Greed Trumps Conservation in Connecticut

Connecticut Gov. Daniel P. Malloy has signed into law a bill that paves the way for swapping an ecologically-significant state-owned wildlife sanctuary along the Connecticut River for a developer’s unwanted and relatively worthless parcel elsewhere in the state.

Beyond the loss of an important habitat, Gov. Mallory’s thoughtless acceptance of the claim that a developer’s desire to enhance his business interests outweighs the broader but less monetarily quantifiable need to preserve an ecologically important parcel of land, puts all conservation efforts in jeopardy.

The parcel in question is a 17 acre wildlife refuge along the Connecticut River in Haddam, Conn., purchased – with taxpayer money – for $1.3 million in 2003 by the state under a program meant to preserve open space. That would have seemed to ensure that the land would have remained undeveloped. Not so!

The land sits next door to the Riverhouse banquet facility owned by a group of developers who believe a small inn or something similar would help their business. They just happen to have a parcel of land in another part of town which they bought as part of a previously failed business venture. They paid about $400,000 two years ago for the property. They have been unable to sell it or do anything with it since then.

Then they got the bright idea that they could unload it on the state for the far more desirable property next to their restaurant. They have the backing of the local business community and at least one powerful state legislator. The governor apparently agreed with them.

There may be a few bumps along the way before the deal is done. For one, independent appraisers need to verify that the swap is a fair deal. At first glance it wouldn't seem so, given the difference in value, but given Connecticut’s well-deserved reputation for political corruption and its abysmal record on environmental issues, I’m not holding out much hope.

Exxon’s latest oil spill just more of the same

From those wonderful folks at Exxon (remember the Exxon Valdez?) we have more of the same, but this time they’ve chosen to befoul the Yellowstone River with 42,000 gallons of crude oil. It may not be on quite the same scale as the Alaska disaster, but it reflects that nothing has changed in the 22 years since the Alaskan disaster.

Records indicate that just a few months ago, the company was warned by the Dept. of Transportation that the pipeline that ruptured was not buried deep enough, that it had suffered some corrosion damage, that maps showing the location of shut-off valves were not accurate, and that their reponse plans were completely inadequate.

Not to worry, was the company response. They’ll take care of it first chance they get. In the meantime, they’ll continue operating because nothing had happened yet.  Until last Friday night, that is, when the rupture occurred.

And their response? Send out a relative handful of people in hazmat suits to pose for photographers, give them a box of extra thick facial tissues to wipe up any oil that washes up on shore, and declare the cleanup is under way.

Meanwhile, people all along the river report getting sick from the fumes, wondering why the cleanup is going so slowly, and wondering how bad will it get.

No one really knows. All we can do is sit and wait. How much profit do we suppose Exxon made in the time it took to write this?

                                       

Unholy Alliance: Governments and the nuclear industry

Emails leaked a few days ago show the British government was more concerned with controlling bad public relations for the nuclear industry following the Fukashima disaster than with the safety of its nuclear power plants.  The government had already committed to building several more nuclear plants and wanted to blunt any opposition.

This morning an explosion and fire was reported at a French nuclear plant. Government officials confirmed there was a minor fire, but made no mention of the explosion, and insisted there was no threat to the public. Local officials were taking no chances. Swimming and fishing were banned from the area near the plant.

The plant near Drome is one of France’s oldest, and was recently given a 10-year license extension, even though 32 safety concerns were revealed last week. Ignoring public concern over nuclear power, President Sarkozy last week pledged an additional $1.5 billion for nuclear power development.

In Vermont, legislators concerned about the conditions at the aging Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, Vt., have voted not to approve a 20-year extension of the plant’s operating license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teamed up with Entergy Corp., the plant’s owner, in a lawsuit against the state’s action. An Entergy lawyer last week argued in federal court, in part, that the state has no business being concerned with the safety of its citizens, only whether or not the plant can deliver “reliable” power.

Apparently they have a problem with democracy as well. They further argued that when these elected representatives voted against the license extension, they were reacting to the wishes of their constituency.

Two months after the nuclear disaster began at Fukashima (it’s still going on you just don’t hear about it) the nuclear plant operators and the Japanese government had to admit they had been lying about the seriousness of the disaster of the plant.

Regardless of the pros and cons of nuclear power, how can an honest discussion of the issue take place in an atmosphere of lies and cover-ups?