Thursday, April 22, 2010

Earth Day: Biomass Mess in Massachusetts

Same as the Vermont Yankee situation; I have a direct interest.

Yeah, our local politicians won't even listen to the will of the people.


You $hall $oon $ee why.

"On wood, burning questions; Critics challenge ‘green’ fuel claims" by Beth Daley, Globe Staff | July 26, 2009

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. - It helps combat global warming.

Ever notice the newspaper always frames issues in terms of war?

No matter what it is, it is a war (chainsaw link), readers -- for your mind!

Wood - or biomass as it is often called - is hailed by many environmentalists, scientists, and politicians as a renewable energy source because it can easily be replenished by planting trees - and because the new trees will, over time, absorb the greenhouse gases the power plants emit.

Do you know how long it takes a tree to "grow up?"

Then again, what am I expecting reading a Boston Globe?

But with more than 10 wood-burning power plants proposed throughout New England - including three extraordinarily controversial proposals in Western Massachusetts - wood’s green credentials are coming under attack.

Hi, readers.


Just like wind projects, where concerns about bird safety and aesthetics have stalled dozens of proposals, biomass is the latest alternative energy source to undergo deep public scrutiny.

More than 400 people packed a Greenfield school last month to protest a proposed biomass plant there, for example.

Yes, readers, I WAS ONE!!!!!!!

And, sparked partly by the opposition, Massachusetts energy and environmental officials are launching an in-depth review of biomass, from how the fuel is harvested to how quickly new trees can recapture the heat-trapping gases emitted from burning wood. Biomass plants burn virtually any wood material - from stumps to whole trees to branches and treetops left over from logging.

Or DEBRIS, did they tell you that?

Poisonous, chemical-laden debris!!

Only five miles down the road!


“Everyone says it is sustainable, but how do we know it is?’’’ said Mary Booth, an ecologist and cofounder of the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, a research and advocacy group that opposes large wood-burning power plants. While many biomass developers promise to burn wood leftover from logging or tree-trimming operations her group fears vast tracts of forests will be heavily cut. “There is no definition . . . no rules,’’ she said.

Well, there is a GOOD CONCERN over that!

Advocates acknowledge that biomass will never make up a huge part of US power production, maybe somewhere between 5 percent and 10 percent by 2030. Today in New England, less than 3 percent of electricity comes from biomass. Yet supporters say burning trees is important because, in the end, they don’t add any heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere that contribute to global warming.

The scale of self-deception is amazing, isn't it?

Biomass power plants do emit these gases, supporters say, but the same amount is reabsorbed by new trees planted to replace the burned ones - essentially recycling the pollutants over and over again.

Do you like being sold a lie by your newspaper?

Fossil fuels, like coal, are extracted from deep in the earth and add extra gases to the atmosphere. Decades of burning fossil fuels has emitted so many heat-trapping gases, there is no natural way to absorb them all.

The only one I can think of is the spew of the newspaper, sorry.


A growing number of states are adopting rules, or plan to, to ensure that biomass fuel is green, including potentially banning the burning of wood from threatened landscapes and requiring environmentally sensitive logging practices. Environmentalists, meanwhile, are working to ensure federal climate legislation includes rules for biomass.

I can't take anymore, I really can not.

“Biomass is an important piece of the puzzle . . . now it’s [about] how to do it right,’’ said John Rogers of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Cambridgebased advocacy group.

But not that concerned.

Today, coal-fired plants power more than half of the United States. Scientists want to replace some of them with solar panels and wind turbines because they do not generate heat-trapping emissions.

Yeah, the SUN SURE gets PLAYED DOWN, 'eh?

Gee, you get those solar panels going and the next thing you know -- no electricity company with a bill, 'eh, America?

I guess that is why they are so expensive to install.

But wind is variable and clouds often block the sun, making these energy sources intermittent.

Yeah, always a BUT, IF, YET, etc, etc.

Why not just STICK with WHAT WE HAVE?

In contrast, biomass provides constant power for businesses and homes as long as there is wood.


It's a FINITE RESOURCE no matter how many trees you plant!

Of course, the SUN is only getting hotter (so I'm told), and that will be around for THOUSANDS more YEARS!

And Massachusetts, like a majority of states, rewards biomass plants with lucrative renewable energy certificates that electricity suppliers need to buy to meet energy goals. It’s the main reason for the increase in proposed plants. With these certificates, wood becomes inexpensive to burn, competitive with coal and natural gas.

Then the STATE is WARPED, reader$!

Wood energy is not a new concept in New England.


It keeps the house warm, 'kay?


That's how the SEAS BECAME EMPTY!

Don't you guys EVER LEARN?

About 15 biomass power plants exist today, according to the Biomass Power Association, an industry group, and a burgeoning movement is underway to heat more schools and homes with wood.

Then the kid can go outside for recess and develop breathing problems like asthma.

But opponents say new large biomass plants would wreak havoc on the region, not only because of constant truck traffic and smog-causing pollution, but because the plants would place extraordinary pressure on the region’s forests. “The beautiful contiguous forest is what makes Western Massachusetts so unique,’’ said Jana Chicoine, who has organized citizens to protest a proposed biomass plant in Russell designed to power 50,000 homes. “These plants pose a serious threat to the gorgeous landscape.’’

Yeah, but WHO CARES what WE THINK OUT HERE (as tears come to my eye; must be the biomass plant burning something)!!!

Two other projects are proposed in Western Massachusetts - a large plant in Greenfield and a slightly smaller one in Springfield that mostly would burn recycled construction and demolition material.

I TOLD YOU ABOVE it was NOT AS GOOD as the agenda-pushing Glob was making it sound!

Environmentalists and residents are upset that state officials recently concluded that the Greenfield and Springfield plants do not require in-depth environmental reviews.

I guess that was their way of FLIPPING U$ the FINGER, 'eh?

Most of the wood in Western Massachusetts would probably come from private lands, biomass industry executives say. Still, state forests may experience more cutting because of biomass use, state officials acknowledge. But they argue that this would be beneficial, because they want to thin the forests to make them healthier, but have had little means to pay for the process. Revenue from biomass sales would allow them to do the work.


Here, let me cut off that leg to make you healthier, reader.

“We’re not going to manage our forests in an ecologically unsustainable way because of the increasing interest in biomass,’’ said Ian Bowles, Massachusetts secretary of energy and environmental affairs. Still, he said, “the time has come to ask the hard questions’’ about biomass.

A biomass plant producing enough power for 1,000 homes needs roughly 13,000 tons of wood a year, said Eric Kingsley of Innovative Natural Resource Solutions LLC, a forestry consultant based in Maine. To harvest trees in a sustainable way for those 1,000 homes, which means cutting a small amount each year and allowing new trees to grow back to replace them, a plant would need about 9,000 acres of forest. But others say much more forest land is required.


To make biomass economically feasible, plants must get their wood from close by to reduce transportation costs. That’s why few large plants - plants that power more than 50,000 homes - and biomass alone will not solve New England’s needs.


In Portsmouth, the wood-burning power plant at Schiller Station replaced one of three coal-burning boilers in 2006. Its fuel largely comes from within a 60-mile radius, but sometimes it comes from Central Massachusetts and Cape Cod. Every week, 300 to 400 trucks laden with wood chips back up to an unloading dock to dump the debris into a hopper.

Do you want them rumbling though your neighborhood as they destroy forests?

The wood travels along a conveyor belt to a sorting screen, where small chips pass through and eventually are burned for power. A wood chipper breaks up large pieces, which are then also burned.

“We’ve had six or seven biomass plants up here since the ’80s, and we’re not running out of trees,’’ said Jasen Stock, executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, a group of mostly private landowners.

Still, as more biomass projects are proposed in New England and across the country, some environmentalists say, there is another larger, troubling question: Re-growing trees will take decades to absorb the heat-trapping gases burned in biomass plants. If reducing emissions is critical now, should we burn so many?

And WHY SAVE THAT QUESTION for the END of the agenda-pushing ARTICLE?

“We need to figure out a way to adapt biomass to meet the 21st-century needs of climate change,’’ said Sue Reid of the Conservation Law Foundation, an advocacy group.



Yeah, those questions are always left for opinion page pieces in which no one is interested.

"A red flag on green energy plan" by Mary Stuart Booth | May 25, 2009

Mary Stuart Booth is co-founder of the Mass. Environmental Energy Alliance.

SUPPOSE you learned that, in the name of green energy, Massachusetts was going to sanction cutting down trees - a lot more trees - and burning them. Crazy, you'd say? Right. But those are the facts.

I do not need anymore convincing; not after what I have seen.

It's widely acknowledged that forest burning in developing countries is a major source of greenhouse gases. Yet because of an accounting convention, the northeastern Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which seeks to cap carbon dioxide generated by the energy sector, treats carbon released into the atmosphere by burning wood as if it is immediately "resequestered" by new growth, and is thus "carbon neutral." Although it takes a minute to burn a tree and 70 years to grow it back, there is no acknowledgement that regrowth is not immediate. The climate bill before Congress buys into this notion, too.

Oh, readers. What AGENDA-PUSHING DISTORTION$ the new$paper ha$ promoted!

To meet the 2018 cap set by the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Massachusetts is increasing renewable energy generation, and treating wind, solar, and biomass as equally carbon-neutral approaches. Hence, the state is fast-tracking three large biomass plants to generate 135 megawatts of power in Western Massachusetts. In total, 165 to 200 megawatts of biomass generation are being planned. Estimates of fuel for these plants rely on the state's "biomass availability study," but this report is misleadingly optimistic.

Yes, readers, the STATE is LYING TO YOU AGAIN!!!

The study assumes that biomass is available not only in Western Massachusetts but also in surrounding counties and other states. However, since other states are building their own biomass plants, it's likely this fuel won't be available. Estimates of available biomass include sawmill waste, which the report admits is mostly committed to existing markets. Most troubling, a full one-third is "urban forestry residues" and construction and demolition debris, which releases arsenic, mercury, and other contaminants when burned.


Removing these fuels from the total, the resulting wood from Western Massachusetts is sufficient for one 17-megawatt plant; including the buffer counties, there would enough for two 55-megawatt plants, if other states didn't use that wood themselves.

Acknowledging the scarcity of biomass supplies, the state report describes how new forest cutting is needed to provide biomass fuel. The report calls for cutting 25 dry tons of wood an acre from forests, or about 45 "green" tons an acre. At this rate, 14,300 acres would have to be cut a year, or 39 acres a day, to supply 650,000 tons of fuel for a single 50-megawatt plant.

Where will that wood come from? The state's public lands are in the crosshairs. Removing conservation reserves and steep and wet areas from consideration, and recognizing that landowner attitudes about timber extraction limit use of private lands, the state report estimates that approximately 845,000 acres are available for biomass fuel, of which 465,000 are public. If these lands were required to supply fuel to the 165 to 200 megawatts of biomass generation now planned, the entire 845,000 acres would be logged in 15 to 18 years.

More on that below.

Besides the threat to state and private lands, harvesting trees for biomass will increase greenhouse gas emissions. Biomass energy is argued to be carbon neutral when it uses the tops and branches of trees that are otherwise not collected in forestry operations, since these forestry residues would eventually decompose, releasing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. However, decomposition occurs over decades; biomass burning releases a pulse of carbon dioxide instantaneously.

The carbon neutrality argument really stumbles when new trees with a future of carbon sequestration ahead of them are harvested. The trees left after thinning can't make up in growth for the biomass that's been lost; further, those trees are typically soon harvested for timber. It takes decades before a harvested forest sequesters the carbon that an undisturbed forest does. The 845,000 acres of medium-aged forests targeted for energy extraction by the state lock up almost 6 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, equivalent to 23 percent of the state's 2006 carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation. In contrast, the trees burned to generate the proposed 165 to 200 megawatts of biomass power would increase energy-sector carbon dioxide emissions by 8 to 10 percent, while supplementing the state's power supply by about 1 percent.

Does this make any sense to you?



And before you burn that wood consider this:

"Italy seizes toxic wood fuel pellets" by Associated Press | June 15, 2009

ROME - Police across Italy have seized 10,000 tons of wood fuel pellets contaminated by a radioactive substance, news reports said yesterday.

The fuel seized Saturday had been imported from Lithuania in the fall and was found to contain caesium-137, a highly toxic isotope whose radiation can cause serious health problems, including various types of cancer.

Hey, that is what is IN the SOIL just over the STATE LINE in VERMONT!

The Corriere della Sera daily quoted police officials as saying the pellets could have posed a health threat only through the smoke and ashes they produce when burned. Further tests on pellets were being conducted to determine how dangerous they were. Wood pellets and other kinds of biomass fuels are used in stoves and furnaces as an environmentally friendly alternative to oil-based fuels....

Does THAT SOUND "environmentally-friendly" to you?

And how about the WAR MACHINE?

How "environmentally-friendly" is that, and where are the environmental protesters?

Maybe STOPPING the WARS would HELP a WHOLE PILE, huh?

Related: Coming Soon: Climate Conflicts



Yeah, just BURN THAT STUFF whatever it is, Bay-Stater!

You want to watch TV tonight, right?

And LOOK who i$ BEHIND the Bioma$$ effort, Massachusetts!

"Developer financed citizen group’s activity; Consultant aided Russell residents in effort to back power plant" by Beth Daley, Globe Staff | September 8, 2009

Russell First! bills itself as a grass-roots group - citizens who organized on their own in the tiny Western Massachusetts community to support a proposed wood-burning power plant.

But it turns out the power plant’s developer also played a key role: It paid a consultant to help the residents organize.

Last year, Russell Biomass, the developer, hired Avakian Consulting, a firm with an office in Boston, which advertises “Community Outreach that Wins!’’ On its website, the company says it “has serviced its clients’ needs and developed strategies that have helped win BILLIONS in local funding campaigns on their behalf.’’

Avakian workers, on Russell Biomass’s dime, met with residents at least twice last spring to organize support for the plant, a spokesman for Russell Biomass acknowledged in a recent interview. Avakian came up with the group’s name and created a Web page that describes the group as providing “grass-roots support for Russell biomass.’’

Don't you just LOVE BEING DECEIVED, fellow citizens?

Members of Russell First! say they are true supporters of the project, which is seeking to burn wood to power about 50,000 homes. But an opponent of the plant criticized the developer’s role.

“It gives the public the appearance that there is more diversity of opinion than really exists,’’ said Mary Booth, senior analyst with the Massachusetts Environmental Energy Alliance, a group against large-scale wood-burning, or biomass, plants. “It raises questions about their credibility.’’


And on the wars, single-payer healthcare, the bailouts, or any other issue you name they are in direct opposition to what 80% of us want!

Developers’ involvement in the creation of community-based support groups has become so common that such groups have been nicknamed “astroturf’’ - for their fake grass-roots origin.

You know, the thing Democrats accuse of the tea-baggers.

“Astroturf’’ organizations have been discovered in recent years trying to get a liquefied natural gas plant built in Boston and a wind farm constructed in Vermont.

Related: Al-CIA-Duh's Ship Has Come In!

They are trying to bring terrorists to you, Boston?

Proposed five years ago, the Russell plant has seen the approval process dragged out in large part over some residents’ concerns about traffic, pollution, and harm to the region’s expanse of forests.

Yeah, who the hell are they, anyway?

If they were 8,000 miles away and over oil they might even be invaded!

Tired of opponents dominating the public conversation, Russell First! members said a small group began talking among themselves to spread the word about the plant’s benefits, such as jobs and taxes, to the community of under 2,000 people....

Try reading the Boston Globe every day. Ain't easy, let me tell you.

Although the biomass developer is now open about its involvement with Russell First!, it did not disclose its financial support for the group’s organization in an article published in June in The Republican newspaper of Springfield, which reported that Russell First! was working to get the plant built....


Isn't that a lot like a LIE?


Related: Russell fire grows to 100 acres

And the Globe has said nothing about it.

Yeah, NOW the QUESTIONS START coming:

"Mass. rethinking plans for wood-burning power plants; Opponents seek to place limits on emissions" by Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press | November 8, 2009

The Patrick administration is rethinking its support of wood-burning power plants, a key element of its long-term strategy to wean the state off fossil fuels.

Wood, also known as biomass, has long been part of the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources, along with solar, wind, and geothermal. But some environmental activists say biomass plants could lead to the clear cutting of forests while pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than coal plants, adding to global warming. That criticism has ramped up recently in Western Massachusetts.

Yeah, it took us getting all hot and bothered for them to f***ing listen!

The administration has already invested $1 million to jump-start four proposed wood-burning plants in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield, and Pittsfield....

Yeah, who cares what the PEOPLE LIVING THERE want.


Meg Sheehan, an attorney based in Cambridge, calls biomass “a false solution to the climate change crisis. They are trying to convince the public that this is clean and green when it is neither. It is an incinerator that burns wood.’’


Sheehan is pushing a ballot question that would severely restrict the amount of carbon dioxide the plants can emit. If supporters can gather enough signatures, the question would appear on the 2010 ballot. Other opponents of wood-burning plants include Dr. James Wang, president of the Hampden District Medical Society. He released a letter last month saying the proposed biomass plant in Russell presents “an unacceptable threat to the health of the citizens of the Pioneer Valley.’’

A DOCTOR said that, huh?

Not a very difficult diagnosis, was it, doc?

Biomass plant owners argue that every megawatt of power produced by wood-burning plants replaces a megawatt produced by a coal plant. They also argue that unlike coal, trees left standing can absorb the carbon dioxide released when wood is burned. And the trees cut down for fuel can be replanted.

I'm no longer interested in their self-serving arguments or deceptions.

State Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles said the state is planning a public meeting in Western Massachusetts in late November to hear concerns about the biomass plants. He said he expects the state to eventually approve stricter regulations on the plants.


"Critics oppose Springfield, Mass. wood power plant

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. --Residents opposed to a planned wood burning power plant in Springfield are calling on Gov. Deval Patrick to halt the plant's permitting. The group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield said they are concerned that the plant could add to health problems like asthma. The group is planning to hold a press conference on Wednesday ahead of an evening meeting by the Springfield Public Health Council devoted, in part, to hearing from residents concerned about the plant. Opponents say they're worried about plans to burn wood from construction and demolition sites. The Patrick administration is rethinking its support of wood-burning power plants, saying it wants more information about possible negative effects.

Why do they ALWAYS DRAG THEIR FEET when it comes to OUR HEALTH, huh?


More foot-dragging.

"Bill would ban burning of debris at plants

Environmental and health advocates, including the American Lung Association, are pushing a bill that would ban the use of old construction and demolition debris in wood-burning power plants. The legislation is scheduled to be reviewed at a public hearing Tuesday before the Legislature’s Environmental Committee at the State House. The bill also calls for a study of all proposed wood-burning plants to investigate any potential harmful effects they might have on the air, water, and public. Scott Keays, a spokesman for the American Lung Association of New England, said the plants pose a health hazard. Plants officials, however, say they are a key part of the state’s efforts to promote renewable energy. Plants have been proposed in Russell, Greenfield, Springfield, and Pittsfield (AP)."

Yeah, we got casinos and bullying through but nothing on that.

"State to hold hearings on forest land use

Massachusetts officials will hold public hearings on the best way to manage forest lands within the state parks system, as their current policy comes under attack. The goal is to find ways to balance sometimes competing uses of forest land, from recreation and tourism to preserving habitat diversity and harvesting renewable forest products. In an op-ed column in the Boston Sunday Globe, Dr. Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, accused the Patrick administration of clear-cutting state forests and selling off timber to private interests.

Oh, ANOTHER DOCTOR come out against the felling of trees, 'eh?

Chivian said the state Department of Conservation and Recreation is planning to clear and cut thousands of additional acres of public lands unnecessarily. DCR is also overseeing the public review process on managing forest lands. The first hearing is scheduled Feb. 4 at the Westborough Public Library, followed by Feb. 6 hearings at the North Adams Public Library and at Berkshire Community College in Pittsfield. A fourth hearing is Feb. 9 at Jones Library in Amherst. The final hearing will be Feb. 11 at Taunton Public Library.


So what did he have to say to you, readers?

"The folly in felling Bay State’s forests" by Eric Chivian | December 27, 2009

Dr. Eric Chivian, director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, is co-editor and lead author of “Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity.’’

WITH ONE hand, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation is working to protect our land in perpetuity by encouraging people to take out conservation easements that prohibit development and restrict destructive forestry practices like clear-cutting. With the other, it is sending out its loggers - with their chainsaws, skidders, and trucks - to clear-cut and sell large swaths of state forests.

In recent years, thousands of acres have been leveled, and DCR (whose motto is “It’s your nature’’) has plans to cut and clear thousands more. This degradation of our public lands is not at the hands of some greedy developer, but by the very officials we have entrusted to protect them....

It is the SAME ACROSS the BOARD, readers!!

Health, environment, terror, it is ALL the SAME!

These clear-cuts have been justified by the belief that they create diverse forest habitats that are healthier both for the forests and the wildlife that live there. But many leading biologists - including professor Stuart Pimm of Duke University - strongly disagree, as do countless scientific studies. In the Quabbin Reservoir watershed alone, which purifies Boston’s drinking water, DCR has clear-cut many hundreds of acres, including one healthy forest....

Fine, let them die of thirst.

But clear-cuts are not just an aesthetic disaster. They:

■ Encourage erosion and lessen watershed protection, as the root systems of a living forest hold soils together and filter out nutrients and other pollutants that foul drinking water.

■ Reduce the capacity of forests to filter and detoxify air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides that can trigger heart attacks and worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma. These purifying processes take place on the surfaces of leaves.

■ Threaten countless animals, plants, and microbes by destroying their habitats.

■ Increase populations of white-footed mice, which can thrive in these degraded areas, by wiping out some of their predators and competitors. White-footed mice are the main host for the bacteria that cause, and the ticks that transmit, Lyme disease. When forests are fragmented, people at the edges of these forests are at greater risk of getting Lyme, which can cause serious long-term health problems.

Animals? I hadn't even thought of them.

Yeah, the agenda-pushing paper is all about doing good.

But most important, at a time when we are trying to increase every possible sink for capturing carbon dioxide so as to lessen the consequences of climate change; when we need to plant more forests, not cut down those we already have....

The science that the DCR is relying upon to justify its clear-cutting is selective, incomplete, and debatable.


Yes, the LIES kind of SHREDDED their CREDIBILITY, didn't it?

There needs to be a moratorium on all clear-cutting in Massachusetts state forests. As the owners of these forests, the people of Massachusetts should expect the Commonwealth, which just lost its coveted Forest Stewardship Council “green certification’’ because of its destructive forestry practices, to do nothing less.



And EVEN the GLOBE has smelled the fart mist, folks!

"Wood-fired power plants are no environmental cure-all

IT ALWAYS seemed bizarre to think that cutting down trees and burning them for fuel could be a good way to reduce carbon emissions.

Same with ethanol, but the Glob endorsed that way back when!

And yet both the Kyoto climate change treaty and a key bill in the US House look favorably on generation not just from biofuels such as ethanol but also from so-called biomass, including wood. Fortunately, scientists are beginning to consider biomass with a more skeptical eye.

Of course, when it comes to the big fart of a lie, the Glob still supports it.

Late last month, Massachusetts launched a study on whether biomass power-generation plants are sustainable - the crucial question in the debate on four plants proposed for the western part of the state....

Biomass and biofuels have won privileged status in global warming agreements in part because the carbon dioxide they absorb from the atmosphere would return to it no matter what - either through burning or through natural decomposition over time. But only recently has it begun to sink in that, far from lowering emissions, leveling a forest full of carbon-absorbing trees adds to emissions - whether the trees are burned in a power plant or simply removed to clear land for biofuel crops like corn or soybeans.

Oh, NOW WE $EE what OTHER INTERE$T$ are at play, readers!!!

In the future, utilities will be required to obtain an increasing percentage of their power from renewable sources. The Massachusetts study will inform new state regulations on whether and how biomass and biofuels facilities will qualify to meet that rule. Thanks to good marketing and good lobbying by agribusiness and forestry interests, biomass and biofuels are prominent in many discussions about green energy.

"Green" energy?

And who is LOOKING out for YOU, citizen?

But Massachusetts should make sure that supposedly renewable energy sources don’t make a global climate problem worse.

No, not the state or MSM!

Globe didn't really come out against them as the title implied, did they?



And if you still need to be convinced:

"Man electrocuted at Creative Biomass

A 52-year-old man was electrocuted to death yesterday while working at the firm Creative Biomass. Fire officials did not release the man’s name, but said he was one of three co-owners. The man was rewiring a dust-collecting unit, said Deputy Fire Chief Robert Haley. The victim was discovered by a co-worker who took wires out of his hands and shut off the power. He was pronounced dead at Leominster Hospital.