Comments on: Googling Nancy Hone http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/ essentials, entertainment, exploration, ephemera, etc... Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:34:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: rickleaf.com » Neighbors Nugget Number 2 http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/#comment-26 rickleaf.com » Neighbors Nugget Number 2 Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:42:41 +0000 http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/#comment-26 ]]> By: rleaf http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/#comment-25 rleaf Tue, 26 Jun 2007 05:18:01 +0000 http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/#comment-25 The earth and community will not benefit from the plant closing either. The 4 mills at the St Paul Rock-Tenn process over 1000 tons of wastepaper per day. If this community resource were to be lost serious consequences to the local economy and the earth's environment would result. Not only would the 500 jobs the St. Paul Mills provide be lost, but neighborhood businesses, industrial suppliers, wastepaper providers, and many others will be affected. Rock-Tenn pumps $75 million into the economy annually. If the mills were lost where would Minnesota wastepaper go? 1500 miles away to Snowflake, Arizona. Traveling by freight train and semis burning fossil fuels, where a coal burning energy sourced mill will finally recycle the paper. I think you will agree that is not what should happen. "Energy efficiency upgrades and a wind/natural gas combination might do it." We are too far along in this process to entertain vague suggestions. If you have a workable, cost efficient, and need I say environmentally friendly proposal you need to bring it forward quickly and be powerfully persuasive. Otherwise there will likely be no "win-win". Only trashburner-win, local economy- win, 500 jobs- win, suppliers-win. Or it could be Trashburner-lose, local environmentalists-win, global environment-lose. I prefer the former. How about you? The earth and community will not benefit from the plant closing either.

The 4 mills at the St Paul Rock-Tenn process over 1000 tons of wastepaper per day. If this community resource were to be lost serious consequences to the local economy and the earth’s environment would result. Not only would the 500 jobs the St. Paul Mills provide be lost, but neighborhood businesses, industrial suppliers, wastepaper providers, and many others will be affected. Rock-Tenn pumps $75 million into the economy annually.

If the mills were lost where would Minnesota wastepaper go? 1500 miles away to Snowflake, Arizona. Traveling by freight train and semis burning fossil fuels, where a coal burning energy sourced mill will finally recycle the paper. I think you will agree that is not what should happen.

“Energy efficiency upgrades and a wind/natural gas combination might do it.”

We are too far along in this process to entertain vague suggestions. If you have a workable, cost efficient, and need I say environmentally friendly proposal you need to bring it forward quickly and be powerfully persuasive. Otherwise there will likely be no “win-win”. Only trashburner-win, local economy- win, 500 jobs- win, suppliers-win. Or it could be Trashburner-lose, local environmentalists-win, global environment-lose.

I prefer the former.

How about you?

]]> By: Alan Muller http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/#comment-24 Alan Muller Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:17:08 +0000 http://rickleaf.com/2007/06/23/googling-nancy-hone/#comment-24 I'd like to invite people to read my presentation, posted on www.greendel.org, and also on legalectric.org. Yes, I would oppose not only a "refuse derived fuel" (garbage) burner in St. Paul but any other sort of solid fuel "biomass" burner. These facilities emit pollutants that damage people's health. (Of course, this is not my decision to make but I spoke in St. Paul to support the Neighbors Against the Burner.) There are many possibilities for a "win-win" solution that could keep the paper recycling plant in operation without harming the environment and community health. Energy efficiency upgrades and a wind/natural gas combination might do it. But nobody seems too confident in the long term future of the plant under Rock-Tenn (http://www.rocktenn.com/index.htm)ownership. I understand that R-T is NOT interested in signing a long-term contract for steam supply. So, to ensure that this facility keeps running in St Paul, people need to be looking at the situation in more breadth and depth. The scheme to shove a burner into peoples' communities--which I am sure will be defeated in any case--is not the solution..... Alan Muller I’d like to invite people to read my presentation, posted on www.greendel.org, and also on legalectric.org.

Yes, I would oppose not only a “refuse derived fuel” (garbage) burner in St. Paul but any other sort of solid fuel “biomass” burner. These facilities emit pollutants that damage people’s health. (Of course, this is not my decision to make but I spoke in St. Paul to support the Neighbors Against the Burner.)

There are many possibilities for a “win-win” solution that could keep the paper recycling plant in operation without harming the environment and community health. Energy efficiency upgrades and a wind/natural gas combination might do it.

But nobody seems too confident in the long term future of the plant under Rock-Tenn (http://www.rocktenn.com/index.htm)ownership. I understand that R-T is NOT interested in signing a long-term contract for steam supply.

So, to ensure that this facility keeps running in St Paul, people need to be looking at the situation in more breadth and depth. The scheme to shove a burner into peoples’ communities–which I am sure will be defeated in any case–is not the solution…..

Alan Muller

]]>