Well, THAT AIN'T MY HOUSE!!!!
Related: Gov. Patrick's Party Palace
What a fart-misting hypocrite, 'eh, Bay Staters?
"More land saved than developed, study finds; Mass Audubon still urges new curbs" by Beth Daley, Globe Staff | May 18, 2009
The slowed pace of development probably has more to do with flat population growth - and more recently the recession - than dramatic changes in zoning and other laws limiting home construction, officials say.
This window of slowed development, Mass Audubon officials say, provides the state an unusual opportunity to reset zoning laws to further protect vulnerable and ecologically important lands, such as pitch pine and scrub oak barrens in the Southeast, and enormous tracts of forest in the western part of the state, where development is headed.
Yeah, THEY DEVELOPED and now SCREW US out here!!!!
Why don't you let US -- you know, the PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE -- make that decision, you globalist pukes!!!
And although many Bay Staters are adopting greener habits, they continue to build larger and larger homes.... Those enormous homes, Mass Audubon officials say, release more global warming pollution and have a larger effect on nature....
"We call our brand of sprawl 'sinister sprawl' because it is a horizontal ooze that spills out of the Pioneer and Connecticut River Valley to [eat up] the most prime agricultural lands," said Timothy W. Brennan, executive director of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission....
Yeah, THAT is what I OPPOSE!!! When it IMPACTS FOOD PRODUCTION! I tend to think food is important!
Part of the Berkshires is included as a danger zone, probably because of increased housing construction from second-home buyers....
Yeah, like our FABULOUS GOVERNOR THERE!!!
And how you getting home, guv? Burning fossil fuels, fart mister?
Oh, yeah, btw, the state and Globe also wants to burn down our forests.
"State revisits ban on new incinerators; Opponents fear impact on recycling initiatives" by David Abel, Globe Staff | May 11, 2009
SAUGUS - With its two boilers brewing fires at more than 2,200 degrees, the massive incinerator along Bear Creek burns 1,500 tons of trash a day, mounds of which are hauled to the aging plant on tractor-trailers and deposited in an 85-foot-deep pit piled high with soggy cardboard, ripped plastic, and loads of other refuse.
In addition to generating enough electricity to power 47,000 homes a day, the incinerator - one of seven left in the state - releases a constant plume of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and an awful, nose-burning stench.
"Ah, the smell of money," John O'Rourke, the incinerator's plant manager, joked during a recent tour. For the first time in 15 years, environmental officials are considering whether to end the state's moratorium on new incinerators....
And we are supposed to take their fart-misting global warming seriously?
Over the years, to the chagrin of environmental groups, waste management companies have lobbied aggressively to lift the ban, arguing that new technology significantly reduces emissions and that it's better to burn the trash and collect the resulting energy than dump it in the state's rapidly filling landfills or ship it out of state, sometimes as far as South Carolina.
Oh, SOUTH CAROLINA takes OUR GARBAGE, huh?
That's another thing I'm sick of: Yankee prejudice
--more--"Of course, here was the nail in the coffin....
"Put biomass in the mix
IF DONE sustainably, generating electricity from biomass can dramatically reduce global warming emissions by displacing coal or other fossil fuels ("Biomass anxiety," Editorial, May 8). Emissions associated with burning fossil fuels for planting, harvesting, transporting, and processing biomass - in addition to emissions from a biomass plant's smokestacks - must be weighed against the carbon dioxide that is taken out of the atmosphere when biomass fuel is regrown. When done right, it's a balanced cycle with few net carbon dioxide emissions.
Of course, our forests and other potential sources for biomass fuel must be managed sustainably, both to protect key natural resources and to ensure that we can rely on clean renewable biomass into the future.
Coal-fired electricity accounts for more than half of our nation's global warming pollution. To avoid the worst consequences of climate change, which would have serious implications for our forests and other native ecosystems, we'll need to transition away from coal and toward a range of clean alternatives such as sustainable biomass, other renewables, energy efficiency, and conservation. Instead of pitting one solution against another, let's work to sustainably deploy them all to address the planet's looming climate change threat.
John Rogers
Senior energy analyst
Union of Concerned Scientists
Cambridge
Senior attorney
Conservation Law Foundation
Boston
--more--"
Oh, the FART-MISTING AGENDA-PUSHERS want us to BURN ALL OUR TREES DOWN!!!
That explains why even the local papers are for this plan -- even though they have published plenty of opinions of those against it.
The fact is, this community is split on the issue -- and isn't that the agenda-pushing MSM's function?
Also see: Globe Makes a Bio-Mess
