Member of the reality-based community of progressive Massachusetts blogs
(Another installment from Paige of billericapowerplant.org. I think we deserve an answer as to why our state Senator declined to protect public health and wellness in favor of outmoded, out-of-state corporate-driven fossil-fuel burning power plants. –Lynne)
Senator Panagiotakos, among other legislators, voted in the last two weeks against the amendments that would prohibit the siting of a fossil fuel burning power plant “which is less than a mile in linear distance from a playground, licensed day-care center, school, church, area of critical environmental concern as determined by the secretary of environmental affairs pursuant to 301 CMR 12.00, or area occupied by residential housing”. Large plants are under consideration for Billerica, Brockton and Walpole.
Given that there is an 85MW power plant due to go online in Lowell this summer, one that burns all the time and will contribute particulate matter and carbon dioxide, among other pollutants to the air in Lowell and beyond, and given that he is surely aware that pediatric asthma cases are quite high in his community, and given that he knows there is a 348MW plant under consideration for Billerica, and given that yet another plant may be built in Lowell in the future, and he lives and breathes in Lowell, one wonders why he voted the way he did.
The committee on which he sits also voted against convening a special commission to review the criteria used to site power plants in Massachusetts. The conference committee did not take a leadership role and seek to protect the respiratory health of its constituents. Given what is known scientifically about the impacts of particulate matter on the lung development of children, the elderly, and those with compromised breathing issues, surely he would agree that plunking down a very large fossil fuel burning plant in the middle of a densely populated area is not the most forward thinking move, right?
Others in the local delegation have had no trouble expressing their concerns for their constituents including Senators Fargo and Tucker, Representatives Miceli, Hall, Nangle, Golden and Atkins, so why is Senator Panagiotakos not on board? What does he believe these plants bring to the area that offset the clear health impacts in terms of air quality, the potential impacts to the Concord River, local drinking water supplies, and safety of area residents?
Send Senator Panagiotakos an e-mail. Ask him to explain his rationale for not only refusing to protect his constituents, but for voting down the suggestion to create a commission to evaluate the criteria used to site plants in the future.
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 1.219 seconds
July 7th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Maybe there’s a collection of wingnuts from Texas who ventured an opinion.
I’m sure he’ll be signing onto their lawsuit any time now.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I’ve yet to see anything from Panagiotakos that would impress me. I hope someday soon you’ll have better representation.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:37 am
When politics meets science, science takes the back seat.
Cheney pushed for cutting health officials climate testimony, former official says
WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President Dick Cheney’s office pushed for major deletions in congressional testimony on the public health consequences of climate change, fearing the presentation by a leading health official might make it harder to avoid regulating greenhouse gases, a former EPA officials maintains.
When six pages were cut from testimony on climate change and public health by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last October, the White House insisted the changes were made because of reservations raised by White House advisers about the accuracy of the science.
But Jason K. Burnett, until last month the senior adviser on climate change to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson, says that Cheney’s office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC’s original draft testimony removed
July 10th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Maybe the Senator, who I respect quite a bit but disagree with on taxation issues, realized that this bill was a direct attack on local communities control over their own zoning.
If a town has an industrial zone, and wants to use it as such, it is wrong for the state to overrule it zoning.
Modify the site placement criteria that a town must follow (conservation issues, wetlands, etc), I might (might) agree with.. but not a specialized modification of zoning to appease one constituency.
At some point, we need to let the towns and cities make decisions for themselves and stop letting the state dictate to us.
In this case, I think he is right.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Shawn, when it comes to the public health, the state (and the federal government) has a right to make sure localities do the right thing.
It’s not like we don’t elect state and federal representation, though you act like it.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:13 am
We haven’t heard communities objecting to protection of their public health. Nor have we seen a line of towns saying “ooh, ooh, pick me, pick me!” to have a power plant put in their community.