EMAIL FROM JOSH SCHLOSSBERG
Terminology: Biomass Incinerator vs. Power Plant
There is nothing the biomass industry hates more than their facilities being called "incinerators". Here's a recent article in the UK speaking to that, likely in response to Biofuelwatch's and GAIA's (and others') excellent anti-biomass incineration work:
http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/latest-news/sutton-bridge-we-re-too-green-to-be-called-an-incinerator-1-4286032
There's also the instance of Seattle Steam biomass threatening to sue Duff Badgley for calling it an incinerator: http://www.nobiomassburning.org/2012/03/seattle-biomass-developer-threatens-to-sue-biomass-opponent-the-biomass-monitor/.
Obviously that touched a nerve.
Of course, the dictionary definition of incinerate is "to burn to ashes" and an incinerator is something that "burns waste", (which the industry insists they are burning, along with whole trees of course), so it's completely accurate. We know from industry conferences and webinars that they do everything they can to avoid the term "incinerator".
Mike Ewall (founder of Energy Justice Network) pointed out that their strategy backfires because when people do online searches for "biomass incinerator" or "biomass incineration" they often come up with anti-biomass stuff rather than pro-biomass, since the industry avoids using those terms. While it's tough to get top search engine hits for "biomass," we can dominate "biomass incineration." Some of us have even gotten newspapers to start referring to things as "biomass incineration."
Just a reminder that a lot of what we're trying to do is messaging and while we must always be accurate in our terminology, let's not underestimate the power of language and the very different images conjured up by "biomass plant" (sounds green and lovely, doesn't it) vs. "biomass incinerator" (sounds industrial and dirty, which it is).
Josh Schlossberg
Anti-Biomass Incineration Campaign
Energy Justice Network
www.energyjustice.net
No comments:
Post a Comment