I say, sure, I'll play the NIMBY card.