Jana, you are so right! The only green in the "clean and green" economy is money. There is a power plant free for all in Massachusetts-wholesale burning as trash managment and power generation. New England has more power generation capacity today than it can use. Yet our state is permitting the development of massive fossil fuel and carbon based burning plants everywhere. Russell, Westfield, Billerica, Brockton, Uxbridge, Ludlow.....for a state that is losing population with forecasted decreases in demand, you have to ask yourself, what is going on in Massachusetts?

Jana, thanks for pointing out what our government "leaders" the mainstream media seem unwilling to talk about. It is quite a shell game. Under the guise of "clean energy", taxpayers are subsidizing 5 proposed polluting biomass power plants, that will not just burn clean waste wood as promised, but will include toxic C& D waste, and 1.8 million tons of live whole trees annually. We will see clearcutting spread across Massachusetts to fuel these plants, including on our public forests where there are already timber sales to fuel small existing biomass plants. Logging rates on our forests, public and private, will have to triple in order to feed these forest eating monsters. They have already started clearcutting out public state forests and pictures can be seen at: clearcutma.blogspot.com The 5 proposed power plants will also release 3 million tons of C02 each year, and despite protestations otherwise, there is no way that these are carbon neutral projects. By the way, these 5 proposed plants would only add 1% to our existing power generating system in Massachusetts.

Jana is right. Let's not be fooled by another scam like turning corn into gasoline and starving the developing world of food. We have to stop global warming, but that doesn't mean we should believe in anything just because a salesman says it's "green." Let's use our own judgment to see if it really is.

Jana, This is quite a game that the power people of our state enjoy playing, keeping the rest of us in a state of confusion. Thank you for untangling the web of information and presenting it to us in plain and simple language.

Just as moths are drawn to a flame, perfectly sane elected public officials want to sponsor a good project that benefits the public and the environment. The main problem is that the folks after the public dollars will tell them anything to get to those green public dollars. Where there is fire (combustion) there is smoke (emissions) but why no one wonders where are the toxins go once they enter the facility (the answer is in your lungs, thank you very much). So even though matter can neither be created nor destroyed its all right for the efficiency of the energy conversion to be less 25% because we (who will profit by it) tell you its green. The citizen's get focused on protecting the "Commons" (air, land, and water) but rightly so since that's really where our Common"wealth" lies.

Thank you, Jana, for your letter. Biomass for energy truly is a matter of mining the soil. Publically funding them only adds insult to injury. How about some public funding to support the volunteers who keep bringing this information forward to the public? Hopefully the downsides of these power plants will be apparent before any more go online. Keep up the good work, Jana!

Why do we need the polluting Russell Biomass power plant when the capital could be used instead to restore the broken hydropower generator at Quabbin Reservoir to generate clean energy? Why does the Russell Biomass power plant propose to use water from the wild and scenic Westfield River instead of air for cooling? Do we care that little about what's left of the beleaguered salmon run? When will we impose a cap and trade system, conserving energy to accommodate new development instead of stoking the atmosphere with ever more greenhouse gases? What will we say to our grandchildren? Somebody at DEP needs to dispel the impression that those letters seem to stand for "Don't Expect Protection."

Jana Chicoine's letter is excellent. How come our elected officials and state agencies who are supposed to be watching out for the people's welfare seem to be ignoring that commitment? We need clean energy production that is guided by the concept of Zero Waste. Biomass plants are incinerators that pollute. Everyone in the valley will be affected negatively by the proposed Russell Biomass plant.

By the way, the state's "Green Communities Act" and the federal "Economic Recovery Stimulus Package" include efforts to strip municipalities of local control and waive legal requirements for environmental and judicial review without consulting the voters. article feed: "Should Environmental Laws be Waived to Expedite Stimulus Spending? By Elana Schor - January 29, 2009, 5:16PM Much of the debate over the potential effectiveness of Congress' economic stimulus bill centers on how quickly the $800-billion-plus can be spent. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- formerly run by Obama's new budget director, Peter Orszag -- has estimated that 64% of the House stimulus money can be disbursed within the first 18 months. Meanwhile, Orszag himself has promised to let loose 75% of it into the economy. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), who's been concerned with thae spend-out rate in general, recently asked the CBO to evaluate ways that the stimulus money could be spent quicker. The CBO's first answer? "Waiving requirements for environmental and judicial reviews" of the impact of stimulus spending projects, according to a letter released today (and downloadable here). This is a prospect that has troubled environmental groups. In a letter to congressional leaders earlier this month, a broad green coalition argued that waiving requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to speed through stimulus projects would be counter-productive. From the letter: Inevitably, in the course of congressional consideration, special interests will assert that we cannot afford the NEPA process in a time of national urgency. The truth is that we cannot afford that kind of leap-before-you-look rashness. We have neither the time nor the resources to waste on measures that ultimately prove to be unproductive or harmful. The issue of waiving environmental reviews is particularly contentious in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is locked in a battle with green groups over 10 major highway projects. When White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about environmental waivers at today's press briefing, he said: Let me give for you in this answer what the president told the governors when he met with them -- I guess this would have been sometime in mid- to late November in Philadelphia, because this was an issue that was raised, I think maybe by Governor Schwarzenegger or by one of the other governors, regulatory red tape, so to speak. And the president simply said, you know, if there are things that we can do to speed money into the economy as it relates to infrastructure spending or things like that, he's more than happy to take a look at them, in -- in order to get this money infused into the economy and putting people back to work as quickly as possible." From the Green Communities Act: "(c) To qualify as a green community, a municipality or other local governmental body shall: (1) file an application with the division in a form and manner to be prescribed by the division; (2) provide for the as-of-right siting of renewable or alternative energy generating facilities, renewable or alternative energy research and development facilities, or renewable or alternative energy manufacturing facilities in designated locations; (3) adopt an expedited application and permitting process under which these energy facilities may be sited within the municipality and which shall not exceed 1 year from the date of initial application to the date of final approval; (4) establish an energy use baseline inventory for municipal buildings, vehicles and street and traffic lighting, and put in place a comprehensive program designed to reduce this baseline by 20 per cent within 5 years of initial participation in the program; (5) purchase only fuel-efficient vehicles for municipal use whenever such vehicles are commercially available and practicable; and (6) require all new residential construction over 3,000 square feet and all new commercial and industrial real estate construction to minimize, to the extent feasible, the life-cycle cost of the facility by utilizing energy efficiency, water conservation and other renewable or alternative energy technologies. The secretary may waive these requirements based on a written finding that due to unusual circumstances, a municipality cannot reasonably meet all of the requirements and the municipality has committed to alternative measures that advance the purposes of the green communities program as effectively as adherence to the requirements. "

A renewed buzz-word for our polititians is "transparency" . It is amazing how transparent the move to approve the Biomass Plant is becoming. When the Chair at the last public hearing committee barred testimony from 6 witnesses, it is bacame apparent that there is likely a backroom agenda that is being followed. After reviewing the inconsistencies in the environmental impact statements submitted by Biomass, hearing changing explainations from the corporate principles, and reading their arrogant, patronizing statements, I am shocked that anyone can believe that this scrap burning project has any merits at all. There is too much at stake to let this self-interested group build this plant. It is clear to me that "green" to them is dollars, not saving the environment. We stand to loose our health, our river, our air, our roads, and our community. We can't let this happen.

Thanks Jana for bringing this important issue to our attention. The point of "green" energy should be to protect our natural resources while also protecting us from climate change. Biomass plants such as the one proposed for Russell does neither, in fact it seems that it would further degrade our enviroment. Our clean energy funds should go to energy that is truly clean.

We've all got to keep the pressure on our state and local officials. Great letter!

Thanks, Jana, for sounding the alarm about these proposed trash to power incinerators. I am shocked that the Russell Biomass proposal has gotten so far in the permitting process: even if the plant had some merit, a worse location could not be selected by the developers. The site is in a narrow river valley, on a Wild and Scenic River with Essential Spawning and Nursery Habitat for Atlantic salmon and 36 other fish species. The forests and mountains nearby in the Berkshire foothills are very sensitive to environmental insults such as will be inflicted by this incinerator which is slated to consume 2000 tons per day of wood chips for 30 - 50 years of operation. This power plant will be inappropriately sited in a beautiful tourist resort area. The 15 ton trucks which will haul chips to feed the incinerator will detract from the recreational values of the area. I am also concerned about the effects of the proposed stack emissions upon Springfield's water supply at Cobble Mountain, which lies only 3 miles to the Southwest. US EPA should do a Risk Assessment analysis of the potential threat of this incinerator on this reservoir.

as always thanks so much for saying things the way it is. Instead of the lovely commercials we have seen on tv.

Saying biomass incinerators promote green energy (instead of polluting our air and water) is like saying casinos will solve our state's economic woes.

thanks so much for saying things the way it is. Instead of the lovely commercials we have seen on tv.

We've been burning things to generate energy since the stone age... if human's are going to thrive on the earth, we're going to have to evolve beyond this. Time to contact the representatives and let them know

I am shocked that anyone can believe that this scrap burning project has any merits at all.