A Proud NIMBY

I’m coming out. Jumping into this ”biomess” fiasco. Can’t resist.

I was, at first, reluctant to enter the dustup for many reasons, not the least of which is that a forester I am not. Also, I myself heat with wood, annually sending seven cords’ worth of smoke billowing skyward from October to May. So who am I to complain about wood smoke from biomass or those controversial residential wood boilers, for that matter? But more than anything else, addressing such an issue requires work, and I have other subjects of interests on my plate. Let others do the heavy lifting. I’ll just sit and watch from the sidelines. That was my initial, slothful reaction before the clamor grew deafening and several activists contacted me directly, figuring I wore political stripes similar to theirs.

Well, I finally gave in and jumped softly into the fray last week with a little left jab that brought praise from several biomass opponents and criticism from a supporter who called me a NIMBY, that pejorative acronym that translates as ”not in my back yard,” an attitude I do not deny coddling. In fact, if the critic who called me a NIMBY thought it an insult, what a lame attempt. I am a proud NIMBY, deeply rooted here in the Happy Valley all the way back to our Colonial Contact Period, and committed to preserving the rural character and historic assets of my ancestors, including landscapes. So, send me a NIMBY hat, a shirt to match, and I’ll sport them proudly through City Square, at the polling place, the supermarket, absolutely no hesitation. But, please, none of that cheap Wal-Mart stuff; preferably a New Era fitted cap, either 100 percent cotton or a wool blend; same with the T-shirt, 100 percent cotton, dense thread count. No crap that could poison me from ingestion of sweatband dyes. Made in the USA, hopefully by someone working for a living wage.

So tell me, given my NIMBY predisposition, how could I possibly support a filthy smokestack — brainchild of a faraway investor, to boot — towering over prehistoric Peskeomskut, a landmark in our green, fertile valley? Sorry fellas, ain’t gonna happen. You wanna line up banks of solar panels on some unobtrusive southern exposure, go for it, I’m fully supportive if it’ll take me off the grid. But a smokestack that could lead to forest devastation akin to the photos posted by Massachusetts Forest Watch at www.maforests.org? Uh-uh! Not for me. I don’t call that progress, no matter how much profit can be earned.

Another reason I hesitated to attack this proposed incinerator (ooops) is that ”responsible” logging of our prevalent ”old-growth forest” would improve habitat for game like whitetail deer and ruffed grouse, both of which thrive in young forest. Our deer-management team has identified old-growth forests, particularly in western Franklin and Berkshire counties, as a detriment to attaining their desired deer densities of 12 to 16 per square mile. Forests dominated by large trees 80 and more years old choke off understory, limiting an essential food source crucial for rebuilding a deer herd. Small patches of clear-cutting in harmony with responsible thinning of adjacent old forest stimulates regeneration, producing needed browse to build and sustains a vibrant deer herd. But responsible logging is not what I see on the Forest Watch site, and it’s not what expert Chris Matera describes in his troubling ”Massachusetts Chainsaw Massacre” report at www.maforests.org/Release.pdf, either; an indictment of the Patrick Administration for promoting destructive biomass logging. Look at the photos. Read the report. Tell me it’s appealing to you. The photos hit home. They’re right in our neighboring state forests, disgusting too weak an adjective.

But I don’t want to be unfair. I saw where a Shutesbury forester criticized the anti-biomass hysteria, said there were strict rules in place here in Massachusetts to prevent irresponsible logging. He clearly knows more about the subject than I, and maybe there are rules in place to protect historic landscapes and prevent butcher jobs. But I’m a Sixties guy who doesn’t trust government to ”do the right thing.” Do you?

Of course, there are different opinions among foresters. A case in point is another Franklin County forester and loyal reader of this space. Seeking an expert opinion, I e-mail queried him about the issue last week. His delayed response was interesting. He said he owned forest and would benefit from biomass, which would provide a market for otherwise ”unsalable” wood, ”especially after the great ice storm of 2008.” But the man is more committed to forests and wildlife than dollars and cents, and, ”as an ecologist,” said he has strong reservations about the many biomass proposals statewide. He knows the claims from some colleagues who believe our forests can easily withstand biomass, and that, given our tough forest-cutting restrictions, there is no real danger. But he isn’t buying it. Like me, he appears to harbor a healthy distrust of government. I guess anyone worth their salt should.

Anyway, our informed source — one I have chosen not to name because, in my opinion, it’s not important — broke down his overriding biomass concerns in the note. I found them interesting indeed, not surprising.

”First,” he wrote, ”current cutting laws are mostly aimed at production, not wildlife habitat. We all know that forest management benefits some species, but we know little about wholesale forest cutting and the impacts on some of our animals that have returned because of reforestation. Black bears and ravens come to mind.”

He went on to say he doesn’t trust the numbers being used by biomass proponents and can’t understand why an environmental-impact report wasn’t required, or why one facility isn’t permitted as a test site to study the impact, ”not only on air and water quality, but also wildlife habitat, rare species, etc.”

Our West County source admits he finds the debate interesting and has followed it. He also understands the importance of local energy sources. But, still, he keeps returning to the same crucial question: Is biomass a wise use of our resources? ”Not to sound jaded,” he wrote, ”but right now it looks to me like a plan to make some city-slickers rich. ”I can think of a better use of our forests. Like a home for black bears, for instance.”

Obviously, not all foresters are in his camp. But consider this: Wholesale logging to support raging furnaces could mean work for foresters, consultants who thus may not be our most trusted sources. Conversely, maybe we should heed those opposed, because they’re taking a position that potentially takes money out of their own pockets.

As for the biomass test-site our forester foe proposes: I say send it to Lowell or Lawrence or Brockton, or some other stooped mill town built by child labor on landscapes long ago ravaged. Better still, send it to the industrial heartland or the sunny South; Houston, for instance, where people die and are diseased every day by the air they breathe, the water they drink. Their leaders welcome and deserve such maladies, and can have them.

But, please, not in my back yard.

Yeah, perfect, Not – In – My – Back – Yard.

A beautiful ring to it.

NIMBY

My proud mantra.

Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Mad Meg theme designed by BrokenCrust for WordPress © | Top