One thing I've learned about winning a campaign is that usually, there is no
single strategy for winning; multiple strategies are needed.
My city, Springfield, Massachusetts, is being threatened with a reduction in air quality by the proposed construction of a "biomass" plant in Springfield. I put the word in quotes because somehow, biomass has gotten a blanket "green" endorsement from federal, state and local officials. Some of these people know very well that burning wood for energy is not green; others don't
want to know, and some lack information. The poor public knows the least of all.
A coalition of individuals and organizations have designed a petition which would prohibit the labeling as "green" any renewable and alternative energy sources that emit more greenhouse gases than coal. Yes, that's right, biomass plants are no better than coal-- and often worse-- in contributing to global warming.
From the new,
Stop Spewing Carbon website:
This proposed amendment will ensure that the Commonwealth’s efforts to curb global warming do not make climate change worse.
The amendment requires certain renewable and alternative energy sources to limit the amount of carbon dioxide emissions if they use combustion or pyrolization [decomposition by heating]. The proposed amendment requires renewable and alternative energy sources that use combustion or pyrolization to generate so called “clean and green” energy to keep their emissions at or under two hundred and fifty pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour in order to qualify as renewable or alternative energy sources for the purposes of the Renewable Portfolio Standards.
Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standards currently require that a certain percentage of energy sold in the Commonwealth comes from sources defined by law as “Class I” or “Class II” renewable energy sources. The proposed amendment would require waste-to-energy and biomass technologies that use combustion or pyrolization to emit less than two hundred and fifty pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour to be eligible for classification as “Class I” or “Class II” renewable energy sources. The statutory definitions of “Alternative Energy Development” and “Alternative Energy Property” would be amended to exclude such technologies that emit more than two hundred and fifty pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. Previously operational biomass plants that are retrofitted with advanced conversion technologies would be required to emit less than two hundred and fifty pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour in order to be considered an eligible “renewable energy generating source.”
In order to appear on the statewide ballot next year, we need 66,000 valid signatures between now and November 18, 2009. It's a BIG job, but at the least, it gives us the opportunity to talk to many people about biomass.
Petitions are available by emailing an address on the
Stop Spewing Carbon site. Also, I'm sure there will be a high level of coordination in Western Mass, seeing as we have
three plants proposed for our area. The Springfield plant, proposed by Palmer Renewable, is the worst of the three, seeing as it will be burning up to 75% "construction and demolition" wood-- that is, trash wood shipped in primarily from outside the state.
Email me if you want to know how to get involved in Springfield: michaelannb@gmail.com.
Photo from paulbence's photostream on Flickr.
People who want more information on the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) biomass plant now have a resource: Say No to Springfield Construction and Demolition Debris Incineration. Blogging I can do, but website creation is beyond me, so thanks to the Warner family for pulling this off.
