Audubon on Biomass, Take 2
To clarify [see letter with editor’s response, May 27, 2010], since 2005, Mass Audubon has commented publicly and repeatedly on the biomass issue. Beginning with comments to the state on the Russell Biomass Project when it was first proposed and continuing with letters, testimony, and other public statements delivered in writing to many state officials and verbally at numerous public meetings, we have urged review and reforms on biomass, greenhouse gases, and forest and water management laws, regulations and policies.
All of these comments are matters of public record, and several of them are posted on Mass Audubon’s website and were included in email alerts circulated widely. The link to the position statement on Mass Audubon’s website that was included in the May 25 letter to the Valley Advocate editor was a recent document produced by Mass Audubon.
Mass Audubon appreciates the Valley Advocate’s reporting on the issue, and is pleased to see the most recent mention of Dr. David Foster’s work on the regional Wildlands and Woodlands analysis of forest loss. The long term protection of forests in Massachusetts and throughout the region is vital—these areas sequester 10 percent of our annual carbon emissions while providing clean air and water, wildlife habitat, recreational and tourism opportunities, and innumerable other benefits.
John J. Clarke, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations
Massachusetts Audubon Society
*
The Biomass Rebellion
When the Manomet study [“Biomass Awaits Manomet,” May 20, 2010] is released, I will be very interested to see if they pay any attention to the nutrient cycle in the biomass harvesting and burning process. When you are burning a ton of wood a minute, that results in large quantities of ash. Right now the developers of both the Russell and Greenfield incinerators plan to collect all of the wood ash and sell it for agricultural fertilizer. They will claim that it is “certified organic” and this will be a significant source of funds for their operation.
So the question is, if this wood ash makes such a great fertilizer because it has essential nutrients, how sustainable is it to rob the forests of nutrients without replacing them? Not only will forests be clear-cut, but the soil nutrients will be strip-mined as well. All these nutrients come from the limited amounts found in the forest soils. Our soils are typically rocky, shallow and highly acidic. It takes decades to build up nutrients through natural soil weathering processes. The colonial history of clear-cutting and cropping/pasturing led to rapidly depleted soils that were abandoned due to poor productivity. Now that the forests have slowly recovered and gradually built up some meager nutrient reserves in the soil and “biomass,” these incinerator operations plan to harvest those small nutrient pools and remove them from the recovering forests to sell for ag fertilizer.
I asked the “scientists” conducting the Manomet study to address the ecological principle of “shifting baselines,” which represents the idea that as things are continually degraded, we simply adjust our concept of what is “normal” for comparison purposes. We say that the forests have recovered from the baseline of the early 1900s, when in fact that baseline is an artificial measure of an ecosystem that was severely degraded. The true baseline would be the old-growth forests that covered 90 percent of the Northeast upon colonial conquest.
Judged from the correct and honest baseline, today’s forests are a pathetic shadow of their true potential, a sad result of centuries of exploitation and abuse. That they have started to recover is only due to benign neglect and the tenacity of nature. Biomass incineration is the “Final Solution” for our incipient forests that have only begun to take a few steps on the 1,000-mile-long journey to recovery. If we pay attention to the shifting baselines, we can be sure to have things in the correct perspective, instead of using a truncated measurement of decline or recovery.
If the Manomet study does not address the shifting baselines of soil nutrients, forest health and forest productivity, then their study will not be worth the biomass that it is printed on. I am willing to bet that they will not touch the ecological concept of shifting baselines (look it up on Google). If they don’t, their “sustainability” study will be a complete farce. That will speak directly to [Manomet president] John Hagan’s integrity. Place your bets, folks. There is a sucker born every minute.
Glen Ayers, Soil Scientist
Leverett
*
There is no realistic way to “manage biomass,” as Hagan suggests. One only need look at the degraded state of our rivers or the BP oil spill to know that regulatory oversight that purports to “manage” resources is a red herring. State laws like the Water Management Act and the Clean Water Act are routinely flouted, as documented in last year’s New York Times series [“Toxic Waters: A series about the worsening pollution in American waters and regulators’ response”].
The state forestry agencies have already shown they can’t “manage” to implement the forestry laws banning clear cuts and protecting wetlands. It’s a pure absurdity to claim that the extraction of woody biomass from forests can be “managed” by the state to ensure “forest and ecosystem health” over the next 30 years with a base load plant that needs to consume a ton of wood a minute.
Instead, voters will get the chance at the ballot to make biomass plants “walk the talk” and prove that the are “green” by reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. Check out www.stopspewingcarbon.org.
Meg Sheehan, Attorney
EcoLaw, Cambridge, Mass.
*
Casino Bad for Environment
There has been a lot written in your paper about the environmental impacts of logging in this state, but little about the environmental impacts of a resort casino in Palmer. People who would like a casino in Palmer are not thinking of the consequences.
A casino located on a hill overlooking the now lovely Quaboag Valley would be a looming eyesore for miles around. Accompanying it would be two or more high-rise hotels. Palmer and its surrounding towns are located in one of the state’s last pristine river valleys. What will happen to those little Norman Rockwell communities that folks so love to motorcycle through on a Saturday or visit to pick apples or go to a town fair? In this day and age of global warming and dwindling oil supplies, it makes no sense to urbanize small farm communities, destroy acres and acres of wildlife habitat for development, build on a hill with wetlands and a runoff problem, draw more water from Quabbin, widen roads and highways to accommodate the 25,000 cars and buses expected every day, fill the valley with exhaust fumes and turn night into day with light pollution.
Hasn’t the Gulf of Mexico disaster taught anyone anything? We can’t keep trashing our planet. We will need that farmland and those orchards when shipping produce from 2,000 miles away is no longer an option. The Quaboag Valley has beautiful hills with commanding views. The Swift River and Quaboag River are popular canoeing and kayaking rivers. The Palmer area is a favorite spot for fishing, hunting, hiking and biking. All this will be gone if a casino is located in Palmer.
We as a race had better start thinking of what kind of world we want to leave our children. If folks insist on these addiction factories, they can just as easily be built in one of our decaying cities on the site of an outsourced factory. Casinos don’t have windows. They don’t need to ruin a pretty area.
Charlotte Burns
Palmer
