Cut Subsidies for “Bioenergy”
Our coalition applauds this week’s decision by the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to slash Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) funding for 2012. The U.S. Department of Agriculture BCAP program is a misuse of taxpayer funds. This subsidy program props up biomass combustion power facilities that pollute our air, water, and threaten public health.
In a related action, today USDA issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) under the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) on an industry proposal to plant 200,000 acres of a non-native weed called Miscanthus Grass in a four state area of Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. BCAP money will be spent to plant the weeds that will be burned or made into pellets to burn for electricity.
We oppose the USDA proposal for planting the non-native weed. According to our colleague, Dr. Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch, “We are already diminishing freshwater resources and soils. The amount of land required to produce any significant amount of energy is astronomical. We need to use what we have to grow food and for biodiversity protection.”
Spending taxpayer money to grow “bioenergy” crops that are harvested and burned in incinerators to create so-called “renewable energy” is nothing short of foolhardy. These biomass burning electricity facilities emit hazardous air pollutants, more greenhouse gases per megawatt of energy than coal, and will destroy biodiversity.
Billions of taxpayer dollars are scheduled to be spent on biomass electricity projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and hundreds of millions more to grow the “bioenergy crops” to burn. The subsidies for biomass energy, including BCAP, seriously undermine our efforts to balance the federal budget
Meg Sheehan
Biomass Accountability Project
*
Union Supports Senate Budget
Throughout the debate on how to handle the impact of rising health insurance costs on all our budgets—governments, businesses and working families—unions have eagerly sought to be part of the solution to keep police on the streets, fire fighters at the ready, teachers in our classrooms, and parks, sanitation and others keeping our communities clean and functioning well in these tough times. We have said all along that achieving savings and collective bargaining rights are not mutually exclusive. While certainly not perfect, the proposal offered by the state Senate last week is fair and goes a long way to proving that point. Collective bargaining over the quality of health insurance and mitigating increased out-of-pocket costs for the very sick and retirees on fixed incomes will allow municipalities to save $100 million. That $100 million in savings and the substantial cost shifting inherent in all agreements are sacrifices we are willing to make in tough times, whereas collective bargaining rights are not. In the final analysis we hope the Conference Committee, Governor, and the legislature will build on this fair proposal and choose to deliver savings through collective bargaining.
Robert Haynes
President, Massachusetts AFL-CIO
