Fraser Assails Sheehan on Anti BioMass Efforts

An Environmental Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing:

Leading Anti-Biomass Proponent Tied to Oil/Gas/Coal and Mining Industry 

Journalist, Genevieve Fraser

By Genevieve Fraser

 Margaret Sheehan, a lawyer with EcoLaw, a volunteer group promoting renewable energy policy and chair of the Stop Spewing Carbon Campaign, which sponsored a proposed 2010 ballot initiative aimed at stripping biomass-derived energy of its label as renewable, has ties to world-wide oil, gas, coal and mining industries as well as with the world's largest producer of vinyl compounds and a leading North American producer of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), through her association with the Sheehan Family Foundation, according to tax records on file at the National Center for Charitable Statistics. 

Along with shares from corporations such as Merck and Abbot Laboratories, the Foundation has millions of dollars in shares tied to fossil fuels and other polluting industries.  The Foundation also receives major donations from family members and the L. Knife & Sons, a family owned corporation.  Their tax records can be viewed electronically athttp://nccsdataweb.urban.org/orgs/profile/043197325?popup=1#forms  

The Sheehan Family Foundation was established in 1992, according to a Foundation press release, “Its mission is to protect the environment and enhance the quality of education including youth serving programs.”  Though the Foundation has a geographic focus in eastern Massachusetts, it has expanded in recent years to include Haiti and other international projects.   Grants made by the Foundation from 1992 to 2007 totaled over $10 million.  But despite the obvious good it does, many of the Foundations financial dealing run counter to its expressed mission.

The Foundation’s mining interests include 2,200 shares from the Newmont Mining Corporation, recipient of the “Hall of Shame 2009 Public Eye Award” for its Akyem project in Ghana. “According to the jury it had destroyed unique natural habitats, carried out forced resettlement of local people and polluted soil and rivers,” the Public Eye states.  Newmont was also the subject of a 2005 Frontline expose of South American activities, “Peru – The Curse of Inca Gold.”  That same year, the company was cited for illegal toxic waste dumping in Indonesia. The Foundation sold its shares in 2007.

 

The Foundation also has maintained over 10,500 shares of the Southern Copper Company which is 75 percent owned by Mexican mining conglomerate Gropo Mexico. The company is a major producer and refiner of copper, molybdenum, zinc, silver, lead, and gold, and operates mines and smelters inMexico and in Peru, in the Andes mountains southeast of Lima.  In 2003, a lawsuit was filed (02-9008. Docket No.)  under the Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATCA”), 28 U.S.C. in which plaintiffs claimed that the defendant's conduct violates the “law of nations”-commonly referred to as “international law” or, when limited to non-treaty law, as “customary international law.” They brought personal injury claims “alleging that pollution from SPCC's copper mining, refining, and smelting operations in and around Ilo caused plaintiffs' or their decedents' severe lung disease.  Plaintiffs in this case are residents of Ilo,Peru, and the representatives of deceased Ilo residents. In particular, they asserted that defendant infringed ---upon their customary international law “right to life,” “right to health,” and right to “sustainable development.”  

Harvard Forest logging operation

Anti-biomass activist Margaret Sheehan is a native of Plymouth and former Executive Director of the Sheehan Family Foundation which has also provided grants to theManomet Center for Conservation Sciences as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars to environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, Massachusetts Audubon Society, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, and Earthwatch among others. 

In 2008, with Sheehan serving as Executive Director, the Sheehan Family Foundation lists their “net value of non-charitable use assets” at $7,655,764, according to their 2009 tax return.  A significant portion of these assets were derived from sales of coal, oil and gas industry stocks.  In 2007, the Foundation’s 24,970 shares of Exxon Mobile stock sold for $2,016,55; their 1,295 shares of Chevron Corporation stocks commanded a sale price of $104,718, while their 1,240 Occidental Petroleum Corporation shares netted $61,510.  


By 2008, the Sheehan Family Foundation sold 5,125 shares of Yanzhou Coal Mining Co Ltd stocks which they had held since 2006 for $77,573, but the sale listed a net loss of $21,758.  The Chinese-based company, the forth largest inChina, is mainly engaged in coal production, preparation and processing, marketing and railway transportation.  According to their website, two large coalfields of Yanzhou and Jinig East owned by the Company contain six large-scale modern coal mines. In 2007, the Company produced 34.66 million tones of raw coal, of which 7.25 million tones were exported.  Though China’s coal mining industry is considered to be the largest and deadliest in the world in terms of human safety, the Yanzhou Company claims that they are in compliance with all safety regulations; however, pollution emanating fromChina’s coal burning power plants is notorious.


Despite the 2007 coal, oil and gas divestments, the following year the Foundation lists 4,400 shares of ConocoPhilips corporate stock with a book value of $348,844.  ConocoPhilips boasts of extracting hydrocarbons fromCanada’s oil sands which constitutes “one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world,” according to their website. 


In 2009, The Nature Conservancy received a $110,000 contribution from the Foundation, while the Massachusetts Audubon Society received a $160,000 grant.  This was in addition to the hundreds of thousands from years past. For example, in 2008, The Nature Conservancy received $210,696 from the Foundation, and MA Audubon received $80,000; whereas, in 2007, The Nature Conservancy received $85,000, and MA Audubon received $80,000.  Whether or not these funds impacted their receptivity to Sheehan’s anti-biomass message and whether or not these environmental organizations knew of the source of much of the Foundation’s wealth can only be assessed by the many agencies who were the recipients of the Foundation’s largess.


In addition to coal, oil and gas companies, the Sheehan Family Foundation maintains millions of dollars worth of shares in companies that provide infrastructure and transport to these industries.  Their vast holdings include DryShips, Inc., owner and operation of a world-wide drybulk carrier and offshore oil deep water drilling operations; National Oilwell Varco, a multinational, Texas-based corporation which manufactures land-based and off-shore oil drilling rigs as well as all the major mechanical components for such rigs; Pioneer Natural Resources Co., an Irving, Texas-based oil and gas company that has expanded internationally and has made major investments in Tunisia and South Africa and is also active in Alaska; and Pride International, Inc., which provides contract drilling and related services to oil and gas companies worldwide and operates a global fleet of 26 rigs. In 2009, SeaHawk Drilling was added to the Sheehan Family Foundation assets. 

On November 10, 2009, Sheehan sent a letter addressed to the president of the ManometCenter, John M. Hagan regarding the “Biomass Study.”  The Manomet biomass report was released seven months later on June 10, 2010, without peer review, and became the basis of the Administration’s about-face regarding their support of biomass as a green, renewable energy resource. 

In her letter to the Manomet director, Sheehan closed with the following, “...As I indicated in my phone message to you, I am a native of Plymouth and former Executive Director of the Sheehan Family Foundation of Kingston, which has provided grants to MCCS over the years.  It would be unfortunate if MCCS proceeded with this study without an understanding of full range of public health and environmental impacts of biomass burning as a means of generating electricity.  Even though these impacts may be beyond the scope of work for the study, the study is intertwined with critical policy and regulatory issues that effect the future of our citizens and the planet.”

An electronic copy of the Sheehan correspondence to the MCCS director was submitted to Ian Bowles, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs,Commonwealth of Massachusetts, by electronic mail, and to his Chief of Staff at EOEEA, Jane Corr.  The correspondence has since circulated widely.

Following the firestorm of support and protest which erupted after the release of the Center’s “Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study,” Manomet released a statement which reads, in part, “There has been much press coverage of our study about using forest biomass for energy in Massachusetts.  This study was commissioned and funded by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER).  Many of the resulting press articles have oversimplified the results.  Indeed, a key lesson of the study is that understanding the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts and benefits of using wood for energy is more complex than most people have assumed, and that a lifecycle assessment is needed in order to assess these GHG costs and benefits...”

“One commonly used press headline has been ‘wood worse than coal’ for GHG emissions or for ‘the environment.’  This is an inaccurate interpretation of our findings, which paint a much more complex picture.  While burning wood does emit more GHGs initially than fossil fuels, these emissions are removed from the atmosphere as harvested forests re-grow.  ....the timing and magnitude of the recovery is a function of forest productivity, land management choices, and technology and fuel characteristics...”

Despite the Manomet Center’s attempt to clarify the report and end the controversy surrounding its release. The Stop Spewing CarbonCampaign collected over 130,000 signatures from Massachusetts’ voters, and Sheehan, as Chair of the Campaign issued a statement on July 7, 2010.  “Today, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles issued a letter saying his agency will change our state laws to bring them in line with current science and public policy requiring biomass incinerators to meet strict standards for forest protection, greenhouse gas emissions, and efficiency,” Sheehan stated. 

“This is a groundbreaking development that means an end to commercial biomass electric power plants in Massachusetts.  Science confirms that the greenhouse gas emissions of burning forests are worse than coal and there’s no reason to subsidize this form of energy,” Sheehan said.  Sheehan had won the battle and so withdrew the 2010 Ballot Petition from consideration.

On May 2, 2011 Final regulations were issued by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources which would severely restrict Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)—a taxpayer and ratepayer funded subsidy under the state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)—for biomass electricity.  Meg Sheehan once again took credit for the DOER restrictions.

Proposed Palmer Renewable Energy: Springfield Biomass Plant

On May 17, 2011, union laborers were out in force to jeer biomass opponents who were holding a protest rally on the steps of Springfield City Hall during a public hearing on a proposal to revoke a special permit granted in 2008 to Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE).  Despite a written legal opinion presented by City Solicitor Edward Pikula — who warned the 13-member City Council that it doesn’t have “just cause” to revoke a special permit issued in 2008 for a proposed 35-megawatt biomass power plant — the City Council voted 10-2 against the project.

“We’ve got $5 million in development costs invested here,” Lawyer Frank Fitzgerald, speaking for Palmer Renewable Energy stated. “And we’ve played by the rules.” The economic benefits to the City of Springfield were estimated to be in excess of one million dollars a year, and would have provided 50 full-time employment opportunities.  PRE plans to litigate the matter which may prove quite costly to the city.

Along with creating havoc within the biomass industry, the regulatory restrictions have had a significant economic impact on the wood products industry which claims that if they are to avoid “high grading,” cutting only the most valuable trees, they need to integrate forest improvement cuttings to the mix.  Biomass, when harvested within the forest is typically low grade wood that can be costly to remove unless there is a market for it. The use of biomass as a fuel source creates an economic value that helps justify the cost of its removal. 

Foresters and the wood products industry also argue that sustainably harvested wood allows for new growth and provides vitally needed wildlife habitat.  Most species are wholly or partially dependent on early successional or young forest growth.  Also, diseases and insects are now infesting the forest.  Over 90% of the Massachusetts forest is now mature forest cover (older trees).  These woods are badly in need of thinning with infested wood burnt and destroyed, not left in place or transported and sold as wood chips or other products.

Biomass is also created from power line and roadside cuttings as well as land clearings for development.  When disposed of in landfills, woody biomass generates methane, a major greenhouse gas.  Decomposition in forests also releases CO2.

Meanwhile fossil fuels, which are not sustainable because they were created eons ago and are not a living, breathing part of our atmosphere, continue to spew carbon, hydro-chemicals, radionuclides and heavy metals that impact air quality, soil and water.  Though renewables such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal are now part of the energy mix, for the most part, fossil fuels still power electrical generation, cars, buses, trucks, trains, planes, boats, plus most of our homes and industry in the United States and across the globe.   

According to a recently released report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), “Energy-related carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2010 were the highest in history.”

“After a dip in 2009 caused by the global financial crisis, emissions are estimated to have climbed to a record 30.6 Gigatonnes (Gt), a 5% jump from the previous record year in 2008, when levels reached 29.3 Gt. In addition, the IEA has estimated that 80% of projected emissions from the power sector in 2020 are already locked in, as they will come from power plants that are currently in place or under construction today,” the report stated.

In terms of fuels, 44% of the estimated CO2 emissions in 2010 came from coal, 36% from oil, and 20% from natural gas, according to the IEA.

And though Margaret Sheehan talks an environmental talk, she has, through the Foundation, financially supported to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, companies that pollute the earth in every conceivable fashion. 

Take for instance the Foundation’s 100,000 shares of the Geon Company, the leading producer of vinyl compounds, including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), that have been linked to exposures in the womb.  Hyperactivity, learning disabilities, asthma, reproductive health issues, obesity and a host of other ills including cancer are believed to be linked to these products. 

As for the environmental impact of coal, oil and natural gas extractions which destroy forests, remove mountaintops, and pollute our waters, these concerns have been the subject of thousands of research projects, books and articles, and now movies such as “Gasland” which explores the many problems associated with choosing natural gas as an alternative to oil.  Yet the Sheehan Family Foundation supports these and other industries such as the cigarette giant Philip Morris (SFF owned 5,147 shares valued at 223,945 in 2008) that have pitted adverse impacts to human health and the planet against the greater good of increased profits.

What Sheehan’s real motives are only time will tell. But for the record, humans have been building with, cooking with, and heating with wood since the dawn of creation. Our homes, furniture, paper and a myriad of other products are created with wood.  If the impact of woody biomass is as bad as Sheehan and her cohorts claim it is man would be extinct!

Published at www.FarmFieldForest.org

--------------------------

Genevieve Fraser, a resident of Orange, MA, is a professional writer, former Exhibits Developer for the New England Science Center, and Environmental Technical Writer. In 1984-85, Genevieve was the state-wide coordinator for the Massachusetts Acid Rain Awareness Weeks and received an Environmental Commendation from the Massachusetts Secretary of the Environment for her efforts. In 1997, she was commissioned by the Commonwealth to write the EcoTheater drama, "Giants in the Wilderness with John Muir," which toured as part of the Centennial Celebration of the Massachusetts State Forest and Park System. 

Contact FraserGenevieve@gmail.com or cal (978) 544-1872 for further information.

Related articles

• Good as Gold? George Soros Sells the Metal, Buys the Miner (fool.com)
• Thousands of old mines pollute Colorado waters, with no help in sight (newdayunderwriting.wordpress.com)
• Early Intervention Holds Hope for Those Who Stutter (health.usnews.com)
• Early Intervention Holds Hope for Those Who Stutter (nlm.nih.gov)
• South Africa's mining industry mired in disarray (scrupeuss.wordpress.com)
• Five Gold Stocks Offering Great Value (MIDSX, EGO, AVVGF, NAK, RIO, GLD, NEM, KGC, AU, BVN, IAU, GDX, GDXJ) (247wallst.com)
• Japan earthquake revives miners' fears in Chile (reuters.com)

Despite Spending Millions Lobbying, Nuke Industry Losing.

Image by EasyEcoBlog via Flickr

Published on Sunday, July 25, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

Why Stewart Brand is Wrong on Nukes - and is Losing

by Harvey Wasserman

Stewart Brand has become a poster boy for a "nuclear renaissance" that has just suffered a quiet but stunning defeat. Despite $645 million spent in lobbying over the past decade, the reactor industry has thus far failed to gouge out major new taxpayer funding for new commercial reactors.
In an exceedingly complex series of twists and turns, no legislation now pending in Congress contains firm commitments to the tens of billions reactor builders have been demanding. They could still come by the end of the session. But the radioactive cake walk many expected the industry to take through the budget process has thus far failed to happen.
The full story is excruciatingly complicated. But the core reasons are simple: atomic power can't compete, and makes global warming worse.
In support of this failed 20th Century technology, the industry has enlisted a 20th Century retro-hero, Stewart Brand. Back in the 1960s Brand published the Whole Earth Catalog. Four decades later, that cachet has brought him media access for his advocacy of corporate technologies like genetically modified foods and geo-engineering.....and, of course, nuclear energy.
In response to a cover interview in Marin County's Pacific Sun, I wrote the following to explain why Stewart is wrong wrong wrong:

Stewart Brand now seems to equate "science" with a tragic and dangerous corporate agenda. The technologies for which he argues--nuclear power, "clean" coal, genetically modified crops, etc.--can be very profitable for big corporations, but carry huge risks for the rest of us. In too many instances, tangible damage has already been done, and more is clearly threatened. If there is a warning light for what Stewart advocates, it is the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which much of the oil industry said (like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) was "impossible." Then it happened. The $75 million liability limit protecting BP should be ample warning that any technology with a legal liability limit (like nuclear power) cannot be tolerated. Thankfully, there is good news: We have true green alternatives to these failed 20th-century ideas. They're cheaper, safer, cleaner, more reliable and more job-producing than the old ways Stewart advocates. Stewart and I have never met. But we have debated on the radio and online. Thank you, Pacific Sun, for bringing us to print. Stewart's advocacy does fit a pattern. He appears to have become a paladin for large-scale corporate technologies that may be highly profitable to CEOs and shareholders, but are beyond the control of the average citizen, and work to our detriment. Because he makes so many simple but costly errors, let's try a laundry list: 1. Like other reactor advocates, Stewart cavalierly dismisses the nuclear waste problem by advocating, among other things, the stuff be simply dumped down a deep hole. This is a terribly dangerous idea and will not happen. Suffice it to say that after a half-century of promises (the first commercial reactor opened in Pennsylvania in 1957) the solution now being offered by government and industry is...a committee!!! Meanwhile, more than 60,000 tons of uniquely lethal spent fuel rods sit at some 65 sites in 31 states with nowhere to go. Like the reactors themselves, they are vulnerable to cooling failure, terror attack, water shortages, overheating of lakes, rivers and oceans, flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes, and much more. This is no legacy to leave our children. 2. Equally disturbing is the industry's inability to get meaningful private liability insurance. The current federally imposed limit is $11 billion, which would disappear in a meltdown even faster than BP's $75 million in the Gulf. According to the latest compendium of studies, issued this spring by the New York Annals of Science, Chernobyl has killed some 985,000 people, and is by no means finished. It has done at least a half-trillion dollars in damage. The uninsured death toll and financial costs of a similar-scaled accident in the U.S. are incalculable, but would clearly kill millions and bankrupt our nation for the foreseeable future. 3. Stewart points out that there are also risks with wind and solar power. But clearly none that begin to compare with nukes, coal or deep-water drilling. If reactor owners were forced to find reasonable liability insurance, all would shut. A similar demand for renewables and efficiency would leave them unaffected. 4. Renewable/efficiency technologies today are cheaper, faster to deploy and more job-creating than nukes. It takes a minimum of five years to license and build a new reactor. The one being done by AREVA in Finland is hugely over budget and behind schedule. There is no reason to expect anything better here. Among other things, the long lead time ties up for too many years the critical social capital that could otherwise go to technology that can quickly let the planet heal. 5. Like others who doubt the possibility of a green-powered Earth, Stewart posits the straw man of reliance on a deployment of solar panels that would blanket the desert and do ecological harm. In fact, the National Renewable Energy Lab estimates 100 percent of the nation's electricity could come from an area 90 miles on a side, or a relatively modest box of 8,100 square miles. But as we all know, that's not how it will be done. Solar panels belong on rooftops, where there is ample area throughout the nation, and an end to transmission costs. Likewise, wind farms do not "cover" endless acres of prairie, their tower bases take up tiny spots that remain surrounded by productive farmland. In this case, currently available wind turbines spinning between the Mississippi and the Rockies could generate 300 percent of the nation's electricity. There's sufficient potential in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas alone to do 100 percent. Cost and installation times put nukes to shame. The liability is nil, as is the bird kill, which primarily affects obsolete, badly sited fast-spinning machines in places like Altamont Pass. Those must come down, and there will certainly be other surprises along the way. No technology is perfect, and we need to be careful even with those that are green-based. But as we have seen, further threats on the scale of Chernobyl and the Deepwater Horizon cannot be sustained. 6. As for GMO crops, Darwin was right. Plants evolve to avoid herbicides just as bugs work their way around pesticides (which Stewart correctly decries). Now we see that "super-weeds" are outsmarting the carefully engineered herbicides meant to justify the whole GMO scheme, bringing a disastrous reversion to horrific, lethal old sprays. Chemical farming may be good for corporate profits, but it can kill global sustainability. In the long run, only organics can sustain us. 7. Stewart mentions that he is paid only for speeches. But a single such fee can outstrip an entire year's pay for a grassroots organizer or volunteer. What's remarkable is that the nuclear power industry spent some $645 million lobbying for its "renaissance" over the past decade--more than $64 million/year. It has bought an army of corporate lobbyists and legislators. Yet only a handful of folks with rear guard environmental credentials has stepped forward to fight for the old fossil/nuclear/GMO technologies. 

Stewart is certainly welcome to his own opinions. But not to his own facts. Pushing for a nuclear "renaissance" concedes that it's a Dark Age technology, defined by unsustainable costs, inefficiencies, danger, eco-destruction, radiation releases, lack of insurance, uncertain decommissioning costs, vulnerability to terrorism and much more.
That the industry must desperately seek taxpayer help, and cannot find insurance for even this "newer, safer" generation, is the ultimate testimony to its failure. By contrast, renewables and efficiency are booming, and are a practical solution to our energy needs, which the corporate clunkers of the previous century simply cannot provide.
It's been a long time since the Whole Earth Catalog was published. Its hallowed founder should wake up to the booming holistic green technologies that are poised to save the Earth. They are ready to roll over the obsolete corporate boondoggles that are killing Her. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the disasters in the coal mines and the Gulf remind us we need to make that green-powered transition as fast as we possibly can.

Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and writes regularly for www.freepress.org.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Harvey Wasserman: BP's Radioactive Liability Cap (huffingtonpost.com)
• Harvey Wasserman: Apocalypse in the Gulf Now (Oil) & Next (Nukes) (huffingtonpost.com)
• The Adventures of Rabbi Harvey (thejc.com)
• Chauffeurs, cigars and clauses | Jane Graham (guardian.co.uk)
• Harvey Weinstein Can't Bully His Critics Into Submission Anymore [Decline] (gawker.com)
• Harvey Weinstein shy about Toronto doc (thestar.com)
• Does the world need nuclear energy?: Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson on TED.com (ted.com)
• Blogging the Periodic Table: Thorium. (slate.com)
• Colbert Grills Stewart Brand on Nukes, Oil (treehugger.com)
• Lessons from the Gulf for nuclear reactors (thehill.com)

Greening Greenfield Press Release for Nov. 27

Greenfield Business Association and Sandri Companies

Join Greenfield 10% Challenge

GREENFIELD, MA – The Greenfield Business Association (GBA) and The Sandri Companies have joined the Greenfield 10% Challenge to help the Town meet the goal of reducing its energy use by 10% by the end of 2010. The 10% Challenge was launched last April by the Greening Greenfield campaign.

“Reducing energy use is good for business and for the environment” said Becky George, coordinator of the GBA “We are proud to take the challenge. We are urging our members to join the 10% Challenge and reduce their energy use, and promote the Challenge to their employees and customers.” 

The Sandri Companies, a GBA member, has taken the challenge in a big way. As a local energy provider they have long held the belief that offering products that increase efficiency—and reduce the amount of energy it takes for people to heat their home—is the right thing to do. Taking the 10% Challenge for their own business and promoting the concept to their customer base is a natural extension of what they already try to get their home heating customers to recognize.

“We explain that reducing the amount of energy you use is the best way to cut your heating bills and reduce your environmental impact,” says Skip Dunnell, heating service manager of Sandri’s Home Comfort division. “We encourage an annual tune-up for your heating system to keep it running at peak efficiency, and replacement of outdated equipment with one of our many energy-star rated units when the time comes.”     

In line with signing on to the 10% Challenge, Sandri had an energy audit performed on their facility on Chapman Street. They have cut their energy use there by installing insulation, replacing an old roof, upgrading their lights to compact fluorescents (CFL) on timers, and consolidating numerous pieces of office equipment into a few multi-function machines. They estimate that these conservation measures will reduce their energy use by over 10% and have already begun to see a reduction in their electricity bills. “We recognize that energy efficiency is one of the quickest and most cost effective ways to reduce our environmental impact,” said Tim Van Epps, president of The Sandri Companies. “We also see the opportunities and logic of utilizing renewable energy where it makes sense. We are incorporating this technology into our own buildings and we’ve also begun to offer renewables to our customers.”

Sandri plans to replace their current heating system with an ultra-low emissions wood pellet-fired boiler, which their service department now installs for both residential and commercial applications. They also recently retrofitted the truck-wash that they use on a daily basis to maintain their fleet of 60 transport vehicles. “We replaced an oil boiler with an ultra low emissions wood pellet boiler from Maine Energy Systems and a 3 panel solar thermal system to preheat the water,” explains Mr. Dunnell. “Our goal was to reduce our own carbon footprint while also demonstrating that renewable energy technology can be used for a variety of applications, and that Sandri has the expertise to install and service solar hot water systems and pellet boilers.”

 

“While helping our customers use less oil may seem counterintuitive to our interests,” says Mr. Van Epps, “we feel it’s smart business.” Sandri’s service department has always embraced industry innovations in equipment efficiency and according to Van Epps renewables are logical addition to their business. “We’re working to reduce our carbon footprint at Sandri and we want to help others do the same.”

Sandri is also looking forward to helping train the “green workforce” of the future by offering internships to Greenfield Community College and the Franklin County Technical School students interested in energy efficiency and green energy career options.

The Greenfield Business Association (GBA) is a collaborative, community-minded membership organization. The GBA aims to develop, maintain, and promote the economic, environmental, and cultural assets of our classic New England Town, by serving the diverse and evolving business community, and improving the marketability of Greenfield to area residents and new businesses. In the last three years membership has tripled to 125 members.

“We are thrilled that the Greenfield Business Association has signed on to the Greenfield 10% Challenge,” said Becca King, co-creator of the Challenge and co-chair of the Greening Greenfield Energy Committee. “Sandri coming on board is an example of a GBA member that is not only taking the challenge for itself, but promoting the concept to its employees and customers.”

To find out more about the Greenfield 10% Challenge, go to Greening Greenfield’s web site at www.GreeningGreenfield.org and click on the 10% Challenge logo, or call Becca at 773-7004.

#                      #                      #

The Greening Greenfield campaign is a joint effort of the citizen Greening Greenfield Energy Committee and the Town of Greenfield. The campaign aims to use “greening” as the inspirational and economic engine to build a sustainable Greenfield so that current and future generations can enjoy life in this beautiful abundant valley.

Columnist Susan Laing:

Image via Wikipedia

Dear Friends and Fellow Citizens,

Please visit the website StopSpewingCarbon.com to find information about the citizen “Initiative Petition to Change the Law in Massachusetts” regarding the allowable limit of CO2 emissions from new power plants in MA. I am one of the 10 original petitioners, and now that the petition has been certified, we must collect 100,000 signatures in the next 6 weeks to ensure that the proposed new law can be debated and voted upon in November of 2010.

We are trying to stop biomass incinerators. Biomass is a nice sounding term that denotes a set of things including public forests, trash including hospital waste, construction and demolition debris. Those biomass power plants (incinerators that make a tiny bit of electricity) emit at least 50% more CO2 than coal per killowatt hour (depending on what exactly is burned) – not to mention the other greenhouse gases and toxins.

In western MA there are many companies strong-arming small towns with promises of jobs and real estate taxes, looking for permits to do exactly this incineration in the name of (and with the public subsidies for) "renewable energy." Those public subsidies should go to wind, solar and geothermal; with biomass in the renewable category, the money will be diverted to biomass—a fancy name for incineration. Combustion does not belong with renewables. Our investment in the future does not belong in the hands

In my town of Greenfield, Massachusetts, Pioneer Renewable Energy, LLC will build (unless we the people succeed in stopping it) an incinerator to burn 3 million pounds of green wood, 24/7, to produce one quarter of one percent of the electricity Massachusetts citizens are using now.

55% of that wood will come from public forests. There have been clear cuts from Mass public forests for a biomass plant in New Hampshire. I urge you to visit MaForests.org to see the evidence. It will also evaporate close to 600,000 gallons of water daily--water that the river is accustomed to receiving daily from our wastewater treatment plant. In case of a drought, the biomass plant will have the right to take what it needs from our reservoir. If there is not enough water for both the people and the power plant...

None of this is going in the right direction for climate change and sustaining life on this planet. We can do something to help shift the direction, and we must do whatever we can!

In Massachusetts, and in the Waxman Markey bill and now in the Senate Climate Bill, biomass is included among the "renewables," which means that the CO2 from those operations will be off the books, not counted in the CO2 emissions. This is the most alarming and nearly invisible treachery of all.

At the Zoning Board Hearing in Greenfield, for example, when the developer (a 34 year old grad of Tufts School of International Diplomacy) was asked, "What about the CO2?" the answer on the record was, "There will be no CO2." In the real world there will be TONS of CO2 emitted, but in the made-up world of pollution trading, it helps the game to define biomass among renewables and to define renewables as having zero CO2 emissions.

The real world in which our bodies live and breath is irrelevant to these climate bill operatives. The financial game is what matters to them. What matters to you? Will you have enough to buy your family's passage to the new planet when this one is cooked? It's time to prove that WE THE PEOPLE means something.

Please be in touch in with me if you can help gather signatures. It's easy, fun and satisfying citizen work. A voter’s signature says, “Yes, let my fellow citizens raise this question for public discussion and a vote in November of 2010."

Please help me get this initiative to the ballot! Call me (413-773-5529) or email me (vermontlives@gmail.com) and let me know what you think. I'll make it easy for you to help!

Sincerely, Susan Laing, originally from Somerset, Massachusetts