Re: [stop-ethanol-trains-in-greater-boston] Digest for stop-ethanol-trains-in-greater-boston@googlegroups.com - 10 Messages in 6 Topics

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Yarden

unread,
Jul 14, 2013, 1:22:52 PM7/14/13
to stop-ethanol-train...@googlegroups.com

Yarden

unread,
Jul 14, 2013, 1:38:10 PM7/14/13
to stop-ethanol-train...@googlegroups.com
Having read the text of the Governor's veto, and not being a member of the Governor's party I am not surprised by the veto in itself.  The Governor never pretended to be someone who believed that the business interest might at times be inimical to the common good; he has always been "pro-business."

But given the public mood, I will be highly surprised if the legislature does not overturn the veto. Having read Governor Patrick's veto of the legislation that would have prevented petroleum corporations from being issued a Chapter 91 license for the siting of ethanol storage and or blending facilities in densely populated areas of the state; the veto leaves the question of how the passage of Section 81 this would constrain the transport of ethanol in Massachusetts far from clear.  What is made clear is that as currently drafted, Section 81 of the budget bill might significantly interfere with the development of Boston Harbor as a major transatlantic petroleum port.

This is far from the first time that the protection of Massachusetts tidelands, or the public interest in general  takes second place in the political judgement of the Governor.  One is reminded of a quip from the Chair of Chamber of Commerce that meeting the regulations of Chapter 91 is a prelude to Chapter 11.  And also of other questionable actions to assure the appropriation of public lands as in the case of 13 acres of North Point.

The suggestion that MEMA undertake a study of how to deal with disastrous accidents, lends credence to the view that progress should not be impeded by government, and that the cost associated risks should be assumed by the public while the profits accrue to the private corporations. This is yet another instance of how competitive government contributes to increasing the disparities of wealth that are so damaging to social well-being.  After all, if the yet to be built transatlantic petroleum export trade fails to go Massachusetts (Maine has already rejected it) it might be grabbed by New Hampshire, or even Quebec.  What a waste it was to have cleaned up Boston Harbor!  

Elie Yarden
Cambridgeport

On Jul 12, 2013, at 2:28 AM, stop-ethanol-train...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/stop-ethanol-trains-in-greater-boston/topics

    Alexandra Kepner <alix....@gmail.com> Jul 11 08:18PM -0400  

    Okay, I just took over the comments section of WBUR's Radio Boston with a
    long two-part essay on their piece re: safety of fuel transport by rail.
    If anyone wants to add comments to my lengthy diatribe, it would be
    greatly appreciated :)
     
    Thanks,
     
    --Alix
     
    Alexandra Kepner <alix....@gmail.com> Jul 11 01:43PM -0400  

    Tune in to RadioBoston today at 3pm on WBUR (91.9FM). They will be
    discussing rail transport of petroleum products. The call-in number is
    (800) 423-8255.
     
    Brad Bellows <bbacam...@gmail.com> Jul 11 01:03AM -0700  

    Whether Global is lobbying the Governor to veto the ethanol amendment, or
    working with him to figure out what their next steps should be, or both, it
    is clear that fuel transport by rail is not going away anytime soon. We
    need to keep in mind that our most recent victory, while hard won and
    extremely welcome, is very narrow - relating only to construction in
    "tidelands" (Chapter 91) and not to the larger problem of high-risk
    shipments through high-density areas. This point will not have been lost on
    Global. Even if the Governor does not veto the amendment, there is nothing
    stopping them or any other company from shipping any cargo through our
    neighborhoods at any time provided they don't need to build on tidelands to
    do it. As the unfolding Lac Megantic disaster makes clear, federal rail
    policies are woefully inadequate in addressing this hazard, and need to be
    changed to better protect the public and ensure that shippers demonstrate
    financial capacity to bear the full costs of any accident and any public
    safety investments their shipments may require. These common sense
    liability requirements will go a long way toward discouraging irresponsible
    shipping decisions and will create an economic incentive for safer
    equipment and rail operations. In addition to calling Governor Patrick, I
    also suggest we begin reaching out to our Congressional delegation to start
    discussions on this important next step. We can anticipate great resistance
    from business and agricultural interests happy with the laxity of current
    regulation, but we might find allies in the trucking and highway
    industries, who are disadvantaged by the implicit public subsidy rail
    shippers enjoy. In any case, until federal policy changes, Lac Megantic can
    happen anytime, anyplace, and if that place happens to be a major
    population center, the stakes will be far higher.
     
    Brad Bellows
     
     
    On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 1:46:36 PM UTC-4, Alix Kepner wrote:
     
    Ellin Reisner <reisn...@gmail.com> Jul 11 12:32PM -0400  

    There's going to be discussion of rail transport of petroleum products on
    the 3pm prgram on WBUR today.
    One of hosts lives in E. Somerville.
    Ellin
     
    Alexandra Kepner <alix....@gmail.com> Jul 11 12:59PM -0400  

    Fantastic, Ellin!!! Did you make this happen? I've always hoped that
    Radio Boston would pick up on this story! Thank you!!!
     
    --Alix
     
    On Thursday, July 11, 2013, Ellin Reisner wrote:
     
     
    Peg Blum <peg...@gmail.com> Jul 11 01:18PM -0400  

    Glad to hear this.
     
    Just heard on WGBH hour-long monthly talk with Gov. Patrick hosted by
    Marjory Eagan and Jim Braude where a listener sent a question about the Ch
    91 Amendment but, although the question was addressed, I didn't hear a
    definite answer from the Gov., except that he is well aware of the issue.
     
    Since it is unclear yet if Gov Patrick will sign the budget by tomorrow,
    what will happen to the Ch 91 Amendment if he returns the budget to the
    legislature?
     
    Peg
     
     
    --
    Peg Blum
    175 Richdale Ave #414
    Cambridge, MA 02140-3354
    (617) 576-1334
     
    Annie <wildwat...@gmail.com> Jul 11 10:11AM -0400  

    What is the bill number or name we're asking Gov. Patric, to sign?
     
    Thanks,
    Annie
     
     
    On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:20 AM, <
     

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Stop Ethanol Trains in Greater Boston" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to stop-ethanol-trains-in-g...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Robert Winters

unread,
Jul 14, 2013, 2:03:25 PM7/14/13
to stop-ethanol-train...@googlegroups.com
One of the more useful and insightful commentaries I've seen so far regarding rail transport of hazardous materials is this:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/touch/story.html?id=8652746

The author is a former rail engineer. Regardless whether hazmat cargoes should be transported through densely populated areas, it is inexcusable that massive hazmat cargoes should be driven by skeletal crews on neglected rail infrastructure.

                                   Robert Winters

wildwatercress

unread,
Apr 28, 2014, 11:14:57 AM4/28/14
to stop-ethanol-train...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages