As I have said in the past and contend now, there is a large difference between burning wood and burning pellets. If the alarmist in our community would stop and look at the pellet industry, especially the pellet industry in Western Mass, they would, or should have a different opinion. "If history repeats itself" "we will burn too many trees" is a sound bite and we are clearly not repeating ourselves! There are large scale studies being done on forest supply, forest management and they point to the fact that we are far behind the curve in terms of cutting down (clear cutting) forests etc. Another scare tactic!
Another thing I would like to point out, there have been more than one study done on this subject, yet it seems that only the Monamet study ever gets mentioned. ...(full comment)
Forget "teen," "youth," "seniors." Just build a "community" center so that someone who's 16 today can look forward to using it when they're 66 tomorrow. After all, they'll probably be paying for it in taxes their entire adult life. You just need rooms; the rest is programming. It's too expensive to be specializing buildings based on age. ...(full comment)
Thank you Mike for a correct view on the Pellet industry here in Western Mass!
I do agree that we need to be understanding of what we are doing with our forests, and it seems that the DOER and others in charge are aware of this.
Also, remember that there is a large percentage of the wood that goes to pellet mills that are cut-offs and scrap from other industries such as the furniture industry and this would otherwise be waste.
Excellent piece in laying out the basics of the choice. As implied by John Andrulis comments, and what my fellow Reps don't want to admit, the subsidized premium approach of Obama and RomneyCare is the conservative idea, and, retaining that model would avoid political chaos. Sanders would have to get a Dem Congress which agrees with him and force it upon the other half. The system is not so important as the intelligence with which it is applied. If we're led by the likes of the state and Federal bureaucrats responsible for Flint's water, the system doesn't matter.
US healthcare is expensive because we have a luxurious system. To pull out the funding of this and try to mimic the modest UK and Canadian facilities (more 4-bed rooms in Canada for example, less availability of technology) would be chaotic, and, the advocates would be the first to complain about the quality of healthcare.
I question statements about outcomes being the same in other countries. The salient comparison is not of outcomes in general health which derive from habit and diet. It's outcomes from diseases for which sophisticated medical treatment is required that are the real comparison. The US is superior in much of the latter. ...(full comment)
Ugh, great, add having to shop for electric service every 6 months to the list now too...just like the infuriating process of having to shop for health insurance every year....it's constant, because when are we ever not going to need electricity or health insurance throughout our lives. Though the "market" and "competition" are good things, sometimes too much choice is just that, too much. Public utilities, public health insurance would simplify and probably cost less in the long run... ...(full comment)
For those prisoners, it has been out-of-sight, put-of-mind for most of us. Besides: "Maybe they did do something bad", or "If we let them out, they'll come out terrorists even if they weren't when they went in". Our prison minded society would rather keep innocent people in prison than let people out. "It is far better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man is wrongfully convicted." That quote has been attributed to many people, because, I think, it is a fundamental principle of our justice system. We can quibble about exactly how many guilty people are equal to one innocent person.Without trials, we'll never know.
We already do pay for it, not only at the pump but through unneeded tax subsidies to the oil/gas industry (and through all the environmental cleanup we the taxpayers have to do after they are done extracting). Redirect those subsidies to renewables, and they become much more affordable a la oil and gas. ...(full comment)
You are dreaming, how is a poor person who just gets by going to afford the increase in fuel costs (to heat and drive)? Are you going to pay for it? I think not.
If you believe that the oil should not be taken out of the ground, then why should any substance be taken out of the ground? There is contamination from every substance taken out of the ground. ...(full comment)
What a lovely story. I decided to make several copies for my friends and relatives. When I searched for the article online, I noticed that the Huffington Post and ABC News had both picked up the story. So thanks to the Greenfield Recorder, many in other parts of the country and the world got to share this wonderful story. ...(full comment)
In fact McCarthy was vindicated by the release of the Venona decrypts. Probably something you and most liberals want to gloss over. Or something you had no interest in. Truth. Even in this day when liberals cannot win with facts, they call you names (racist, homophobic, etc). Of course I am giving you stuff from non-political government employees. ...(full comment)
Haha, very funny. But though the schools certainly do teach about climate in general, they do not necessarily address climate CHANGE. Yes, there are historic hot and cold cycles in the climate. That doesn't mean there is no man-made climate change. Rather than investigating what students are taught -- not necessarily the absolute truth! -- why not investigate what scientists say about climate change. It's not hard to find. They are close to unanimous. ...(full comment)
Once again ... the column is "My Turn" ... Dan Brown has had more than his turn. Stop printing his nonsense. He has moved, let him write to his new local paper. His one sided approach is archaic and stale, and we're sick of it. "Fear" mongering is used by all politicians, and all media. It's what sells. You could easily replace the titles in the above volcano flows with 'global warming', 'police brutality', 'devastation of natural gas', 'stop the pipeline', 'white privilege', and all number of progressive agendas that they force on the public. The progressive left utilizes fear and compartmentalization far more than the right - witness the 'occupy' movements, the 'BlackLivesMatter" movement, and any number of separatist systems foisted on the public by the left which serve only to separate and divide people. The Right does not hold a monopoly on fear mongering; the left utilizes fear far more vocally, far more disruptively, and far more violently. ...(full comment)