via Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production.

This evening I was on a panel at a public meeting about the proposed Biomasss Incinerator where I was heckled by individuals who accused me of providing misinformation to the public about the massive subsidies that will be paid for by the US taxpayer to plant and harvest trees to be burned in incinerators to create energy.

I stated that the taxpayer would fund up to 75% of the cost to plant trees and 75% of the cost to cut the trees down. The information is undeniable and accurate. You can read all about the USDA Crop assistance program here and decide for yourself who was providing accurate information.

David Gardner, Director of the Gadsden County Chamber of Commerce was recently quoted in the Tallahassee Democrat as saying “Wednesday’s announcement in Gretna was the culmination of three years’ worth of effort, including the determination of an appropriate site and building community support.”

The Gretna Biomass Incinerator will be located on property adjacent to an elementary school with a 100% minority student population, a nearby residential neighborhood and a women’s correctional facility located directly across the street.

Reginald James, Superintendent of the Gadsden County School District stated during the presentation that CCGC was the first to bring the information pertaining to the Gretna Biomass Incinerator to the attention of the School Board.  After 3 years of “building community suport”, no effort had been made by Gadsden County, Chamber of Commerce or City of Gretna Officials to properly inform the school board or the community – we are still waiting.

Part 2 to follow.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2s5nQuh5Vs]

A national coalition of 48 citizen and environmental groups including Concerned Citizens of Gadsden County today launched a nationwide campaign to end federal financing for biomass incinerators being called “green energy.”   The groups delivered letters to Senate Finance Committee Chairs Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) in response to increased lobbying by the Biomass Power Association, timber, waste and energy companies seeking to create or extend lucrative tax credits for burning biomass (trash, tires, and anything else) to produce electric power. The groups say the biomass plants pose an undue risk to public health and the environment.

The letter says promoting these incinerators with public subsidies “on the false claim that it is “green” electricity is indefensible public policy.” The letter contains a chart comparing biomass emissions to coal, concluding that, “Current research, data from company permits and proposals, environmental impact reports, and government analyses show that for several key pollutants (notably CO2, NOx and particulates) biomass burning is “dirty energy” – worse than coal – and not “clean energy” as the industry claims.”

The letter notes that the 20,000-member Massachusetts Medical Society recently resolved to adopt a policy opposing biomass power plants on the grounds that they pose ‘an unacceptable health risk,’ and that similar resolutions have been passed by the American Lung Association of New England and the Florida Medical Society, in response to a spate of biomass power plant proposals in recent years.

“President Obama has announced a freeze on domestic spending for next year’s budget.  There are two hundred biomass plants lining up for grants in lieu of tax credits under the stimulus package, at a cost to taxpayers of at least a half a billion dollars.  Ending subsidies for incinerators falsely claiming to be clean energy is a good place to start cleaning up the federal budget deficit,” said Attorney Margaret Sheehan, spokesperson for the group.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-

*BiofuelWatch*Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League*

Buckeye Forest Council*Caney Fork Headwaters Association*Citizens Alliance for a Clean Healthy Economy*Citizens for a Safe Environment*Climate Crisis Coalition of the Twin Cities*Concerned Citizens of Crawford County*Concerned Citizens of Franklin County*Concerned Citizens of Gadsden County*Concerned Citizens of Russell*Cumberland Countians for Peace and Justice*Dogwood Alliance*EcoLaw*Energy Justice Network*Environmental Alliance of North Florida*Finger Lakes Zero Waste Coalition*Florida League of Conservation Voters*Floridians Against Incinerators in Disguise*Forest Ecology Network*Friends of Freetown/Fall River State Forest*Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives*Green Berkshires, Inc.*Green Delaware*Green Party of Florida*Green Press Initiative*Greenwich Citizens Committee, Inc.*Heartwood Alliance*HOPE (Help Our Polluted Environment)*Institute for Local Self Reliance*Jones River Watershed Association*Jones River Landing Environmental Heritage Center* Massachusetts Forest Watch*Neighbors Against the Burner*Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility*Oregon Center for Environmental Health*Physicians for Social Responsibility/Tampa Bay Chapter*Pike Gibson Citizens for a Quality Environment*Pioneer Valley Preservation Coalition*RESTORE: The North Woods*Samson County Citizens of a Safe Environment*Save America’s Forests*Sequoia ForestKeeper*Sound Resource Management*Stop Spewing Carbon* Trout Unlimited/Greater Boston Chapter*Washington Against Biomass Incineration*World Species List – Natural Features Registry Institute

Contact:   Dr. William Sammons, 781-799-0014, bill@ecolaw.biz

Attorney Margaret Sheehan, 508-259-9154, meg@ecolaw.biz

Citing “significant concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to forests associated with large scale biomass use” Mass Audubon  released a public statement today opposing the permitting, construction, and operation of electric generation woody biomass facilities pending proposed regulatory changes.

Download the entire statement to read Mass Audobon’s opposition to unsustainable biomass incineration of our forest resources.

Massachusetts Chapter of The Sierra Club

“The Sierra Club opposes the unsustainable exploitation of forest ecosystems. The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from forest or woody biomass, including the inefficiency of utility-scale wood-burning biomass energy production, the resultant operational CO2 emissions, and the associated impacts on forest ecosystems, air and water quality, and public health. Claims of “carbon neutrality” by biomass and industry proponents rely on outdated information and questionable assumptions.”

Download the entire statement to read Massachusets Chapter of The Sierra Club’s opposition to unsustainable biomass incineration of our forest resources.

Further, in a letter to Senator Anthony W. Petrucelli, Chair and Representative William M. Straus, Chair of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources & Agriculture, regarding Biomass – House Bill 759 and Overall Policy Challenges, dated December 22, 2009, the Sierra Club presented their newly adopted position on Biomass Incineration.

“The Sierra Club believes the environmental community and the legislature missed some key opportunities early on to question the concepts of biomass energy, including the inefficiency of utility-scale wood-burning biomass energy production, the resultant operational CO2 emissions, and the associated impacts on forest ecosystems, air and water quality, and public health. Unfortunately, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) has failed to provide the necessary oversight for proposed biomass facilities.”

The Shell Game

Gainesville Is Giving Away Its Energy Future

By Thomas Bussing

It defies belief that the biggest utility contract in our city’s history has been offered to an essentially empty paper entity whose principle activity is financial speculation, quick profit and quick sell-off.

We the people are committing to their 500 million dollar private contract to burn trees so that we can buy back electricity at more expensive rates.

Until now we were a municipal utility that built, owned and operated its system on behalf of the citizens. This deal transfers future ownership to shifting paper corporations who in turn sell off the rights they acquired from us.

Better hope it all works perfectly, because the bail-out leaves us bankrupt and in hock forever to outside private financiers.

We have been told that we cannot break this contract. We have been told it’s too late, that if it is stopped the city might incur a financial penalty for the default.

What we really worry about is the opposite: that going ahead with this plant may bring on the biggest financial disaster possible for a city. We who pay the rates are on the line to pay the half-billion dollar cost.

But there is hope.

A good start is simply agreeing that building this plant is a bad idea, and that therefore the agreement is against our interests. The facts tell us it would be better to not go ahead.

Many letters to this newspaper have presented various reasons why we would be better off if this plant is not built. Here are a few more.

The contractor, “Nacogdoches Power,” is a corporate entity created for a single project, a planned bio-burner in Nacogdoches, Texas, for which it was named. Quoting from their December 14, 2007 proposal to GRU: “Nacogdoches Power was formed in 2005. … the company has no permanent employees…”

They are not builders or operators of power plants. They are merely seekers of financial arrangements, which they re-sell. They have no visible balance sheet and no actual employees.

They recently sold their so-called “Texas Project” to another outfit, before even getting it constructed. “Nacogdoches Power” has rebranded into “American Renewables” in the process.

They will not be running whatever gets built here. They may not even construct it. But they expect to be lucratively rewarded for their short time in town.

GRU admits that when completed, this plant will command a premium (high) price for its output. Rates can be expected to rise. In the end, to solve such problems we may be forced to buy them out – and at a price that has not been disclosed.

Amazingly, such key terms have never been disclosed to the public, nor even our elected commissioners and mayor.

Five hundred million dollars is a lot of money to contract for, and it is we, the citizens who live here, who will have to pay unless it is stopped.

There is one thing we can all agree upon – that it would be far better for this contract to be voided than to take the enormous risk of bankrupting our utility and our city.

Not a brick has been laid, no equipment purchased for this proposed plant.

With that as our goal, we can proceed to explore mechanisms and any costs of extricating our City from this ill-advised and hastily-agreed-to contract.

In the long run, we will be much better off.

Dr. Thomas Bussing served as Mayor of Gainesville (2001-2004)

Duke Energy, PLUM CREEK, JOE, Rayonier Inc., Green Circle Bio Energy Inc. American Renewables LLC have  qualified  as biomass  producers and will see their profits go up ten-fold through the  USDA Farm Bill Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP).

USDA  will provide financial assistance for the collection, harvest, storage and transportation of biomass crops by matching the amounts paid to producers by the biomass conversion facility.

Timber companies currently get  $4/ton for wood chips. When the biomass incinerators are built they will be guaranteed $45.50/ton. They  will also receive 75 percent of the cost of establishing and planting trees. The USDA calls this  “lost opportunity costs.”

Americans are subsidizing the German power companies,  also.

Green Circle Bio Energy Inc will  sell millions of tons of  “cheap” wood pellets to Germany and adventually to huge biomass plants in England.

Biomass Crop Assistance Program
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ener&topic=bcap

Biomass Crop Assistance Program  (BCAP) – Building Sustainable Places
http://attra.ncat.org/guide/a_m/bcap.html