ECC NEWSLETTER:
November 2007
More and more, as the data and the reports come in about global warming, they are not getting any better, and even more frightening. There isn’t any great outcry, like WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT DOING ABOUT IT? The other frightening aspect, even the local papers aren’t informing us, not one report did I see that this summer, a hunk of the North Pole ice, the size of Britain just melted, and that for the very first time in human history, one could pass by boat through the waters of the North Pole passage. Don’t people know? Are we all asleep to the fact that this Planet is in crisis? And no one is saying, MY GOD! DO SOMETHING!
In the book “Ignition”, one of the contributors, John Passacantando, writes about activism and he said, “Love without anger isn’t activism, it is someone who needs therapy.” He goes on to say that love followed by anger can be inspirational and anyone can learn it, it is a folk craft, that “knowing what inspires you empowers you.” He notes that most of the elite, the editors, the politicians, journalists and TV networks get it, SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? It is US, YOU AND ME. We need to act and tell our Legislators what we want, and then they will respond accordingly!!!
We can no longer ignore and tolerate the idea that we can live without natural ecosystems, the oceans, the ice caps, permafrost, whales, sharks, elephants, tigers, wolves, polar bears, trees, rain forests, marshes, to name a few, that the faster we can cash in on their assets, it is hurrah for us. The time has arrived, we are on our last big shopping spree, we have blown our wad and it is time to pay the piper. We have passed the time for ignoring, being ignorant and being arrogant about the scientific facts.
In my day of WW II, as a child, we participated in air raid drills from possible attacks, next it was drills to hit the ground and go under the desks for possible atomic holocaust. Today, the threat is Planet Meltdown and YES the children need to be informed so they can participate in the solution! It is their future, their EARTH that we must PROTECT AT ALL COSTS!
There is some remaining time to prevent the severe negative outcome. Besides changing a light bulb, below is another way to make a big difference.
As Chair of the Recycling Committee, Diane Vasseur writes, “This month's ECC meeting is in honor of Connecticut recycles day. It is part of a national recycling awareness event that started in 1997. Held yearly on November 15, the purpose of the day is to increase public participation in local recycling programs and to increase awareness of the related issues of reducing waste, reuse, composting and buying products made from recycled materials.” We will also be giving away reusable shopping bags, a gift from a number of local markets, Trader Joe’s, Stop & Shop, Adams and Shop Rite. We will have a panel of three speakers to discuss recycling in more detail.
Representative Richard Roy who is also Co-chair of the Environmental Committee. He will speak on E-waste (electronic waste).
Tessa Gutowski is a Management Analyst 3 for the Commissioner’s Office - Office of Planning and Program Development. Tessa earned BS and MS Degrees from the University of Connecticut. She will be speaking about CT’s Waste, “The Big Picture”.
Sarah Uhl works for Clean Water Action as the full-time coordinator of the coalition for a Safe and Healthy Connecticut. She will be talking about chemicals in the home. There will be questions and answers afterwards.
There has been much discussion and talk about increasing the number of waste incinerators in the state and elsewhere, for the purpose of not only keeping waste from landfills but for the purpose of producing electricity. However, it is a two-sided sword. It may reduce waste but on the other hand it also has a serious polluting factor. I was reminded about the legislation that is coming up very soon with an email from Katherine Woodhead who is representing Environmental Justice and is petitioning Senator Lieberman to change the legislation regarding the building of waste incinerators. I am introducing this problem because it relates so well to recycling and our responsibility for what we buy, throw away and how it helps to emit pollutants, thus causing health problems in our surrounding air water and soil. So I sent a copy to two of our most energy educated ECC members, Dana Rotman and Barbara Bell, to make comments on the production of energy through waste incineration. I am reprinting their remarks in their entirety, as it demonstrates how complicated and how important it is to weigh the pros and cons of these decisions, which our representatives will be facing.
Dana’s piece follows:
“I have to go back to the UI Co. and think of all the big projects, many of which were controversial and costly and refused for construction as they raised costs above the national standards of costs for power plants in dollars invested per kilowatt of installed capacity, while others were not politically expedient. There were others we carried out, where I was deeply involved, that went ahead and made big changes in fuel burning and pollution reductions that we put into full service in weeks, when the big boiler companies told us it would take 52 weeks to try this and have it in service! Many of these things which began right here in this relatively small utility have gone on to be country and worldwide accepted as new standards. I was most happy to see this being in the positions of responsibility I had for a young fellow. We had several
younger and older fellows that were exemplary in their abilities and ideas.
My feelings are that incineration is not the problem totally. We are now concerned with fluorescent bulbs and where to take them. Has anyone you know asked about this in years past? For years, I have looked to have something done about disposal and was told to just "put it in the trash". They ought to be treated like aluminum and glass containers somehow.
Just look at the candy you collected for trick or treat! So many candies and fast foods, even in the restaurants are wrapped in a shiny foil type wrapper and this is METAL! This is a small amount, but still metal and it is going to the incinerator. If not to an incinerator where would you put it? There was a long article in the paper the past few days on the DEP looking to get a private firm to take over this capped landfill, which I think is along Route 8 above Shelton. It will be there forever. I think boiler ash is now being trucked to the midwest. If a boiler is burning a high ash, low BTU low sulphur coal, as is in Bridgeport Harbor Station Unit 3 at the rate, of 5,000 tons per day and with an ash content of like 10%, that means they are having to remove 500 tons each day of full load burning. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to look at this. Again, I still say the only thing we can do is CONSERVE! Yet how many still laugh at this.
Beyond that, it is all political. When I hear the word "Sooty Six" I still cringe as I know how hard we tried and yet what we built and put into service was as allowed and decreed by the politicians for allowable discharges of all types. Again, if you went beyond the norm on these things the cost of construction, operations, and maintenance went out of line with plants being built and operated nationwide and you were subject to close scrutiny by the political groups for costs which were the base for the cost per kilowatt generated and sold to the people of the franchised territory.”
Barbara’s reply: “The message came in on my e-mail too, and I thought about it. In the end, I agree with Dana. He knows a great deal about this subject, much more than I do. As he says, when power plants are built nowadays, just as when the Sooty Six were built, they have to conform to current air pollution guidelines, so any new incinerators would have to have the latest technology. The big problem comes as time goes by and plants that met the old guidelines aren't upgraded: that's where the problem came with the Sooty Six, and the details are terribly complex, mostly energy market type stuff, so I won't go further on that subject, except to say that, in my opinion (perhaps not the same as Dana's), the Sooty Six campaign was justified and the outcome has decreased air pollution in CT, even though it has increased the price of electricity.
Back to the main line of thought--you're right, new incinerators would have to play by today's rules and minimize mercury and other pollutants. Another thread of the argument being proposed here is that trash shouldn't be considered a renewable fuel because it's so full of pollutants. While I understand that argument, I don't buy it. The alternative to burning trash is putting it in a landfill, and CT doesn't have enough landfill room for trash. The DEP is 100% against more landfills; indeed, that's the basis for their latest new policy statements on solid waste. I believe the DEP was instrumental in getting trash classified as a renewable fuel. Should it be a class 1 renewable fuel?
Reasonable people can disagree on that. That's for another day. Maybe it should be class II or III. Class and subsidies are linked, as you know. I don't necessarily think incinerators should be subsidized to the extent that cleaner forms of renewable energy are, because the fuel and the technology are so readily available. Thus, to an extent, I agree with the anti-incinerator pitch. On the other hand, however, I think it's certainly preferable to the present (untenable) situation for us to welcome new incinerators. We just have to a) make sure they adhere to air pollution laws and/or land-use laws; and b) we have to build up all kinds of enterprises "surrounding" them, for instance, enterprises that sort building demolition materials to separate metals from wood, treated wood from untreated wood, etc., maximizing recycling possibilities and offering all sorts of new jobs.
The (almost) bottom line here is that I'm not against incinerators but I think they should be tightly regulated and don’t think they should necessarily be put on the "a-list" for funding.
The (real) bottom line solution, however, is efficiency. (I include "conservation" under the heading of efficiency.) Given everyone's limited time, instead of writing more letters against incinerators, we should be writing more letters in favor of efficiency. We have to buy fewer products or, at the very least, to design products with less packaging, fewer inherently wasteful features, and more recyclable features. I think it's futile to try cutting off every type of plant producing electricity while the demand for electricity keeps growing. Enviros have to challenge demand. This is Dana's real bottom-line opinion, and I agree with it entirely.”
According to the letter going to Lieberman, they make a long list of the negatives for these plants, especially that they do emit mercury, lead, and dioxins being their major pollutants, which cannot easily be removed from their emissions. These plants cost $½ billion and usually end up in low-income neighborhoods.
Diane writes: “Never underestimate how much you matter. Our homes are a microcosm of the world at large. Our homes are the best place to mirror the kind of changes that we wish to see flourish in the world at large, it is a natural progression. Together, we are going to evolve sustainable views towards the way we gather resources & return them to natural state. We need to consider the consequences of consuming. Our world is consumer driven so what we do, matters.”
Ann Berman, Chair Environmental Concerns Coalition
|
