Mary C. Serreze’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Speaking of civil disobedience in the name of climate change--last night in Russell, Massachusetts, self-described "housewife" Jana Chicoine was removed by the state police from a "open public information meeting" on a proposed wood burning biomass plant. Her crime? Quietly holding a sign.

  Russell is a battleground--developers there have been trying to site a 47-MW wood burning biomass plant on the Westfield River for the past three years, and are facing fierce opposition from a number of fronts. Chicoine is a spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Russell and a leader in the fight against the plant.

  The meeting had been organized by a group calling itself "Russell First," that bills itself as a simple, homespun, grassroots community group in favor of the plant. (Their domain name is owned by a Boston PR Firm...hmmm!)

  Panelists at the meeting included Rob Rizzo from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) and Catherine Miller, energy planner with the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. As Rob Rizzo spoke, Jana held a sign that said "simply not true," and spoke not a word.

  Donald Blair, co-chair of Russell First, interrupted Rizzo mid-sentence and stopped the meeting for thirty minutes, trying a number of tactics to try to eject Chicoine from the building. The local cop wouldn't touch Chicoine, choosing instead to call the Staties on his cell phone. When the state police, after much negotiating, finally laid hands upon Chicoine, she left peaceably.

  I've been following the biomass wars at the following blogspot. If anyone's interested, they can watch video of the police action last night in Russell, Massachusetts against housewife activist Jana Chicoine.

  http://biomassbuzz.blogspot.com/2009/08/police-action-russell-biomass.html

  On Thoreau, Walden and civil disobedience in the age of climate change posted 2 months, 4 weeks ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The key point on the biomass issue is the fact that, as a rule of thumb, woody biomass incineration emits 150% more CO2 per megawatt hour than coal plants do. See www.massenvironmentalenergy.org, a site maintained by scientist Mary Stuart Booth and attorney Alexandra Dawson, both of whom are Western Massachusetts residents.

  The second point has to do with the destructive impact upon forest resources. See www.maforests.org.

  The third has to do with a proposed national RES--and a host of state renewable portfolio standards--that grant renewable energy production credits to facilities that burn municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, and other highly toxic materials. The control of hazardous pollutants, particulate matter, and the like is inadequate to protect public health--the "Best Available Control Technology" standard for pollution control is based upion what's feasible for industry, not upon what will be safe for human and animal life. There are serious environmental justice concerns that come with the siting of many of these plants, which tend to be placed in poor neighborhoods, helped along by fast-track permitting.

   

   

   

   

  On Big biomass, bigger opposition posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Check out this blogpost featuring two audio recordings relevant to the biomass wars. Is wood-burning biomass carbon-neutral? What are the environmental impacts? Will the inclusion of incineration technologies in a national RES help or hinder us in our fight against global climate change?

  The first recording is from a nationally-syndicated radio show. SeaChange Radio broadcast a debate between Chris Matera, founder of Massachusetts Forest Watch and Bob Saul, head of domestic land acquisition with GMO Natural Resources. The second recording features EcoLaw's Margaret Sheehan, former Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental Protection Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, delivering a briefing to members of the US House of Representatives on the issue of biomass combustion and federal climate legislation.

  Both recordings together provide a good overview of the concerns that are being expressed nationwide about the wisdom of granting incineration technologies RECs and other subsidies within state and federal clean energy legislation.

  http://biomassbuzz.blogspot.com/2009/07/big-questions.html

   

  On Big biomass, bigger opposition posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 11 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  So, we're back to issues of scale. Atreyger, how much wood would be necessary to feed 165 MW of new biomass-to-electricity capacity? I'm told that it's about a half a million tons per year for a 50 MW plant. I'm also told that the entire timber harvest today in MA, on public and private lands, equals about half a million tons. If both facts are true, we're looking at a steep increase in logging activities in Massachusetts--a rough tripling. Can Massachusetts forests provide this much wood, let alone provide it sustainably? It would require that many private landowners, who have traditionally maintained their lots for aesthetic values, open their properties to commercial logging. It might not happen. If it doesn't, what will these plants burn, and where will they get it?

  It's my understanding that MA Energy and Environment Secretary Ian Bowles has called for a study of forest sustainability issues as they relate to the RECs assigned to wood-burning biomass electricity plants. So even top state regulators seem to be backing down from their initial enthusiasm for the large-scale implementation of these plants in western Massachusetts.

  Then there's the issue of the proposed biomass electricity plant in Springfield, Mass, which will co-fire construction and demolition debris. In the ENF submitted to the state for this burner, Palmer Paving proposes to put 3.11 tons of lead into the atmosphere per year. I know this is a whole other topic--toxics not CO2--but it illustrates the problem with very dirty technologies being granted Renewable Energy Credits and other subsidies under state and proposed federal climate legislation.

  So, back to my original post, before things got so heated (no pun intended)--I am beginning to suspect that a climate bill based upon Waxman-Markey may very well do more harm than good. I guess that puts me in the Hansen camp. So be it.

   

   

  On The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ACES edition posted 4 months, 1 week ago 38 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Atreyger--For the record, I do not, as a matter of policy, post anonymously or create "trolls." "BS Busters" and I are not the same person. You know who I am; I've even posted a photo. That's it; that's my only identity here.

  I'm simply pondering whether an ACES-based climate bill will do more harm than good, and have used the example of a controversial set of projects proposed for the region in which I live. In the Massachusetts case, it seems that policy makers are charging forward to grant RECs to projects that have not been been properly evaluated for their full potential impact upon global warming.

  ACES would place wood, garbage, and C&D-burning plants within the RES, and not account for CO2 at the stack. My question: Is the CO2 being properly accounted for in the forestry sector, then? Is the "biogenic" portion of Municipal Solid Waste being properly accounted for? If so, how?  I am curious.

  No, I'm not a forestry expert; you've called that one straight. But there are forestry experts in Massachusetts who, as we speak, are advocating for a full carbon life-cycle analysis of wood-burning biomass plants. I'll be interested in following this topic, iayperson that I am, as it unfolds.

   

   

  On The enemy of my enemy is my friend, ACES edition posted 4 months, 1 week ago 38 Responses