this is an open discussion forum. keep it clean. personal attacks on private citizens will not be tolerated. you may discuss politics if you like but you may not rip or endorse specific local candidates.
Friday, February 15, 2008
cutting edge technology coming to cedar grove landfill...
as part of pilot project to create electricity from municipal solid waste.
Watch out Southern Rivers Headlines say - "It's not a Landfill; It's a Power Plant" Hope this won't close Southern Rivers down - it's been a part of Barnesville's history for so long. Not to mention this new plant will only employ 25-30 people and it looks like they will have to speak Chinese to work there!
Greenpeace states: "Today, incinerators are sold under a variety of guises. Some of these include fluidised bed incinerators, thermal treatment plants or waste-to-energy systems."
Rachel's Democracy & Health News #863, July 13, 2006
INCINERATORS ARE IMPEDING THE TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABILITY
By Peter Montague http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_new_incinerators.060713.htm
Across the U.S. -- and, indeed, across the world -- waste incinerators are making a comeback. Why? Because there's a huge amount of money to be made. During the 1980s, every state in the U.S. was targeted for several waste incinerators -- "waste to energy" plants, as they were known at that time. (The incinerator industry has always called its machines something besides "incinerators.") These incinerators burned garbage or medical waste and they were filthy, dangerous, expensive, unreliable, materials-destroying, energy-wasting contraptions -- and citizen groups all across the country got organized and managed to stop more than 90% of the proposed incinerators. It was a huge victory and a convincing demonstration that sensible change can occur when a loose coalition of committed, organized citizens makes it happen.
There are basically two problems with incinerators -- no matter what name you may give them. First, they produce dangerous wastes in the form of gases and ash, often creating entirely new hazards, like dioxins and furans, that were not present in the raw waste.
Secondly -- and even more importantly -- incinerators destroy materials that must then be replaced. If I burn a piece of paper instead of recycling it, someone has to manufacture a new piece of paper from raw materials. This is tremendously wasteful because manufacturing one ton of paper creates 98 tons of waste products.[1,pg.51] On average, for every ton of products destroyed in an incinerator, 71 tons of waste must be created somewhere else to re- create those products -- mine wastes, forest wastes, transportation wastes, energy wastes, and so on.[2] ("Waste to energy" incinerators don't even make sense from an energy perspective. For every unit of energy recovered by one of these machines, three to 5 units of energy could have been saved by recycling the products instead of destroying them in an incinerator and then replacing them with new ones.
So why would anyone in their right mind want to build an incinerator? The answer is simple: money. Lots of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An incinerator costs anywhere from $100 million to $500 million to build. For argument's sake, let's say an incinerator costs $200 million. That money comes from the public treasury. Local governments do not often see such large bundles of money flowing their through budgets -- so an incinerator offers a unique opportunity for local politicians and their friends to take their cut, and it's perfectly legal. Bankers, accountants, lawyers, engineers, consultants, realtors and political "fixers" can all scoop off their small percentage. Even one tenth of one percent of $200 million is $200,000 dollars. So an incinerator project causes money to slosh around in the local economy in ways that no other public works project is ever likely to do. At election time, some of that money may kick back as campaign contributions to the officials who made the decision to incinerate local waste. All perfectly legal. But not good for democracy, human health, the natural environment, or the future.
People who are engaged on the front lines of an incinerator fight will want to get a copy of the new report from Greenaction and GAIA, "Incinerators in Disguise." (And they will also want see the earlier report from GAIA and the Institute for Local Self Reliance, Resources Up in Flames.)
THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST ABOUT MONEY AND DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF LAMAR COUNTY
will it just burn lamar trash or will they start bringing in trash from other counties?.....i can see this bringing in more big trucks than the logging, gas, and rock truck.....we could become the truck capital of the state.....is this the type of growth we want and need.....
I agree with all of you - the last thing we need to bring into Barnesville is an incinerator! I'm sure this will be great to add to our list of reason's to move to Barnesville! It's more like reasons to leave!
10 comments:
“Without Laura and Walter Geiger and their newspaper educating the public as to what we do out here, we wouldn’t have this operation,” he said.
-Thanks for making it so easy!
OH please - this is absolutely absurd!
Sounds like a cover up for an incinerator if you ask me!
BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!!
Hey! Has anyone told Billy Kitchings they plan to build a trash incinerator just west of him...?
Bet the fur will fly when that happens. 8-)
Watch out Southern Rivers Headlines say - "It's not a Landfill; It's a Power Plant"
Hope this won't close Southern Rivers down - it's been a part of Barnesville's history for so long. Not to mention this new plant will only employ 25-30 people and it looks like they will have to speak Chinese to work there!
Greenpeace states: "Today, incinerators are sold under a variety of guises. Some of these include fluidised bed incinerators, thermal treatment plants or waste-to-energy systems."
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/incineration/the-problem
Rachel's Democracy & Health News #863, July 13, 2006
INCINERATORS ARE IMPEDING THE TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABILITY
By Peter Montague
http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_new_incinerators.060713.htm
Across the U.S. -- and, indeed, across the world -- waste incinerators are making a comeback. Why? Because there's a huge amount of money to be made.
During the 1980s, every state in the U.S. was targeted for several waste incinerators -- "waste to energy" plants, as they were known at that time. (The incinerator industry has always called its machines something besides "incinerators.") These incinerators burned garbage or medical waste and they were filthy, dangerous, expensive, unreliable, materials-destroying, energy-wasting contraptions -- and citizen groups all across the country got organized and managed to stop more than 90% of the proposed incinerators. It was a huge victory and a convincing demonstration that sensible change can occur when a loose coalition of committed, organized citizens makes it happen.
There are basically two problems with incinerators -- no matter what name you may give them. First, they produce dangerous wastes in the form of gases and ash, often creating entirely new hazards, like dioxins and furans, that were not present in the raw waste.
Secondly -- and even more importantly -- incinerators destroy materials that must then be replaced. If I burn a piece of paper instead of recycling it, someone has to manufacture a new piece of paper from raw materials. This is tremendously wasteful because manufacturing one ton of paper creates 98 tons of waste products.[1,pg.51] On average, for every ton of products destroyed in an incinerator, 71 tons of waste must be created somewhere else to re- create those products -- mine wastes, forest wastes, transportation wastes, energy wastes, and so on.[2] ("Waste to energy" incinerators don't even make sense from an energy perspective. For every unit of energy recovered by one of these machines, three to 5 units of energy could have been saved by recycling the products instead of destroying them in an incinerator and then replacing them with new ones.
So why would anyone in their right mind want to build an incinerator? The answer is simple: money. Lots of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
An incinerator costs anywhere from $100 million to $500 million to build. For argument's sake, let's say an incinerator costs $200 million. That money comes from the public treasury. Local governments do not often see such large bundles of money flowing their through budgets -- so an incinerator offers a unique opportunity for local politicians and their friends to take their cut, and it's perfectly legal. Bankers, accountants, lawyers, engineers, consultants, realtors and political "fixers" can all scoop off their small percentage. Even one tenth of one percent of $200 million is $200,000 dollars. So an incinerator project causes money to slosh around in the local economy in ways that no other public works project is ever likely to do. At election time, some of that money may kick back as campaign contributions to the officials who made the decision to incinerate local waste. All perfectly legal. But not good for democracy, human health, the natural environment, or the future.
People who are engaged on the front lines of an incinerator fight will want to get a copy of the new report from Greenaction and GAIA, "Incinerators in Disguise." (And they will also want see the earlier report from GAIA and the Institute for Local Self Reliance, Resources Up in Flames.)
THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST ABOUT MONEY AND DON'T GIVE A FLIP ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF LAMAR COUNTY
will it just burn lamar trash or will they start bringing in trash from other counties?.....i can see this bringing in more big trucks than the logging, gas, and rock truck.....we could become the truck capital of the state.....is this the type of growth we want and need.....
I agree with all of you - the last thing we need to bring into Barnesville is an incinerator! I'm sure this will be great to add to our list of reason's to move to Barnesville!
It's more like reasons to leave!
Post a Comment