International Paper Company's two-week experiment burning a modified fuel mixture to include waste tire chips has created an unwarranted furor in Vermont. The Free Press front page coverage on Sunday, November 5 finally describes the details of the experiment, albeit a bit late since the test begins on Monday. The information provided by Candace Page makes it clear that this test poses no threat to Vermont.
IP is doing exactly the right thing in conducting a heavily monitored experiment to determine if additional pollution control measures, such as an electrostatic precipitator may be required to use the tire fuel mixture. Reducing fuel costs in a mill of this size will be a significant cost-saving measure.
A healthy business in the region is an important asset and Vermont should embrace the experiment rather than opposing it. In spite of IP's very reasonable experimental approach, Vermont for months has taken up arms against this short, apparently well-designed, test by fighting it in court, unreasonably demanding installation of a costly precipitator for the test, and doing everything in its power to stop it.
This sort of unfounded paranoia broadcasts to the world that Vermont is unfriendly to certain types of business. Is it any wonder that businesses who see this unreasonable opposition choose to locate or expand elsewhere?
2 comments:
Unfortunately you could not be more wrong and simple-minded in your analysis of this situation. A strong business climate and concern for public health are not mutually exclusive. Business that ignore this truth do so at their own long-term financial peril.
I encourage you to take your family for a hike downwind of the plant during the next two weeks just to prove to us its safe. Go on friend. Its "safe." Have fun!
My grandchildren live immediately downwind from the IP mill, assuming the wind is directly from the west. Do you think I would deliberately expose my progeny to something that I believed was dangerous? This is a two week experiment that can be stopped at any time. You are incorrect to think that any real danger exists in this experiment. If you do believe that harm will come to people in two weeks of testing, explain the harm. Tell me why a 14 day experiment is dangerous. What's the evidence?
If the experiment is successful from a safety standpoint, i.e., shown to be within the standards currently believed to be safe, and IP chooses to use this fuel on a continuing basis, you (society) have a responsibility to prove the harm. If you don't believe the EPA's standards, than present evidence they are wrong.
If you don't like the IP mill in it's present location and want it out of business, say so rather than using a specious safety argument.
Post a Comment