 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
REPP-CREST
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
contact us
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Bioenergy Archive for January 2001 |
|
| 74 messages, last added Tue Oct 22 18:31:41 2002 |
[Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: California power pricing
Kevin,
Ms. Fazio and myself share the views of the majority
of the American citizens. There are already over 100 co-sponsors
in the House of Representives to end commercial logging on public lands.
It is inevitable that ECL will prevail and the bioenergy industry needs
to keep that in mind when planning new projects or they will quickly find
themselves in the same situation as the Honey Creek project.
A huge portion of the population finds it extremist
(ex-steam-ist) to insist that all old growth should be liquidated, that
all lands should be pillaged for profit. Thus far there has been
no compromise on the part of industrial interests. They only want
it all, as cheap as possible, and as soon as possible. We seek compromise.
With only 3% of the original forest of this country intact and only 10%
of the lands in the US in public holdings for all societal benefits, it
would be a sensible, cautious idea to keep those lands as a genetic library
to help with recovery once our hundred year experiment of industrial forestry
shows it's failures in sustainability. Simplified forests and plantations
are highly susceptable to disease and pestilence. Having part of
the genetic library intact on the small percentage of public lands is a
moral imperative, is a compromise, is common sense and is inevitable.
Again, technical discussions in the vaccuum without
facing the realities of negative environmental impacts and social attitudes,
will lead to numeroius problems for this industry. Greenscamming
will be exposed and the industry will suffer if too many attempt to lie
to the public. I assumed that this was a "sustainable" energy movement
as it is presented on the CREST website. Please advise me if sustainability
is no longer the primary consideration. Are profit and perception
the primary goals, rather than actual sustainabilty? If you
all will admit it, then I will quit wasting so much of your time or mine.
Most sincerely, Denny Haldeman
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
Dear
DennyMs
Fazio's views are extremist and closed minded....she has one agenda. I
happen to hold differing views. Why is she right, and why am I wrong???
Why do you not consider that perhaps there are other valid views? How can
there be discussion on Bioenergy when ppl have fixed and closed positions?
Ms. Fazio is certainly not interested in an open minded discussion. It
does not appear that you are either. If this is the case, then the thread
is futile. Hence, my suggestion that we get back to more technical issues
where there is at least some potential for discussion and progress.Kevin
Chisholm
I am so sorry for thinking that consuming public forests for energy against
the wishes of the majority of American citizens was an issue.
I am more sorry that you and your ilk do not think it is either.
I thought this bioenergy discussion on CREST was for sustainable energy.
Denny
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
Dear
DennyI
don't know who Ms. Fazio is, and she probably doesn't know who I am either. I
would like to go on record as saying that I am not against the use of biomass
energy, and I am not in favor of Ending Commercial Logging, no matter what
rhetoric or excuses she manufactures.Now...
can we get back to the technical matters and issues?Kevin
Chisholm, MD, DD, LLD, DMN
Sorry I let this linger..I just refound it back in the email bag.
RACHEL FAZIO, wishes for it to be known that she did not say anything close
to the following statement, she is pro ECL (End Commercial Logging) on
all public forests, and the reporter took things out of context for his
predisposed leanings on what he wanted his story to say. She is opposed
to using forests for biomass energy, no matter the rhetoric or excuses
manufactured. Denny
|
|
|
