The Boondocks blog, No. 54 for the week starting January 27, 2008.
Chris Neurath and Agricultural Burning
One Toke Over the Line Sweet Jesus
Still Deciding On Which Democrat to Vote For?
Spitzer DEC Considers Complete Ban on Open Burning
Rensselear County Legislations Speak Against a State Trash Burning Ban
Energy looks at high energy prices and our future.
Enviroman looks at man and the environment.
Hayseeds looks at politics and life in our nation.
Individual looks at myself and how I'm changing
Outblog is all about my outdoor experiences.
Transit looks at the changing ways we get around.
Truck gives you stories and trips in my Ford Ranger.
It looks like the sometimes wacko anti-fluoride activist, green party candidate, and general former troublemaker from Saint Lawrence County (before he abandoned the dirty country side with their hicks to move to Boston), has convienced the governor to fund a program to "educate" farmers on plastics recycling as if farmers needed an education on how to handle LDPE silage wrap.
Apparently he's concerned about dioxins produced by the burning silage wrap, which typically is made out of LDPE and almost never out of the halloganed plastics which have chlorine or fluorine in them.
See this article called Is It Alright to Burn Plastics which explains why PVC is so goddamn toxic, while PE, PP, and to a lesser extent PS plastics are fairly inert.
Green Peace also concurs that PE plastic is pretty non-toxic compared to other plastics.
But still he's concerned. It must be all the flouride getting to his brain. Or maybe this little bit of truth that silage wrap buring is mess and dirty, as it's often wet and muddy:
Larry Bugbee, a cattle farmer in the Hoosick Falls area, also doesn't like burning the leftovers from his bales. "This is very saturated with decayed hay," he said. "It's very messy and very dirty."
That means it burns slowly and smolders, producing lots of particulate matter and soot. Which can of course mean dioxin, much like burning green or wet wood can produce dioxin. Shouldn't we be more concerned—as dioxin is a known carcinogen and endocrine disrupter? Not if we use balanced science and keep things in perspective.
The average pre-Clean Air Act of 1990 incinerator, operating in the years prior to 1996, released as much as 10,000 times more dioxin then a typical burn barrel or burn pile. And that's if your including burning things like PVC in that burn pile, and creating lots of noxious hydrogen chloride gas.
Judith Enck, the governor's deputy secretary for the environment, said the program will educate farmers about how to recycle plastics. The $350,000 will be focused on upstate counties, Enck said.
Still everybody likes the program as it's just about educating and finding new use for waste silage wrap. The problem with LDPE is that despite it's relative non-toxicity, is it's incredibly bulky plastic, making it hard to haul unless you run it through a hay bailer first.
And the stuff that comes off silage isn't in great shape for recycling, as it's highly contaminated with dirt, mud, and rotting hay.
The New York Farm Bureau, which represents about 30,000 farmers, supports the proposal, spokesman Peter Gregg said.
"This type of plastic is very difficult to dispose of—most dumps won't take it and places that do are often very far distances from farms," Gregg said.
So your choices are noxious black smoke, burying the plastic (which creates a mess as it degrades, breaks up, and gets dug up, and jams the shit out of hay bailing equipment, or trying to find a landfill that will take it—most don't want tons of bulky LDPE that's going to float up and make a mess.
"If you're going to make a big pile of plastic, they'll often throw in a lot of other trash and that can be old pesticide containers, household trash, any kind of trash," said Chris Neurath, who lives near Boston and was an anti-pollution activist when he lived in St. Lawrence County, where open burning of all types of waste is widespread.
See the work Cornell Scientists are doing on recycling silage wrap.
So at last it's just back to the big ol' bonfire.
Somehow my MP3 player skipped over to the Brewer and Shipley's One Toke Over the Line when I happened upon this story about Vermont's attempt to legalize hemp growing in it's state.
Vt. House OKs hemp farming bill
January 31, 2008
By Peter Hirschfeld Vermont Press BureauMONTPELIER — A controversial plant moved through the Statehouse without much controversy Wednesday.
Lawmakers in the House Agriculture Committee unanimously approved a bill that would allow Vermont farmers to grow hemp, a benign cousin of marijuana that boasts a variety of industrial applications.
A federal statute criminalizing the plant supercedes Vermont's legislation, so Green Mountain hemp won't go to sprout anytime soon. But advocates of the hemp bill say it positions local farmers to capitalize on the potentially profitable crop if and when the Drug Enforcement Administration finally relents.
"Eventually, the federal government is going to have to change its policy on hemp," said Amy Shollenberger, executive director of Rural Vermont. "We see this bill … as making sure farmers in Vermont are on the front lines when it does."
Hemp, grown legally in every industrialized country except the United States, reaps attractive profit margins for some farmers. Hemp oil, derived from seeds, is used in food and beauty products. Hemp's long stalks contain fiber and cellulose that can be made into textiles, building materials and fuel.
Hemp, among this country's leading agricultural commodities until it was banned after World War II, shares a close genetic association with marijuana. Though the two plants belong to the same species, cannabis sativa, industrial hemp carries a maximum of 0.3 percent THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Marijuana generally contains at least 5 percent THC.
Of course it's in violation of federal law, which is incredibly stupid. Marijuana and it's cousin hemp could be such a valuable crop, if it wasn't for fears of it's intoxicating possibilities. Everywhere else in the world, they can grow hemp and in more places marijuana.
Then again, maybe it's a philosophical thing. I'm all for:
Then again, in the words of John Kennedy, "Life Isn't Fair". I'll put down the joint now.
The Primary is Tuesday, and with the dropping out of Edwards, I'm still debating who to support. This video from the NYS RPA blog has me leaning towards Obama as Hillary seemed to be so wrong on the second amendment question.
I would encourage you to look at the fascinating NYS Riffle and Pistol Association Blog. It's been added to my blogroll.
This article raised my eyebrows in the Daily Gazette from the link I happened to see in our new news section of the blog.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation is considering new regulations that would completely ban the use of trash-burning barrels in New York.
The stricter regulations on outdoor burning are in the first stages of consideration by the department, according to spokeswoman Lori O’Connell.
“The proposals have not even been formally announced yet,” she said.
But the idea of tougher bans on burning has been floated to local officials, and an article on what’s under consideratThe state Department of Environmental Conservation is considering new regulations that would completely ban the use of trash-burning barrels in New York.
The stricter regulations on outdoor burning are in the first stages of consideration by the department, according to spokeswoman Lori O’Connell.
“The proposals have not even been formally announced yet,” she said.
But the idea of tougher bans on burning has been floated to local officials, and an article on what’s under consideration appeared in a New York State Association of Towns newsletter last month.
According to O’Connell, the burning of paper, paper products, cartons, tree trimmings, leaves, and lawn and garden debris in an open fire would be prohibited.
Currently, open burning is prohibited in all incorporated cities and in towns with a population of 20,000 or more.
“All burn barrels would be banned under the proposal no matter what the size of the town,” O’Connell said. “Cooking and campfires under 3 feet wide would be allowed.”
Unless prohibited by local law, property owners in towns with a population of fewer than 20,000 can now burn paper and wood but not household garbage.ion appeared in a New York State Association of Towns newsletter last month.
According to O’Connell, the burning of paper, paper products, cartons, tree trimmings, leaves, and lawn and garden debris in an open fire would be prohibited.
Currently, open burning is prohibited in all incorporated cities and in towns with a population of 20,000 or more.
“All burn barrels would be banned under the proposal no matter what the size of the town,” O’Connell said. “Cooking and campfires under 3 feet wide would be allowed.”
Unless prohibited by local law, property owners in towns with a population of fewer than 20,000 can now burn paper and wood but not household garbage.
That's an interesting interpretation of the regulations. The reality is at this point I doubt it matters much anyways, as the DEC has limited ability to go around and effect any such regulation on small towns across the state—especially with out the force of the legislature to do as such.
I will definately get on as an interested party in this proposed rule making, and try to attend the hearings and learn more of what the Spitzer administration is proposing. This approach, as you may know towards banning outdoor burning was first proposed by NYPIRG as a way to get around having to get legislative approval.
This story follows up on my previous post from the Troy Record posted today.
Majority members of the Rensselaer County Legislature announced their opposition to a proposal by the state Department of Environmental Conservation which would ban open burning in all municipalities.
The proposal would update the state’s current regulation, which allows open burning in communities with populations fewer than 20,000 to banning it entirely.
“This will cause problems in eastern Rensselaer County along with other rural areas and will prove to be more trouble than it is worth,” said Legislator Lester Goodermote, R-District 5.
Both Goodermote and fellow Legislator Stan Brownell, R-District 5, oppose the proposal and believe the DEC and state government were overreaching with the idea.Advertisement
Together the legislators represent the communities of Hoosick, Petersburgh, Grafton, Berlin and Stephentown, with populations ranging from 2,000-6,800.
Lori O’Connell, a spokeswoman for DEC, explained that the proposal was initiated to help improve the environment.
“The goal is really to improve air quality and address negative aspects of what can be released into the air through open burning,” said O’Connell.
Brownell and Goodermote believed any negative environmental impact from open burning would be negligible compared to possible impacts if residents are forced to use motor vehicles to transport household waste to area landfills.
That's an interesting argument, a bit probably a weak argument. But let's be realistic—how much of a difference will this proposed law make on the air quality of New York State? Our air would be far cleaner if we simply took one coal plant or even an incinerator off-line.
I'm sure this is more about a cultural attack on rural New York then any serious policy proposal for clean air quality.
I finally new the Rensselear County Legislature would have the backbone to stand for something. Of course, one would hope that their issues and integrity would be over something a little more important then legalized rural trash burning.
