Now back from Santa Barbara
Friday, September 28, 2007 at 09:01AM For most of this week I've been in Santa Barbara, California, observing the close of a National Labor Relations Board trial against the Santa Barbara News-Press, which explains the recent gap in posts here. I apologize. But the continuing dialog in the comments includes the usual outstanding contributions. Thanks to all for the excellent opinions and ideas.
In Santa Barbara, New-Press publisher Wendy McCaw fired a number of reporters after they started planning to organize a union to help protect their integrity from McCaw's meddling with the news product to promote her own editorial agenda. But firing people for wanting to form a union violates federal law, even though McCaw said she fired the reporters because they wote biased stories.
The 17-day trial concluded Wednesday and now the administrative law judge will make his decision and give it in the form of a recommendation to the National Labor Relations Board which will make the final decision in a process expected to take months.
L. Michael Zinser, who is expected to lead a defense of the Hawaii Tribune-Herald against NLRB charges of firing reporters and other union-busting tactics at a similar trial to be held in Hilo beginning Oct. 23, assisted in the defense of the News-Press. There's more on that at the Guild's Holomua.org Web site.
Meanwhile, a lot happened here while I was gone, not the least of which was Wednesday's Jason Armstrong scoop on Wheelabrator getting the mayor's recommendation to build a waste-to-energy incinerator. The mayor is sending Council members out for dog-and-pony shows and you know the pressure is going to be tremendous on the all of them to support it, especially the five that James Weatherford says haven't made up their minds yet (scroll down in the comments and, hey James, can we get their names?).
Thursday's Tribune-Herald headline: "Wheelabrator gets high marks" pertained only to about the first two-thirds of the story or so. Only toward the end did you read that not everyone gives the incinerator high marks, including several state regulation agencies. Nevertheless the Council no doubt will see pretty hunky-dory operations and be able use their experiences to justify their votes, and may be hard-pressed under the circumstances to vote against it.
In Wednesday's paper, I found it amusing that Councilman Dominic Yagong acted miffed that the Kim administration would not release the name of the firm selected, then played coy himself about how much money the incinerator would cost. "The people of the County will faint immediately when they see these numbers," Yagong said. But he didn't reveal what he "and other lawmakers recently discussed in a closed-door session." I guess Yagong and the rest of them are just too concerned with our health -- you know, possibly fainting -- to let us in on the big secret, even though it will be the "people of the County" footing the bill.
But more on that later. Meanwhile, coqui frogs, the Stryker, charter schools, and today I see what appears to be a no-news story about widening Route 130, all surfaced while I was gone and warrant comment. I'll be catching up on these and other issues throughout the weekend.
Always good to be back on the Big Island.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to FriendReferences (1)
-
Response: polomurinureon 47 postall about polomurinureon and top news
Reader Comments (7)
No, Hunter, I'd better not get into naming names. Like so much about this affair, that is not (yet) public information ;)
For sure, the two incinerator sites (in Florida and Connecticut) are hand picked (by the East Coast consultants) because those sites have performed best. My skeptic voice tells me these sites will be presented as 'what anyone can expect' -- typical of a 'bait and switch' scam.
Operating incinerators with problems, and there are more than two, have not been scheduled by the consultants for a tour. Do you reckon the Mayor or anyone else has asked to see some of the worst incinerators in operation?
And, how about incinerators shut down due to environmental violations? Often this happens due to inadequate maintenance that reduces the company's operating cost. This negligence in equipment maintenance not only results in equipment malfunction and emissions, but also requires early replacement of the equipment -- a cost for the local government.
There are some parallels here with the roads issue. Building more roads, than filling them with more vehicles isn't making anything better. Processing more garbage without changing our consumption ethic is the same thing. Whatever the garbage solution, it's got to be tied in with a strong (mandatory?) recycling program.
Goyo,
Your analogy of garbage and roads is good -- trying to buy one's way out of a problem with gadgets and gimmicks is not on.
Incinerator "safeguards"? The technology does exist, designed to prevent dioxin and other emissions above EPA-set limits. That is fine, if you can have faith in any machine running perfectly 24/7, for at least twenty years without any malfunction. When the equipment is not properly cared for, it malfunctions (this has happened in many cases). In the event of emissions from an incinertor due malfunctioning emissions control equipment, the incinerator operator typically gets a fine and continues to operate. Dioxin, a known carcinogen, does not go back into the incinerator because of the fine!! it has been released into the environment, and regulations and technology have not protected the community from exposure to the most hazardous chemical know to mankind!
how much do WTE plants contribute to global warming?
The short answer is that incinerators emit nitrous oxide, which is a greenhouse gas.
The incinerator sellers will state that WTE is a deterrant to global because it does not emit methane, another greenhouse gas, which is a major problem with landfills. The implication being that only 2 alternatives exist -- landfills or incinerators.