THE BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS CALLED "SCOPING"
Submitted to Shelton Blog by Jake Rufer Mason County Progressive
Floyd McKay's article on a planned $400 million project at Cherry Point north of Bellingham for the purpose of shipping 18 to 20 one mile and one half long train loads of coal per day to the Chinese People's Republic deserves the attention of all people of the world.
With the exception of the corporate rapists and their running dogs, we in Mason County recognize the dangers associated with burning coal--not much different from that of turning wood into electricity or process steam.
Many in Bellingham are highly worried about the effect of 18 to 20 additional trains transiting their community per day. Floyd McKay reports that: "the project faces a bureaucratic process called 'scoping'." To scope means "that someone must set limits (or scope) of the environmental studies that will determine if the project is to be built and, if built, the terms it must meet".
Now, let us look at some aspects of the aforementioned bureaucratic process. Industrialists and bureaucrats alike feel better if the scope of matters to be considered is substantially narrowed. Many scientists are on their side as there are always more studies to be performed. From the industrialists' point of view, a broad scope diminishes likelihood of project approval. From the bureaucrats' point of view, the job involves less work. From the citizens' point of view a narrow scope leaves too many people subject to the ravages of pollution.
Scoping invariably draws forth the question of who are the stakeholders. The permit applicants are automatically "in". From there onward, it is a crap shoot. And our bureaucrats rest easily when scoping narrowly in as much as they insist that they are part of government which is designed to represent the people--so arguably all people within the concerned unit of government, by bureaucratic reckoning, are represented. We in Mason County know all about that.
Scoping as to terms to be met invariably invites the oft used concept of Mitigated Determination of Non- significance as a substitute for a full blown Environmental Impact Statement. In a prior submission to the Shelton Blog, I characterized "mitigation" as a hoax--and it yet is a hoax.
Look out, Bellingham. You are about to experience several hoaxes.
Link to Floyd McKay's article:
http://crosscut.com/2011/02/23/bellingham/20662/Coal-plans-raise-questions-for-Bellingham--/
SHELTON BLOG NOTE:
Link to previous related post "On Mitigation":
http://masoncountyprogressive.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-mitigation.html
Mr. Rufer’s analysis of the Cherry Point proposal now descending on residents of Bellingham offers up further evidence that with each passing day the peoples grasp on Democracy is loosened by the influence of special interests.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of blowing the tops off of our mountains to retrieve coal for export to China is third world economics at its very worst. But adding injury to insult is the fact that coal fuel exacerbates the very climate conditions that lead to so much property damage and human misery.
The implementation of such hypocritical policies sends a clear message that our country has placed a monetary value on life itself, and one that special interests seem far too eager to pay.
SUBMITTED BY: Cassie
ReplyDeleteWe are all just "collateral damage"!
I wonder what the monetary value of an old person is? Or a young person?
ReplyDeleteDoes the life of my 4 year old granddaughter have a greater or lesser value than my life???
Who decides???
Talk about death panels.
These death panels have nothing to do with healthcare coverage, or denial of healthcare coverage; these death panels determine that the corporation has greater value than the human life, old human or young human.