Save Arctic From Spills
I have been watching with horror as one of the worst oil spills in American history continues unabated, and millions of gallons of crude oil now threaten our nation’s vital Gulf Coast ecosystem. This latest national environmental crisis reaffirms the oil industry’s history of consistently underestimating the risks of drilling.
In light of the crisis, President Obama recently called for a timeout on new offshore drilling, but didn’t specifically include the Arctic Ocean. Despite the fact that there is no way to clean up a major oil spill amid the Arctic’s broken sea-ice conditions, exploratory drilling is slated to begin in the Arctic Ocean in less than 60 days.
If the oil industry, surrounded by all of its infrastructure and technology, can’t even stop a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, how will they ever stop one at the top of the world?
Lori Conley
Easthampton
*
Save Quabbin From Clear-Cutting
The depletion of forests is a pressing issue in today’s modern world. The local problem with deforestation of the Quabbin Reservoir watershed needs to be addressed. The forest composing this watershed filters the water entering the Quabbin, which then becomes the drinking water for thousands of people across Massachusetts.
We cannot sacrifice the safety of our citizens for the harvesting of trees around the Quabbin. We must protect these forests in order to protect the health of the people. Clean water is a natural resource that we cannot lose. Furthermore, it is far more effective to prevent the problem of unsafe drinking water before it starts. It is much more of an issue to restore the quality of our drinking water than to prevent its degradation in the first place. Therefore, we must protect the Quabbin watershed.
Robert Murphy
via email
*
Complaint Department
Thanks to Jim Holdsworth of Amherst for taking the time to write his scathing letter about the weekly Mild Abandon cartoon, and to you for placing it alongside it as if to emphasize the point. I, too, am truly appalled at how consistently stupid and blatantly unfunny it is each week.
I’ll bet he was sorry he didn’t wait a week—the “100 million years in a jacuzzi” one took the cake for being truly and offensively ignorant. Please lose it! I’d much rather see a house ad fill that space. (It’s also amateurishly drawn, but that’s another story.)
Bill Fraker
Indian Orchard
Why are you running that terrible, lame cartoon Mild Abandon? Why? The very name mocks the idea that it might actually be funny. You once had Ted Rall and Tom Tomorrow as the lead cartoons, and now this?! It doesn’t even pass the Turing test!
I’m even inclined to suspect that this meaningless drivel is part of a larger corporate conspiracy to weaken our minds. And I’m sorry if this hurts E.J. Pettinger’s feelings, but it just isn’t funny. We, the loyal readers of the Valley Advocate, deserve better.
David Hunter
Jacksonville, Vt.
*
Entergy and BP: Hold Them Accountable
Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee could have prevented the loss of radioactive fuel in 2004.
Entergy had supposedly performed due diligence prior to purchasing the reactor in 2002.
Mandated by law: any changes to the Entergy site must be approved by the state Public Service Board. Entergy could have checked with the PSB before it began moving soil to build two temporary buildings during the uprate hearings in 2005.
Had Entergy read the memos from the 1996 Prairie Island cooling tower collapse, Entergy could have prevented the spectacular Vermont cooling tower collapse in 2007.
Entergy could have monitored the radiation from the dry cask storage installation as it had been ordered to do by the Public Service Board. Entergy said, “We forgot.”
If Entergy had admitted to having had underground pipes carrying radionuclides, Entergy could have prevented the tritium leak of 2010.
British Petroleum could have secured the blowout preventer on its Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the gulf, but it did not.
Both companies deserve hefty fines/sanctions and to be held accountable by/from state or federal authorities.
Gary Sachs
Brattleboro
*
Audubon on Biomass
The Advocate shed a good deal of light (and heat) on the issues surrounding biomass as an energy source (“Biomass Awaits Manomet,” May 20, 2010). However, Mass Audubon would like to clarify its position and involvement, which was mischaracterized in the article.
Mass Audubon opposes the permitting, construction, and operation of electric generation woody biomass facilities until regulations and policies on forestry and renewable energy are modified. Biomass facilities should only receive federal or state financial incentives to the extent a facility produces more energy per unit of carbon emitted than the average fossil fuel plant, and safeguards must be in place to protect carbon storage, wildlife habitat, and other forest functions.
We agree that few people were paying attention to biomass until several large-scale facilities were proposed in rapid succession. However, Mass Audubon has been working actively to urge a review of state policies and regulations for several years now, and became engaged in this issue long before approval of biomass projects was suspended last fall. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should establish a no net loss of forest policy, and should implement effective programs to achieve that goal. Mass Audubon’s position on woody biomass as an energy source is available at:
http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/cleanenergy/biomass_position_statement.pdf.
Jack Clarke, Director of Public Policy
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Editor responds: The position statement to which Jack Clarke refers is dated Dec. 17, 2009 and represents the first time Mass Audubon publicly raised concerns about biomass. As we reported, Mass Audubon released the statement weeks after the state suspended consideration of biomass to allow time for Manomet to study the issue.
