Finger Lakes Future

TIME Magazine: The Clean Energy Scam

2008-04-04T13:23:00.003-04:00

Here is a devastating article in the March 27, 2008 issue of TIME Magazine:

Renewable fuels has become one of those motherhood-and-apple-pie catchphrases, as unobjectionable as the troops or the middle class. But several new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it's dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous. Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.

To read the entire article, click this link.

Two Leading Experts on Finger Lakes Water Quality Weigh In

2008-04-03T23:09:00.006-04:00

Two of the leading academic authorities on water quality in the Finger Lakes have gone on record with their concerns about the potential effects of the ethanol plant on the water quality of the lakes. Not surprisingly, the issues they raise have been completely ignored by the Seneca County IDA, the self-appointed "lead agency" for the environmental review under the SEQR law, in their rush to rubber stamp this project.

Robert Howarth of Cornell University points out that the ethanol plant, if it goes forward, would likely result in the formation of CAFO's, the concentrated animal feeding operations which are known to have serious negative environmental impacts. Read his letter here .

John Halfman of the Finger Lakes Institute in Geneva, meanwhile, in addition to sharing Howarth's concerns about CAFO's, raises the issue of environmental impacts resulting from the increased production of corn around the lake associated with ethanol. These include high concentrations of the toxic herbicide Atrazine, as well as problems with nutrient runoff into the lakes. Read his letter here.

Our Letter to the Seneca County Board of Supervisors

2008-04-03T23:04:00.002-04:00

March 25, 2008

To the Seneca County Board of Supervisors:

As you know, there has been a great deal of concern among residents of Seneca County and throughout the larger Finger Lakes area that the Seneca County IDA, in its role as “lead agency” for a proposed ethanol plant at the Seneca Army Depot, has allowed it to go forward without a full environmental review. One would have a hard time finding any expert on SEQR--- the State Environmental Quality Review law---who would defend their decision allowing the project to proceed without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The only defenders of this “Negative Declaration” are the SCIDA themselves, their legal counsel, and individuals with a financial interest in Empire Green Biofuels.

Recently, a number of municipalities around the Finger Lakes have adopted or are considering resolutions requesting that the SCIDA rescind its Negative Declaration and instead produce an EIS, as they should have done from the start. The original environmental review was so incomplete and full of errors that now even the SCIDA barely tries to defend it. Instead, they are now claiming in public and in the press that it is too late for them to correct their errors, and that they can no longer legally rescind the Negative Declaration. This is simply not true, no matter how many times they repeat it.

New York’s SEQR law specifically states that under certain circumstances, a lead agency not only can, but must rescind a Negative Declaration, regardless of time elapsed. These include situations where changes are proposed for a project, new information is discovered, or changes in circumstances arise which were not previously considered. In fact, all of these conditions apply. The following are a few of the issues which have arisen since the Negative Declaration was issued on February 8, 2007, and which require that the SCIDA reconsider its decision:

1) The Department of Environmental Conservation has designated an additional 2100 acres of protected wetlands at the Depot site, which were not previously considered. This includes acreage on the plant site itself, and also a substantial proportion of the 4500 acres which the ethanol developers have indicated they need for biomass production.

2) A number of projects directly related to the ethanol plant, whose environmental impacts were not previously considered, were added to the scope of the project. These include major work to the railroad, and new uses of lands which are proposed to be shared with the ethanol facility. These cumulative impacts must be considered. In addition, the scope of a critical Wildlife Management Plan for the Depot was only determined after the issuance of the Negative Declaration. This fact alone should have triggered a rescission.

3) It has now become clear that there are major indirect impacts from the plant which should have been considered. The project developers have admitted in their public presentations (which took place after the issuance of the Negative Declaration) that there will be increased local corn production as a result of the plant, and that large amounts of “distiller’s grains” created as a by-product will almost certainly result in new animal feedlots or “CAFOs”. This will have major environmental impacts to the area, both in terms of water contamination and quality of life (see attached information). None of this was considered during the SCIDA’s environmental review.

4) On February 12, 2008, the Authority Budget Office, which monitors IDAs around New York State, issued a report of its investigation of the SCIDA. They found shocking irregularities in the SCIDA’s procedures, including numerous conflicts of interest, and failures to make required disclosures of their internal financial dealings. It is no secret that there are personal connections between members of the SCIDA and Empire Green Biofuels which should have been disclosed, but were not. The response of the SCIDA has simply been that they are free to ignore state ethics laws, which their counsel refers to as mere “aspirational goals”. This position is not shared by state officials, who continue to be concerned by the conduct of the SCIDA. (The full report is available at this link.)

Seneca County has received a great deal of negative publicity in the region as a result of scandals in the Sheriff’s Department and elsewhere. Does the county really wish to invite more negative attention by continuing to support a process which was clearly flawed, and which has been tainted by questions of ethics and conflicts of interest? The actions of the SCIDA are a reflection on Board of Supervisors. It is for you to decide whether you stand for the interests of the public as a whole, or just those of a few well-connected individuals. We ask the Board to request that the SCIDA rescind its negative declaration as required by law, and require an Environmental Impact Statement so that the true impacts of this project can finally be assessed.

Sincerely,

Members, Finger Lakes Future Alliance

Bio-Foolish Behavior

2008-02-25T15:29:00.003-05:00

"Tree huggers", business people, and ordinary citizens concerned about high taxes don't always find a lot to agree on. Sometimes, it takes a really obvious Truth:

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 2/22/2008

The law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head once again, with a study published in the Feb. 7 issue of the journal Science.

Environment: In 2005, America used 15% of its corn crop to replace just 2% of its gasoline. Two new studies say use of biofuels will leave the world a warmer and hungrier place.

According to University of Minnesota ecologist and study co-author David Tilman, converting the grasslands of the U.S. to corn for ethanol releases excess CO2 emissions of 134 metric tons per hectare (equal to 2.47 acres).

The reason is that plants, from grasses to trees, store carbon dioxide in their roots, shoots and leaves.

"I know that when I look at a tree that half the dry weight is carbon," says Tilman. "That's going to end up as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when you cut it down."

"Any biofuel that causes land clearing is likely to increase global warming," says Nature Conservancy ecologist Joseph Fargione, the lead author of a second study also published in Science.

To read the entire article, click this link.

Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat

2008-02-13T17:37:00.005-05:00

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
New York Times

Published: February 8, 2008

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These latest studies, published in the prestigious journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

To read the entire article, click here.

Ethanol Blamed for Contaminated Beef

2008-01-30T13:48:00.000-05:00

The ethanol industry's toxic effects on air and water are well known, as are the enormous increases in food prices around the world attributed to ethanol.

Now a new risk risk has been identified: the risk of contaminated beef. Boosters of ethanol from corn have presented "distillers grains", a byproduct, as a useful animal feed to partially compensate for the shortages in feed that they themselves have created. Now, it turns out, consumers are at risk for more than just high prices. Check out this link to learn more.

The Public Pans the "Canned Hunt" at Seneca Army Depot

2007-12-14T21:32:00.000-05:00

The Sesslers would really like to give wealthy clients from around the world the opportunity to corner one of the Seneca Army Depot's rare white deer against a chain-link fence, stare into its frightened eyes, and blow it away. And what could be more sporting than that?---as long as the shooters pay up for the privilege, and the Sesslers get to collect the big green bucks for the dead white buck, suitable for mounting on a wall of your palace in Dubai...if you happen to have one. Such is the business plan of the Sesslers, the "canned hunt" that takes land from the people of Seneca County, and money from the taxpayers of the State of New York, and gives it to...well...the Sesslers. (To see the actual Sessler business plan, as opposed to the warm-and-fuzzy statements they've been making to the press, see this link.)

The members of the Seneca County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) were happy to oblige, continuing their best efforts to hand over public lands and taxpayer funds on a silver platter to their well-connected friends, under the pretense of boosting the local economy. But their latest giveaway scheme hit a speed bump on December 13 in the Town of Varick. Apparently, to the IDA's horror, the public weighed in on the issue. The public showed up, and their verdict was--- HELL NO!!

It wasn't for lack of trying that the SCIDA failed to get this project rubber-stamped in favor of the Sesslers. They had done their usual routine. They had privately signed off on the project in their typically illegal executive sessions, keeping the public safely out of the way. To short-circuit the pesky "public comment" session, they scheduled it at 10am on a Thursday in a remote location, to keep the irritating "working classes" away. They were even lucky enough to have near-blizzard conditions at that time.

But a strange thing happened---THE PEOPLE SHOWED UP! About a hundred of them, with more overflowing outside the door. And they were not happy. The blizzard outdoors was nothing compared to the "perfect storm" of public outrage within the meeting room. The members of the SCIDA, who only the day before were meeting happily in the comfort of their illegal "public not welcome" executive session in the back room of Abigail's Restaurant, were nowhere to be seen. Not one of them bothered to show up to listen to the concerns of the public which they claim to serve. Had they been there, they would have heard from hunters incensed at the unsporting nature of this "sporting" proposal; from environmentalists and eco-tourism advocates who made the case for better uses of the site, none of which the SCIDA had bothered to consider--- in spite of over 1000 signatures in favor of this idea; and from good-government advocates who were appalled at the cronyism and self-dealing of the SCIDA. All this was occurring in a county already reeling from the indictments of the Sheriff and a number of his subordinates for their shocking corruption in using the former Seneca Army Depot as their private stash for stolen goods.

The SCIDA has never in the past shown much interest in public opinion. They answer to a higher God---themselves, and their special friends! Perhaps, even now, they intend to ignore public opinion and hand the Sesslers a free pass, as they previously did for the ethanol profiteers. But now they are being watched as never before--- a fact that perhaps accounts for the recent spate of resignations from the agency. As Abe Lincoln put it, "You can't fool all the People all the time". The People of Seneca County are in no mood to be fooled again. They are watching, and they are angry!

You can read media accounts of the meeting at:

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007712140361

http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-11/119762680126

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071214/NEWS01/712140348/10021060.xml&coll=1

Ethanol: A Cure Worse Than the Disease

2007-11-29T20:38:00.000-05:00

WALL STREET JOURNAL
By LAUREN ETTER
November 28, 2007

This year, even as the production glut was driving down ethanol's price, critics and opposing lobbyists were turning up the heat. Environmentalists complained about increased use of water and fertilizer to grow corn for ethanol, and said even ethanol from other plants such as switchgrass could be problematic because it could mean turning protected land to crop use. Suddenly, environmentalists, energy experts, economists and foreign countries were challenging the warm-and-fuzzy selling points on which ethanol rose to prominence.

To read the entire article, click here.

Ethanol's Bottom Line

2007-11-25T11:32:00.000-05:00

Wall Street Journal
By ROBERT HAHN
November 24, 2007

The results of a recent Environmental Protection Agency report on the economics of mandating the production of alternative fuels strongly suggest that that the case for ethanol is lacking.

Congress might never have bet so much of the taxpayers' money on corn-based ethanol if an unbiased accounting of the consequences had been available early on. We could use a separate agency, shielded in part from political considerations, whose sole mission would be to analyze the costs and benefits of regulations and government programs. Without such an agency, interest-group logrolling will continue to trump science and economics in major policy choices.

To read the whole article, click here.

Harvard Exposes Ethanol's "Dirty Little Secrets"

2007-11-21T12:32:00.000-05:00

BY DANIEL HANDLIN
Harvard Political Review

A growing body of scientific research is rapidly disproving conventional wisdom about the cleanliness of ethanol energy. Not only is burning ethanol just as damaging to the environment as burning gasoline, but the energy required to produce ethanol is actually greater than that released by the ethanol when it is burned. This leads to even more greenhouse damage than is caused by gasoline alone. “The most up-to-date studies show that there’s no carbon reduction from converting to using ethanol, because of all the energy that’s needed to produce it,” Mark Z. Jacobson, a researcher at Stanford University, told the HPR.

To read more, click here.

Who's Fueling Whom?

2007-10-31T21:46:00.000-04:00

Smithsonian Magazine has an excellent article about the bio-fuel madness, and how it's not really the solution to our problems that its promoters claim. Read it here.

Ethanol's Water Shortage--The Wall Street Journal

2007-10-23T14:01:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal rarely meets a business interest it doesn't like. But the lobbyist-driven, taxpayer-soaking, subsidy-fueled ethanol industry is too much even for them. And---oh, yes, we almost forgot---it's an environmental disaster.

The Wall Street Journal
October 17, 2007

If the Senate's new "renewable fuels" mandate becomes law, get ready for a giant slurping sound as Midwest water supplies are siphoned off to slake Big Ethanol. House and Senate negotiators are preparing for an energy-bill conference, and if the Senate's language prevails, America's economy will be forced to consume more than five times current ethanol production.

Heavily subsidized and absurdly inefficient, corn-based ethanol has already driven up food prices. But the Senate's plan to increase production to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from less than seven billion today, will place even greater pressure on farm-belt aquifers.

Ethanol plants consume roughly four gallons of water to produce each gallon of fuel, but that's only a fraction of ethanol's total water habit. Cornell ecology professor David Pimentel says that when you count the water needed to grow the corn, one gallon of ethanol requires a staggering 1,700 gallons of H2O. Backers of the Senate bill say that less-thirsty technologies are just around the corner, which is what we've been hearing for years.

Some corn-producing regions are already scrapping over dwindling supply. The Journal's Joe Barrett recently reported that Kansas is threatening to sue neighboring Nebraska for consuming more than its share of the Republican River. The Grand Forks Herald reports local opposition to a proposed ethanol plant in Erskine, Minnesota, with anti-refinery yard signs sprouting up and residents concerned about well water. Backers of a proposed plant in Jamestown, North Dakota, recently withdrew their application when it became clear that the plant's million-gallon-a-day appetite would drain too much from a local aquifer. In Wisconsin, new ethanol plants are encountering opposition in Sparta and Milton.

"There are going to be conflicts," says Iowa State hydrogeologist Bill Simpkins, "and there are going to be lawsuits." Even in Iowa, which enjoys abundant rainfall, there are no guarantees that supply can meet the new demand. "The problem is we don't know enough about some of these areas to say whether people can pump out a lot more water," Mr. Simpkins says.

The political fights could get ugly, because plants tend to pop up near cities, not necessarily near the biggest water supplies. Ethanol needs a rail system to be distributed, and ethanol factories save money on boiler maintenance when they get the same kind of high-quality water that humans prefer. In states like Iowa, where ethanol plants are considered agricultural projects deserving of preferential treatment, ethanol can also muscle out other business uses.

Ethanol's big environmental footprint is not limited to water, because biofuels like ethanol are highly inefficient. In September, the Chairman of the OECD's Roundtable on Sustainable Development released a report entitled, "Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?" Authors Richard Doornbosch and Ronald Steenblik compared the power density of different energy sources, measured in energy production per unit of the earth's area. Oil -- because it requires only a narrow hole in the earth and is extracted as a highly concentrated form of energy -- is up to 1,000 times more efficient than solar energy, which requires large panels collecting a less-concentrated form of energy known as the midday sun.

But even solar power is roughly 10 times as efficient as biomass-derived fuels like ethanol. In other words, growing the corn to produce ethanol means clearing land and killing animals on a massive scale, or converting land from food production to fuel production. Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute says that the best-case scenario promoted by ethanol cheerleaders will actually cause the greatest environmental disaster. If people can actually refine cheap, low-maintenance production techniques that don't require huge water supplies, Mr. Huber predicts a world-wide leveling of forestland as farmers turn vegetation into fuel.

Writing in Science magazine, Renton Righelato and Dominick Spracklen estimate that in order to replace just 10% of gasoline and diesel consumption, the U.S. would need to convert a full 43% of its cropland to ethanol production. The alternative approach -- clearing wilderness -- would mean more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than simply sticking with gasoline, because the CO2-munching trees cut down to make way for King Ethanol absorb more emissions than ethanol saves.

Slowly but surely, these problems are beginning to alert public opinion to the huge costs of force-feeding corn ethanol as an energy savior. The ethanol lobby is still hoping it can keep all of this under wraps long enough to shove one more big mandate through Congress, but the Members need to know the problems they'll be creating. We hope that House conferees, who did not include a new mandate in their energy bill, insist that any final bill is ethanol-free.

Facts about the proposed ethanol plant

2007-10-22T00:47:00.000-04:00

Empire Green Biofuels (EGB), in association with Cilion Inc. of California, proposes to build an ethanol plant and biomass facility, which will produce 50–60 million gallons of highly flammable ethanol per year, in the former army depot in Seneca County.

The lead agency, Seneca County Industrial Development Agency (SCIDA) determined that the plant would have no adverse environmental impacts, allowing the project to proceed without any environmental study. An environmental impact statement (EIS) would have investigated the plant’s effect on water quality, discharges, safety, odors, toxic emissions, traffic and the wildlife habitats.

Did You Know?:

Location: This plant’s location is 1.5 miles from the shores of Seneca Lake and within 2 miles of Romulus schools. Related facilities extend into the lake itself.

Traffic: Over 90+ trucks per day from the south on Rts. 96A, 96 and to the north on Rts. 96A, Rts. 5 & 20, Rt. 14, Rt. 336, and Rt. 414 to the NY State Thruway. Over 24 million bushels of corn will need to be transported to the facility per year, as well as the ethanol product. In addition, large but undisclosed quantities of fuel materials and process chemicals will be transported. Possible transport of ethanol and other hazardous chemicals by railroad will go through Geneva, and along the east and west shores of Seneca Lake.

Wildlife: An impact on the bird and wildlife habitat, including the white deer, has not been investigated and won’t be until the plant is built and operating.

Air: There will be odors from the facility. They have not been defined as to extent, and the system to minimize those odors is not required to be installed. There will also be a significant amount of air pollutants discharged. According to the EPA: Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and carcinogens (formaldehyde and acetic acid) at levels “many times greater” than they promised.

Water: 1.73 million gallons per day pumped directly from Seneca Lake. This doesn't include water usage associated with the biomass plantation acreage.

Industrial Discharges: Into the wetlands, into Kendaia Creek (protected as a Class C Rainbow trout fishery), other nearby streams, and into Seneca Lake. The total water to be discharged daily and impacts on the wetlands, creeks and lake have not been determined.

Chemicals: Undisclosed quantities and types to be transported and stored on site. According to the EPA: fires involving ethanol or ethanol gasoline mixtures pose different hazards than traditional petroleum-based fires. The recent accidents involving an explosion of a tanker train required evacuation of a school and 1,000 residents. Quantities of ammonia and other toxic substances are potentially lethal.

Land: 375 – 4,500 acres rezoned from lands previously dedicated to conservation. The site of the plant has two EPA Superfund designated areas. According to the EPA: The groundwater at the Depot is contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the soils are contaminated with heavy metals. The effects of disturbing these soils with excavation and site grading related to the proposed project are not known.

2007-10-21T19:30:00.000-04:00

Our letter to the Editor

2007-09-08T19:26:00.000-04:00

This letter from the FLFA was published in the Finger Lakes Times on 7 September 2007:

To the Editor:

As has been reported in this paper and elsewhere, our legal challenge regarding the proposed ethanol plant in Romulus received a setback recently when Judge Bender granted a motion to dismiss the case. We have every intention of appealing his decision and continuing the fight.

The first thing that the public should understand is that the ruling was based on narrow legal technicalities. It did not in any way challenge our position that the project would have major environmental impacts that should have triggered an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and that the Seneca County IDA was remiss in not requiring one.

We have been called "NIMBY's", but ironically the Judge ruled that we did not have legal "standing" to sue because the named petitioners would not be impacted more than the general public. While we continue to dispute this narrow point, we do concede one thing: there will be enormous environmental impacts to the public in the entire region, and the developers and their enablers have done their best to conceal them. In an ideal world we would not be arguing about who is harmed most. Rather, we would be asking: How it is possible that a project of this scale and potential for environmental disaster has been given a free pass?

There is no question that there will be major impacts to air and water quality, public safety, wildlife, and traffic on our roadways and railroads. The only question is: How severe will they be? Without an EIS, we won't know until it's too late. That's why we have been joined by the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, and other environmental groups and sportsmen's associations in insisting on an EIS.

This project affects more than Romulus, and more than Seneca County. Sadly, it is no secret that public officials in our area do not always act in the best interests of the larger public when influential private interests are at stake. Whatever the outcome of our appeal, in the end it will come down to the voices of the people who have chosen to live in the Finger Lakes area. If you agree that our lakes are worth protecting, call or write your elected officials and tell them so.

We need an Environmental Impact Statement.

This fight isn't over yet

2007-08-19T14:15:00.000-04:00

The local Biofuel investors, and their enablers at the IDA and in the food chain of the state's corrupt Empire Zone program, have been gloating ever since their motion to dismiss our lawsuit was granted by the Seneca County Supreme Court on Friday. We went to court to try to force the IDA to do what it would have done on its own had it taken its obligations to the public seriously---namely, require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for their massive ethanol plant proposal. But the fight is far from over.

The first thing the public should be asking is why the Biofuel interests preferred to get the case dismissed on a technicality rather than address the substance of the case. The answer is clear: the facts were against them. The failures of the IDA and other public officials to do their duties were so egregious that it is not surprising that they chose not to defend them. Instead, they chose to bet on the political culture of Seneca County, where they could count on getting a free pass to ignore the law.

People should understand that the grounds for the dismissal were extremely narrow, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case for an EIS. The judge ruled that we, the petitioners, lacked "standing", i.e. we were not impacted by the proposal more than the public at large. Under this legal theory, those who propose to reap profits by subjecting the public to negative environmental impacts are immune to challenges from individuals or groups who cannot demonstrate that they will suffer from these impacts more than the public at large. In other words, the developers of this disaster-in-the-making are benefiting from the widespread nature of the environmental catastrophe they are planning.

Even within the arcane legal world of "standing", this ruling was extraordinary. The judge's only basis for rejecting standing was that the petitioners failed to include individual affidavits identifying their physical proximity to the proposed project. Under this novel theory, the case was dismissed because there were no formal documents attesting to information that a 30-second Google search would have confirmed, had anyone cared to do one.

We could talk about the problems of judges having to run for office, as if the responsibility of administering the law were no different from the influence peddling of the average municipal election. We could talk about the cronyism and "business as usual" in Seneca County, where public office is seen not as a public trust but as a license to give and receive special favors.

But let's get the the core of the problem: Our leaders are not acting in the interests of the public at large, but rather in behalf of a few influential individuals to further their interests at the expense of the rest of us. They have been making decisions behind closed doors, and emerge only to spread disinformation about what they are doing and whose interests they are serving.

We have not given up on the legal process. We plan to appeal this ruling, in the hopes that judges more insulated from the pressures of local politics will have an opportunity to weigh in. But in the end, an informed public is the only answer. We as citizens have to let it be known that we will hold our officials accountable for their actions.

"Our Opinion"--Finger Lakes Times

2007-07-23T17:48:00.000-04:00

FINGER LAKES TIMES
July 22, 2007

THE ISSUE: THE FIGHT FOR THE ETHANOL PLAN EIS

CAN'T HAVE TOO MANY FACTS!

You only need to read the Times' Letters to the Editor column to know how divided local opinion is on the ethanol plant proposed for the former Seneca Army Depot. On the one side is the irrefutable cry for more family-wage jobs in Seneca County. On the other are environmental concerns.

And you only need to go online or to the library to find extensive research dealing with the controversy over ethanol and its production: Concerns about energy and water use; air pollution; tapping into conservation land to grow enough corn; foreign investments in ethanol here, when the goal is to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil; how much farmers actually benefit, or don't, financially; how small a dent ethanol is expected to make in reducing global warming.

The list goes on, but, locally, the concern that matters most, at the moment, is that not enough information is being provided by Empire Green Biofuels, the project developer, which has refused to do a full environmental review. Since local officials accepted the less-detailed assessment, declaring the plant would not have an adverse impact, the company doesn't have to.

The law requires that such an assessment look at physical impacts, impacts on population patterns and impacts on community character. When you think about it, it's surprising that an environmental assessment of any $115 million project--this one includes a biomass steam production facility--could accurately determine that not a single adverse impact would result in any of those areas. Interestingly, 17 months ago, when roughly 100 local investors comprised what was then called Empire Biofuels, the ethanol project came to a standstill when a Seneca Falls site was being considered.

The investors didn't want to spend an estimated $400,000 on the environmental impact statement, especially since one town board member had made it clear that its results wouldn't alter her opinion.

Now that Cilion Corp. of California is in the picture and would take over the complex once it's built, cost isn't reason enough to forgo the full review. As we said in this space when the ball was in Seneca Falls' court, the full review should be done. Environmental studies and safeguards are not too much to ask for. Residents deserve as much assurance as possible that the safety of the environment they live and work in is being protected.

That's why the Finger Lakes Future Alliance was formed and is using the courts to challenge local officials' decision to accept the assessment instead of insisting on the full review. Yes, many of their addresses suggest there's an element of "not in my backyard" involved, but what they’re doing--fighting for more information--will benefit people well beyond their properties.

This project is too important, and its long-term ramifications are too significant, to limit the amount of research into its local impact.

Ethanol is Political Holy Water in DC

2007-07-12T15:27:00.000-04:00

"The inconvenient truth is that ethanol is bad for taxpayers, bad for air quality, bad for people who like to eat, and it will have no real effect on America's overall energy mix -- too bad DC's politicians won't say anything about it."

To read this devastating article by Robert Bryce, click here.

Why We're Going to Court

2007-06-08T15:51:00.000-04:00

Cilion/Empire Biofuels wants to build a massive 50 million gallon ethanol facility close to the shore of Seneca Lake. They also intend to take over 4700 acres of highly sensitive wildlife habitat, harvest biomass from this land, and burn it to fire their boiler. All this will generate uncertain levels of emissions and cause unknown levels of odor and noise. They intend to transport large amounts of material into and out of the facility, some of it highly hazardous, using local roads and a stretch of railroad running along the lake. Simple logic says that this will have large impacts on the natural environment, the quality of life, and the regional tourist economy.

Incredibly, on February 8, 2007, the Seneca County IDA issued a finding that stated: "The Project does not include the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact." On that basis, the project was allowed to proceed without an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the only process which would have given the public a meaningful study of the impacts of a project of this scale. The Department of Environmental Conservation is on the record as stating that the decision not to require an EIS (the “Negative Declaration”) is NOT SUPPORTED by the available documentation, AND SHOULD BE RESCINDED!

It is for this reason that the Finger Lakes Future Alliance filed an “Article 78” petition on June 8, 2007, challenging the decision. We agree with the DEC that a proper assessment of the impacts of this project has not yet been made. The information submitted by Empire Biofuels in their initial application was full of errors, omissions, and misleading information. Instead of following the formal process required by the state's SEQRA law, the applicants have sought to allay public concern by running a series of newspaper ads and conducting a few slick public presentations, where they have used highly selective information to try to present their project in a favorable light.

A sales pitch is not an environmental review. Many members of the public remain concerned that, in the absence of a proper EIS, as required by law, we simply don't know what the real impacts of this project will be. There are good reasons why ethanol plants elsewhere have been subjected to the EIS process. Perhaps a handful of individuals stand to profit from this project, but we need to consider the larger interests of the county and the region as a whole. The Finger Lakes Area is a beautiful place to live, and has the potential to be an outstanding tourist destination with a diverse economy. Do we care so little about the future of this area that we will leave it to chance?

Let's not treat the future of our area lightly

2007-06-07T06:24:00.000-04:00

The Finger Lakes Area is a place of rare natural beauty. In the past there was an attitude that, yes, the natural gifts of the area might make for a nice fishing weekend or a walk along the lake, but the real business of boosting the local economy consisted of trying to attract industry. Almost any industry, in fact. And to do this, we had to be prepared to give away public lands, tax breaks, permit the degradation of our environment, and above all not create the impression, by asking too many questions, that we intended to place any conditions on industrial development which might offend a business promising to create jobs. In short, we had to be prepared to sacrifice the very features of the area that we love.

In recent years it's become clear to many residents of the Finger Lakes, and perhaps even clearer to people from outside the area, that the area's natural beauty is not just an incidental feature of life here as we go about our business, but is itself our most marketable asset for economic development. Tourism brings with it a constellation of economic opportunities, in the form of restaurants, hotels, wine tours, etc. Beyond that, being recognized as a desirable place to live means having more choice in attracting businesses that make for a diverse and healthy economy.

So asking reasonable questions about a particular proposal for industrial development, and being prepared to set conditions, is not a threat to our economic future, it is a protection of our economic future. The mindset of "jobs at any cost" is a short-sighted attitude that fails to take into account that every decision we make today will either limit or enable the decisions we make tomorrow. If, in order to create a small number of jobs, we create an economic environment that discourages the sort of growth that will sustain our most valuable economic assets, what have we accomplished?

This brings us to the ethanol project which is being proposed for the former Seneca Army Depot site. Apparently, for the sake of 35 jobs, we are being asked to rubber stamp a project which will clearly affect the surrounding area in profound and unknown ways, and we are expected to care so little about these environmental impacts that we should not inconvenience the promoters of this project to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This is a throwback to the "jobs at any cost" mentality that existed in the days when heavy industry was the only hope for employment, and the natural environment was just "scenery", available for the taking, that had nothing to do with the economic health of a region.

Do we really care so little about what we have in this region that we won't even insist on a thorough study of what is being proposed? Are we so casual about a project that will create uncertain levels of emissions, noise, traffic, and visual blight, that will have unknown effects on the nascent tourist economy and on the quality of life, that we won't even require the developers of this project to provide the public with the sort of solid information that only the Environmental Impact Statement process would provide? Are we really so desperate for these promised 35 jobs?

On February 8, 2007, the Seneca County Industrial Development Agency granted a "Negative Declaration" to Empire Green Biofuels, essentially saying that they are not sufficiently concerned about the environmental issues involved to ask the ethanol plant promoters to present their intentions to the public in the rigorous manner prescribed by the EIS process.

We don't believe the future of our area should be treated so lightly. The residents of the Finger Lakes deserve the same level of accountability and responsiveness from their officials that many other communities have demanded and received for projects with this level of environmental impact, even if it might cause some inconvenience to the project's promoters. That is why our group intends to push for an EIS, if necessary in court .

Here's a recent Finger Lakes Times article about our group:

New Alliance still fighting for ethanol plant details

By DENISE M. CHAMPAGNE

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 9:50 AM CDT

ROMULUS - An offshoot of Seneca White Deer is still looking for answers and pushing for a full environmental review of the proposed ethanol plant.

Members of what was recently named the Finger Lakes Future Alliance became acquainted last fall on the wildlife bus tours that were offered at the former Seneca Army Depot. They share the wildlife concerns of Seneca White Deer, which hosted the tours, but have others, too.

They want to know how the proposed plant will affect Seneca Lake's waters and the shore, near which many of them live.

They're also concerned about truck and train traffic's impact on the Finger Lakes' tourism industry and quality of life, given that big rigs heading to area landfills are already controversial.

“I really think the big question is ‘what do we see as the future of this area, and is it really compatible with that?'” said Bobbi Clifford, the group's spokesperson, who lives at Lakeshore Landing, an upscale development on the east side of Seneca Lake.

They believe many of their questions would be answered if the plant's developer, Empire Green Biofuels, would do a full Environmental Impact Statement. However, the project's major investor, California-based Cilion Inc., has opted not to do it.

Project representatives conducted public presentations in March and April in Romulus. Clifford and other women stood outside Romulus Central School at the April 25 session, passing out fliers, asking “Where is the Environmental Impact Statement?”

Group members also don't believe their air quality and odor concerns were adequately addressed at public meetings.

Clifford contends that information presented at the public meetings doesn't match what is in the basic environmental assessment that was done, and she called the public presentations “polished,” with limited responses to questions. Her group also has pointed out that having the public meetings during the day prevented people who work from attending.

Written comments were also accepted.

“We deserve answers,” said Bob Tarzwell, who also lives at Lakeshore Landing. “The larger picture is the beauty of the area and that's what brought us here and what has kept us here.”

Diane Mason of Fayette said the proposal is contrary to what she thinks people are trying to do in the area.

“You don't say, ‘Let's go to the wineries, and let's stop by the ethanol plant,'” she said.

Reached in California late last week, Cilion's executive vice president for business development, Ejnar Knudsen, said he was surprised the group had formed and that he thought their questions had been answered.

Knudsen said every ethanol plant built in New York has been done with an environmental assessment form and that Cilion is offering to do an expanded one.

“This is a pretty benign process,” Knudsen said. “People don't really appreciate that. This is a brewery. You're fermenting grains. These things are generally welcome operations ... We've been available to people ... We have to defer to the regulatory agencies that guide this process.”

“If they feel they have questions that are not answered, then we invite them to meet with our engineers in Buffalo,” Knudsen wrote in a subsequent e-mail that he sent to Clifford, too, offering to arrange a meeting. He suggested that members might benefit from understanding the differences between an Environmental Impact Statement and what is required.

After Clifford forwarded the message to group members, Tarzwell responded at length, noting that the Environmental Impact Statement “will report that Empire forgot to tell us .... that they will be storing huge quantities of dangerous and hazardous materials on site.”

Among them, he mentions 100,000 gallons each of gasoline and diesel fuel; 20,000 gallons of ammonia; and 10,000 gallons each of sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid.

“The EIS will show that, in fact, ethanol is a hazardous material and must be treated as such,” Tarzwell wrote. “Empire has gone to great lengths to hide facts of how dangerous the plant really is and how an error or accident ... could flood the creek and surrounding residential area downhill with 1 million gallons of ethanol that is stored on the site.”

Tarzwell also cites potential fire hazards and concerns about local emergency responders' ability to deal with them.

“Why would we come and talk with your engineers?” he wrote. “[It's] the same company that is telling us there will be no stink and yet any reasonable person who searches the [Internet] will see that even with a thermal oxidizer in place, the smell is still very much a problem.

“ ... I want an independent third party to look at all the things you have failed to tell us so far.”

Knudsen said the company will address relevant points soon “to hopefully put these questions behind us.” He also noted that many concerns are addressed on the Web site www.empiregreenbiofuels.com.

“If the person would take the time to meet with Malcolm Pirnie (the Buffalo engineering firm), they would learn that the EIS could not improve on what [Empire Green Biofuels] has already committed to do through the expanded [Environmental Assessment Form],” he added.

dchampagne@fltimes.com

The ethanol promoters are betting their money that Seneca County residents will ask fewer questions than residents of Caledonia. Are they right?

2007-05-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

Cilion, the California company that wants to build an ethanol plant in Seneca County, was hoping to begin by completing a plant in Caledonia, located in Livingston County. But a funny thing happened: people started to ask questions. So many questions, in fact, that Cilion reluctantly agreed to address concerns of the surrounding community by preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the only process that meaningfully analyzes the impact of a project on the surrounding area.

They came to regret it. Instead of relieving the concerns of the community, it raised them further! Instead of supporting the happy talk of the ethanol salesmen, the EIS revealed the extent to which the plant would degrade the local environment. How did they respond to the growing public opposition to the project? They put it on hold, and came to Seneca County, determined not to repeat their mistake of revealing too much to the public.

Cilion has put on a masterful public relations campaign. On April 25, they held what amounted to a pep rally at the Romulus High School, complete with a slick presentation purporting to show that the plant would be environmentally benign, good for the local economy, and good for the Earth. They said that if Seneca County didn't fall in line, they would move on to another of the many communities which, they claimed, are clamoring to have an ethanol plant in their backyard. They even served sandwiches. But are sandwiches and balloons really the way for the public to understand the consequences of a major project that will affect their community far into the future?

The one thing they are insistent about is that they absolutely, positively refuse to prepare an EIS. And no wonder. It's one thing to serve refreshments and make rosy claims, and another thing to prove them. If they were required to prepare an EIS, they would have to explain the many inconsistencies, omissions, and errors contained in their preliminary filings. They were not about to repeat the mistake of revealing too much about their intentions.

Communities all over the country are starting to question the so-called benefits of ethanol plants once they understand the real environmental costs, and the fact that the entire industry is driven by subsidies, tax breaks, and trade barriers, all of which could vanish in the near future. Cilion's main investor is a billionaire who was born in India and lives in California. He may well be able to add to his riches before the actual consequences of this project become clear. The rest of us are not so lucky.

Questions we should be asking

2007-04-10T12:07:00.000-04:00

Visitors to the Finger Lakes are often stunned by the natural beauty of the landscape. Though its status as a tourist destination is still in its early stages of development, there is a sense that the message is slowly getting out to the world. The infrastructure of restaurants, hotels, bed and breakfasts and wineries is expanding, and a growing number of people are choosing to build residences in the area with views of, and access to, the lakes. Proximity to Cornell University, as well renowned universities in Rochester and Syracuse, have attracted a population drawn to an environmentally benign vision of the future to replace the region's "Rust Belt" industrial past.

But the mentality of the Rust Belt is still with us in some quarters, and it threatens to undermine that promising future. Unable to compete by the rules of the marketplace, this new Rust Belt vision of progress is reliant on secret deals, government subsidies and tax breaks to outside special interests, and contempt for the interests of, and participation of the general public.

This brings us to the disaster that is slowly unfolding in Seneca County. Under the guise of promoting a forward-looking technology, residents of this beautiful area are being sold a bill of goods. They are being asked (or more accurately TOLD) to accept an Ethanol Plant, with additional and as yet undefined facilities, at the former Seneca Army Depot.

It is not surprising that many people are ready to embrace this idea. Seneca County has been suffering from a stagnant economy, and many people are open to almost any proposal that can be sold as progress, something that will allow their children to find jobs in the area, something that will ease the onerous tax burden that is bearing down on local residents. And no doubt there will be some individuals who profit from this venture, at least for a while. But it is important that residents of Seneca County not allow their desperation to keep them from ASKING QUESTIONS!!

Questions like:

1) Who is promoting this project, and why?
2) How will this benefit the general public, and how do we get information we can trust?
3) What negative impacts will this project have on the local environment, such as air and water quality, noise, traffic, safety, and wildlife, and who is studying this?
4) What negative effects will this project have on property values, and on the vision of an economy based on tourism and a desirable quality of life?
5) Why did the residents of Seneca Falls reject this same project when it was proposed for their community?

With the exception of concerned citizens, working on their own to understand the implications of this project, the only answers we are hearing are being put forward by individuals with a vested interest in promoting this project. The Seneca County IDA, which in theory is the agency charged with presiding over the environmental review process, is in fact acting more like a cheerleader. The only way to properly assess the consequences of this project, both to the local environment and to the local economy, is to require the developers of this project to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), yet this is exactly the step that the IDA has gone to great lengths to prevent. Why are they so determined to keep the public from becoming aware of the consequences of this project?

A little research makes it clear. Virtually every expert in the field who is not personally profiting from this industry agrees that the ethanol is being oversold both as a solution to our future energy needs, and as an environmentally benign "green" technology. At best it is a transitional technology that will buy a few more years for the internal combustion engine, at great cost to taxpayers. More likely, it is a fraud on the American public, who are being asked to subsidize a technology that will cause severe environmental and economic damage at home and around the world, and which will leave behind it a new Rust Belt of abandoned facilities and damaged ecosystems.

Are we so desperate to embrace the promoters of this unproven technology that we won't even make them answer our questions? WE HOPE NOT!