The Climate Bill Hits Home

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich issued a press release last week explaining why he voted against H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, referred to as the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. One of Kucinich's reasons is relevant to Western Massachusetts, where four biomass-fueled, electricity-generating plants are proposed—in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield, and Pittsfield.

The developer of the Greenfield facility, Matt Wolfe, 34, does not deny that biomass plants emit more CO2 into the atmosphere, per unit of energy produced, than coal. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, however, biomass burners are not bound by greenhouse gas cap-and-trade conventions.

Kucinich, on his opposition to the bill:

"11. Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.” Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic substances. These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics. Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global warming."

Read the whole story as reported in the Cleveland Leader.

The HuffingtonPost has some good reporting on the vote in Congress.

Springfield's Spiraling Poverty

Two great essays appeared this week on the subject of Springfield, Massachusetts, and the descent of its inner neighborhoods into poverty.

Poor Springfield, written by the Springfield Intruder's Bill Dusty, cites compelling Brookings Institution statistics on the state of the city's South End, and reports on controversy surrounding a plan by WinnDevelopment to develop more low-income housing in a neighborhood that is already tanking fast. Dusty writes:

"In Springfield’s South End - a prime breeding ground for the kind of despair that grips much if the city - the neighborhood suffers under the burden of a 50% poverty rate. Things are about to get worse, too, as the former Longhill Gardens site will be bringing in over one hundred more low income families just up the road..."

Maureen Turner, in this week's Valley Advocate, reports on a new book entitled "Metal Fatigue: American Bosch and the Demise of Metalworking in the Connecticut River Valley" (Baywood Publishing, 2009) written by UMass-Lowell professor Robert Forrant.

Turner writes:

"Companies like Bosch played a crucial role in Springfield's development. For 150 years, Forrant writes, the city sat at the center of a prosperous manufacturing corridor that ran along the Connecticut River, stretching from Bridgeport up into Vermont. Springfield's good fortune began back in the late 18th century, when Congress selected it as the site for a federal armory; the armory, in turn, helped spur other manufacturing development in the city, with a particular focus on metalworking and machine parts. Springfield became known as an area for innovation—Forrant calls it the Silicon Valley of its day—where new techniques and technologies spread from plant to plant, and drew new businesses to the area."

Dusty, in his essay, makes the following observation:

"The two primary industries in the city today appear to be infrastructure improvements via state and federal aid and the construction of affordable housing. Few private businesses come here. And when large companies like Baystate Health or MassMutual do invest in the city, the skilled jobs they create are mostly taken up by people who reside elsewhere. Or by people who want to reside elsewhere. One would be hard-pressed, indeed, to find a family hoping to someday move into the city of Springfield. And that is a shame."

Poor Springfield, indeed.

Here's a link to the Boston Globe's review of Robert Forrant's "Metal Fatigue."

Biomass: Greenfield, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Russell

Four large-scale wood-burning biomass electrical plants are planned, by private developers, for the Western Massachusetts towns of Russell, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Greenfield. (A smaller plant is planned for the central Massachusetts town of Fitchburg.) The Russell, Greenfield, and Springfield plants are well along in the permitting process, having cleared a significant hurdle— MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) approval by the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Springfield plant is the only one of the four permitted to burn construction and demolition debris (C&D).

MEPA approval was not as onerous for these project developers as it could have been. Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles, for both the Greenfield and Springfield plants, has ruled that no Environmental Impact Report (EIR) need be filed. Bowles has chosen to examine each plant as a separate entity, ruling that the cumulative impact of the five plants on the region need not be considered in any individual MEPA review. "While MEPA requires that a proponent assess the cumulative and indirect impacts of a proposed project, there is a clear distinction between that obligation and a requirement that the review of a single project serve as the vehicle for long-range sustainability planning," Bowles wrote.

On June 16, the Springfield Area Sustainable Energy Association (SASEA) sponsored a panel discussion at Western New England College on "The Dangers of Wood-Burning Electrical Plants (Biomass Incinerators) in Greater Springfield and Western Massachusetts." Speakers included Dr. Ellen Moyer, Ph.D, P.E., principal of Greenvironment LLC; Chris Matera, P.E., founder of Massachusetts Forest Watch; Jana Chicoine, spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Russell, and Margaret E. Sheehan, an environmental lawyer from Williamstown.

Biomass incineration, attorney Sheehan told the audience, while banned in New Hampshire and Connecticut, is encouraged in Massachusetts through provisions of the Green Communities Act and Global Warming Solutions Act. Federal and state funding, she continued, is available for the construction and operation of biomass plants, and ratepayer subsidies for "green energy" further sweeten the deal.

"The four western Mass plants...have collectively been granted one million dollars from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative to develop their plans and permits...The plant in Greenfield will be eligible to collect 60 million dollars in federal stimulus money from within three weeks of coming on line. It will receive production tax credits and investment tax credits, and (on the state level) will generate RECs, or renewable energy credits, that coal-burning utilities must buy.

"The typical wood-burning plant emits more greenhouse gases, such as CO2 (carbon dioxide), than the worst coal-burning plant...Biomass, unlike coal, does not have to comply with any cap-and-trade program, because the state has decided that these plants are carbon-neutral...

"But the USA EPA in April issued an endangerment finding, saying that CO2 emitted today will not be absorbed for hundreds to thousands of years...yet the DEP, in issuing its air permits for these plants, does not consider greenhouse gases in its determination."

Chris Matera focused his presentation on forestry impacts."190 megawatts of electricity will require 2.5 million tons of wood per year...a tripling of current logging practices in the state will be required...generating 600 logging truck trips per day...They can't be fed on waste wood alone; there is nowhere near an adequate supply."

Matera argues that a state Department of Energy Resources report showing that the forest can be sustainably harvested to feed five plants is in error. "The numbers just don't add up. You can be assured, clear-cutting and heavy logging methods will occur." According to Matera, the report targets state forests to provide 532,000 green tons of wood annually to the biomass industry, a tenfold increase over historic state forest logging levels.

Dr. Moyers, an environmental scientist, reported on a 2006 air quality study, often cited by industry proponents, that examined the burning of construction and demolition wood. "The Northeast States Coordinated Air Use Management Report, or NESCAUM study, relied upon very little data...the NESCAUM report is seriously flawed...This report should not be relied upon for any public policy regarding the burning of C and D wood. Much better science is needed."

Russell resident Jana Chicoine received a strong ovation. "Over the past four years, I have transformed from a housewife, who was just trying to mind her own business, to a community organizer and public speaker. My goal is to help every community that is faced with one of these proposals to develop the will and tools to politely say no...Ultimately, we must address what's driving all of this—the renewable energy subsidies, which are being taken away from technologies like wind and solar, and being given to biomass incinerators and other combustibles. Right now, 79 percent of the so-called clean energy in Massachusetts is coming from a smokestack....We're being told one thing, and being given something quite different."