The Scales Have Been RiggedSubmitted to Shelton Blog by John Cox Mason County Progressive
Some of the local supporters of biomass incineration are fond of calling people like me, NIMBYs. They think that not wanting an incinerator in my back yard is, somehow, a bad thing. Well, I confess. That's me. I definitely don't want one...or two. And not only do I not want any in my back yard, I don't want any in their back yards either. I don't want any in anybody's back yard. Actually, I just don't want them at all.
I was looking at the Washington Air Quality Advisory gauge on the blog this morning, and started thinking about what it really indicates. This morning the reading was “Moderate” which means that citizens with the following conditions may be sensitive to air pollution at this level and should consider limiting their outdoor activity:
There is no question that particulate matter sized 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) and smaller are a health hazard. The EPA, Washington State, and various medical groups all recognize the problems caused by PM 2.5. Washington's (WAQA) standard says the air is healthy when the PM 2.5 level is less than 13.4 ug/m3. The American Lung Association suggests the level should be 11 or less.
So here's my question:
Why is it that if all the experts know that PM 2.5 levels that are more than 11-13.4 increase our health risks, cause early deaths, etc., does the EPA and ORCAA allow more and more pollution sources to start up in areas that already have a problem? Why is it that here in Shelton where we often see UNHEALTHLY PM 2.5 readings, ORCAA, our politicians, the Chamber Pot and its lackey's all welcome new sources of PM 2.5 in our back yards?
There are people in our community who would welcome ADAGE or another Simpson incinerator with open arms no matter what. It wouldn't matter if ADAGE or Simpson said, “ We want to destroy your lungs. Please help us do it.” They would say, “Yes, I want that. I love that. Bring it on! Welcome to our back yards!” This seems somewhat crazed and not too bright.
It is fortunate that these YIMBYs (Yes! In My Back Yard!) are not the predominate backyard owners here. It is, however, unfortunate that they tend to gravitate toward positions of power whenever possible. YIMBYs have an overwhelming need to suppress facts, science, and information that they do not agree with. Being in a political office makes that desire a bit easier to achieve. “I want it. Therefore it is good. You don't want it. Therefore you are bad”, seems to sum up the thought process. Check out a County Commissioners' meeting sometime to experience it for yourself.
When a government organization makes a decision about whether or not to support a project in a community that comes with inherent risks, the decision should not be a quick and easy one. Scientists, economists, academics, and other experts, must be relied upon to assist in making a decision, along with input from the community. After assessing the risks and benefits, theoretically, a decision will be made that will benefit the community.
In the case of biomass incineration, the risks include increased pollution, increased incidence of heath and lung diseases, fewer trees, release of massive amounts of CO2, increased acidification of local waters which will effect the shellfish industry, decreased property values, wasted tax dollars, increased subsidies for corporations (transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy), and of course, there's nothing like the scenic beauty of smokestacks.
The benefits of biomass incineration can be summed up in one word, MONEY. Corporate profits, tax subsidies for local forest owners, donations to political campaigns of supporting politicians and other various forms of payola. The benefit side to the equation is so tied up with money and its corrupting influence, it becomes very difficult to discern the truth.
We've all seen the figure that is used to represent justice—the blindfolded woman holding a scale in her hand. In this context she would be impartially weighing the risks and benefits to determine if biomass incinerators would be a good fit for our community.
I know that lots of my fellow citizens have great faith in this process of weighing risks and benefits. They think that if they can just put enough evidence on their side of the issues, the balance will tilt in their favor, and justice will prevail. A closer look, though, reveals that the scales have been rigged.
It would be more accurate if the scale holder was represented by a politician wearing sunglasses with wads of dollars bills stuffed in his pockets by the Koch Brothers and their surrogates, and he has one of his fat fingers on the scale and calls it progress.
As a card carrying NIMBY, I try to use all the available means at my disposal to overcome the bias of corruption: writing letters, making phone calls, giving testimony at hearings, attending local government meetings, and applying pressure through protests, demonstrations and direct actions. These are all methods that can used to attempt to reshuffle the stacked deck, and restore balance to the determination process. If the arguments supporting biomass incineration were looked at impartially, they would be clearly exposed as the charade they are.
I was looking at the Washington Air Quality Advisory gauge on the blog this morning, and started thinking about what it really indicates. This morning the reading was “Moderate” which means that citizens with the following conditions may be sensitive to air pollution at this level and should consider limiting their outdoor activity:
- those with lung and heart disease, diabetes, or a current respiratory infection
- those who have had a stroke
There is no question that particulate matter sized 2.5 microns (PM 2.5) and smaller are a health hazard. The EPA, Washington State, and various medical groups all recognize the problems caused by PM 2.5. Washington's (WAQA) standard says the air is healthy when the PM 2.5 level is less than 13.4 ug/m3. The American Lung Association suggests the level should be 11 or less.
So here's my question:
Why is it that if all the experts know that PM 2.5 levels that are more than 11-13.4 increase our health risks, cause early deaths, etc., does the EPA and ORCAA allow more and more pollution sources to start up in areas that already have a problem? Why is it that here in Shelton where we often see UNHEALTHLY PM 2.5 readings, ORCAA, our politicians, the Chamber Pot and its lackey's all welcome new sources of PM 2.5 in our back yards?
There are people in our community who would welcome ADAGE or another Simpson incinerator with open arms no matter what. It wouldn't matter if ADAGE or Simpson said, “ We want to destroy your lungs. Please help us do it.” They would say, “Yes, I want that. I love that. Bring it on! Welcome to our back yards!” This seems somewhat crazed and not too bright.
It is fortunate that these YIMBYs (Yes! In My Back Yard!) are not the predominate backyard owners here. It is, however, unfortunate that they tend to gravitate toward positions of power whenever possible. YIMBYs have an overwhelming need to suppress facts, science, and information that they do not agree with. Being in a political office makes that desire a bit easier to achieve. “I want it. Therefore it is good. You don't want it. Therefore you are bad”, seems to sum up the thought process. Check out a County Commissioners' meeting sometime to experience it for yourself.
When a government organization makes a decision about whether or not to support a project in a community that comes with inherent risks, the decision should not be a quick and easy one. Scientists, economists, academics, and other experts, must be relied upon to assist in making a decision, along with input from the community. After assessing the risks and benefits, theoretically, a decision will be made that will benefit the community.
In the case of biomass incineration, the risks include increased pollution, increased incidence of heath and lung diseases, fewer trees, release of massive amounts of CO2, increased acidification of local waters which will effect the shellfish industry, decreased property values, wasted tax dollars, increased subsidies for corporations (transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy), and of course, there's nothing like the scenic beauty of smokestacks.
The benefits of biomass incineration can be summed up in one word, MONEY. Corporate profits, tax subsidies for local forest owners, donations to political campaigns of supporting politicians and other various forms of payola. The benefit side to the equation is so tied up with money and its corrupting influence, it becomes very difficult to discern the truth.
We've all seen the figure that is used to represent justice—the blindfolded woman holding a scale in her hand. In this context she would be impartially weighing the risks and benefits to determine if biomass incinerators would be a good fit for our community.
I know that lots of my fellow citizens have great faith in this process of weighing risks and benefits. They think that if they can just put enough evidence on their side of the issues, the balance will tilt in their favor, and justice will prevail. A closer look, though, reveals that the scales have been rigged.
It would be more accurate if the scale holder was represented by a politician wearing sunglasses with wads of dollars bills stuffed in his pockets by the Koch Brothers and their surrogates, and he has one of his fat fingers on the scale and calls it progress.
As a card carrying NIMBY, I try to use all the available means at my disposal to overcome the bias of corruption: writing letters, making phone calls, giving testimony at hearings, attending local government meetings, and applying pressure through protests, demonstrations and direct actions. These are all methods that can used to attempt to reshuffle the stacked deck, and restore balance to the determination process. If the arguments supporting biomass incineration were looked at impartially, they would be clearly exposed as the charade they are.
There's just no running from the truth, but there is hiding. All of us need to consider serving on committes or running for elected positions. The best way to avoid standing with your hat in your hand waiting for some official to do the right thing, is to be the official. Truth is, there's a lot smarter people complaining than being complained to. If we're going to change course, let's take over the ship.
ReplyDeleteHow can we get appointed to a political committee in this county when the various committees are appointed by the same people that we oppose? And, when time is critical, how effective is waiting more than two years for the next elections? Maybe it is due to may age but I feel a sense of urgency which makes me feel inclined toward the Egyptian method of mutiny. :-)
ReplyDeleteThen there is the reality of politics in Mason County.
ReplyDeleteIf the voters of Mason County will not elect Brenda Hirschi because she is smart and wants to help fix what is broken; and the voters of Mason County do not acknowledge that anything is broken - "this is the way it has been done for 100 years around here" - as in "we've been burning it in the woods for 100 years; now it will just be controlled, and filtered..."
And it will be right above the town, and the harbor, a giant slash burn operating 24/7/365.
I am all for the Egyptian method, but it would be helpful if the people who are about to be poisoned would also sense the urgency of their predicament, pull their heads out of the sand and get on board with the air breathers... so when we have a rally, it looks like Egypt, or Wisconsin!
Is there something I'm missing here? If we're all about to grab our pitchforks and head to the castle, count me in. In the meantime, I applied to the Oakland Bay Clean Water Advisory Committee and the Shelton Shoreline Committee. You may be right; my letters of interest may have already seen the bottom of the round file but, hey, I was just going to wash my socks, anyway - time better spent? I think so. But just in case I'm wrong, I'll go out to the barn and put a fine point on the ol' pitchfork.
ReplyDeleteP.S. I have a list of all the committees, just in case...
I would be interested in seeing that list, would you email it to me, pretty please.
ReplyDeleteJust in case, though, get those pitch pine torches ready and do, by all means, sharpen up your pitch fork.