Saturday, December 28, 2013

Opinion: Curbing greenhouse gas

If the ANR is sincere about curbing greenhouse gas, it needs to make good on its promise. It can do so by taking a clear and explicit position in opposition to the proposal to build a biomass electric power plant in North Springfield.
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20131228/OPINION04/712289989/0/THISJUSTIN

14 comments :

  1. Gayle and Mike Morabito live in North Springfield. It's amusing just how environmentally conscious NIMBYs become when it contributes to their opposition about a plant in their neighborhood. Seems none of these fine folks ever uttered a public word about the matter of greenhouse gasses before plans were announced to construct a biomass facility in proximity to their homes. Suddenly, THEY CARE!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Standard practice for those proposing plants that environmentally are damaging is to label opponents as NIMBY's to mask the issues at hand. The planned pollution plant in North Springfield is a bad venture for all whether you live next to it or you live in China.

      Delete
    2. kudos , it don't matter if they have never uttered a word about this in the past. I don't feel it needs to be public information your stand on environmental issues for you have creditability on an issue. I applaud them for standing up for North Springfield residents as well as all others in this community. Wake up and realize this is bad for everyone involved, This is a step backward in our future.

      Delete
  2. Sounds like the neighbors are chiming in! Where were you all when those Idlenot trucks were spewing carbon emissions into the air and rumbling up and down are roads? Oh, that wasn't too close to your neighborhood, was it? What's standard practice is for NIMBY's to remain silent and oblivious until their little piece of nirvana is disturbed; then suddenly the issue is of world consequence. You all would have been trying to drive the great mills and shops out of Springfield had you lived in that era, too. The only ones asleep are those in opposition to any economic progress in Springfield; preferring instead to live in their little dream world where the Government of Eden will provide the fruit in the form of dole outs through Section 8 housing, EBT cards, welfare, and other wealth depleting programs. The opposition would be the same by the same cast of characters even if it were "green technologies" like wind turbines being erected instead of a biomass plant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BINGO - well said.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 12/28 at 9:22pm. Right on, Right on, Right on !!!

      Delete
    3. Your comments are right on target (9:22pm)!! I for one, a tax paying citizen of this town, will begin serious steps of leaving Springfield if we don't move forward with growing this town in a field other then human services. The kids should leave this town and the people needing the services provided by the state can stay here...what a great place this is turning out to be...(sarcasm). Can't wait to rescue my family from here.

      Delete
    4. not a Springfield resident and would not support Bio Mass here there or anywhere. Your all so desperate to have something to save this town, it's not going to happen. It is what it is, nothing.

      Delete
    5. And you are what you are, nothing!

      Delete
  3. I hear what you are saying. Consider though that maybe a more significant improvement in greenhouse gasses would come from eliminating all domestic wood burning stoves. Would this not make a greater contribution to air quality?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So ban all wood stoves at the expense of the users and build a pollution plant with tax payer dollars and subsidies that lines the pockets of a few of the elite? That makes as much sense as physicians being able to prescribe opiates until they kill their patients. What happened to common sense and ethics?

      Delete
    2. New biomass plants have to be equipped with an elaborate emissions filtering system to meet air pollution limits. So air pollution coming out of a modern biomass burning plant's giant smokestack is less than what burning the same amount of wood in thousands of home woodstoves would emit. But how much cleaner? In the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2010 draft “boiler rule” standards, issued as a legal requirement under the Clean Air Act, the standards for “major source” biomass burners allowed them to emit:
       
      8 times more particulates than coal
      66 times more acid gases than coal
      up to 80 times more carbon monoxide than coal
      up to 233 times more dioxins than coal

       EPA based these proposed limits on the “best performing” (lowest emitting) facilities that already exist. The biomass industry have since convinced them that having to meet such limits would hamper the growth of biomass so the EPA weakened the above control standards in their final revision.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Admin, finally some facts instead of junk.
      Reason for those numbers, my educated guess is that coal is almost, lets say, "pure fuel" except for that nasty sulfur. Wood has lots of other impurities in it, some that are just as bad. Put another way, I would rather smell charcoal burning than wood. Either is not very good for you to go around smelling though.

      Delete
  4. Tony, why not just consider banning all carbon based emissions, period. That would include the flatulence of the human race, too. To pose your own question back to you: Would this not make a greater contribution to air quality?

    ReplyDelete


Please keep your comments polite and on-topic. No profanity

R E C E N T . . . C O M M E N T S

Springfield Vermont News is an ongoing zero-income volunteer hyperlocal news gathering project. No paid advertising is accepted on this site but any Springfield business willing to place a link to this news blog on their site will be considered for a free ad here. Businesses, organizations and individuals may submit write-ups and photos about any positive happenings here in Springfield that they are associated with and would be deemed newsworthy. Email the Editor at ed44vt@gmail.com.

Privacy statement: This blog does not share personal information with third parties nor do we store any information about your visit to this blog other than to analyze and optimize your content and reading experience through the use of cookies. You can turn off the use of cookies at anytime by changing your specific browser settings. We are not responsible for republished content from this blog on other blogs or websites without our permission. This privacy policy is subject to change without notice and was last updated on January 1, 2017. If you have any questions feel free to contact Springfield Vermont News directly here: ed44vt@gmail.com

Pageviews past week

---

Sign by Danasoft - For Backgrounds and Layouts