The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0462.007 2018-2020 Murashige, Laura From: Sylvia Do|ena <svlviado|ena@gnlai|zom> Sent: Tuesday, September I7, 2019 9:44 PM To: Council Testimony;Chung,Aaron; Richards,Tim; Kierkievvicz,Ash|ey, David, K4aUe; Kaneu|ii-K|einfe|der, Matt;Vi||ogos, Rebecca; Lee Loy, Sue; Poindexter,Valerie; Eof[ Karen Subject: K4aha|otoCouncil Members for listening: OPPOSE Res. Res. 3OI-l9which is fundamentally flawed Muhalnfor your consideration. _ l�ood' iyvery important and specific exclusions will add the needed clarity. =� (7)rn "it was finally decided to postpone until Oct. 15 when the resolution could be adjusted to include such wordirig-as "incineration will not bouonoidened" CIO Regards Sylvia Do|ena Pcic[ani Farm LLC �� -- District 5 On Mon, Sep ih, 2019 81 5:24 PM Sylvia T}0leDa wrote: Dear Counoi|nlenlbensofHawaii County, Please oppose Resolution 301, which urges the County to develop a plan for a waste stream reduction technology for renewable and alternative energy generation for the County ofHawaii. As it stands, Resolution 301 as a path to alternative-energy generation is fundamentally flawed, because it entirely overlooks the aspect of greenhouse gas emissions. which will be a criteria for permitting by the PUC. We must keep at the forefront of our minds that our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sometimes when vve get hung up on the word "renewable,"we miss the whole point--to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Utwas this inability 0mdistinguish the difference between carbon reduction and the arbitrary designation mf °nmmexxmbla°that led tmthe defeat mf Hu Homue Biomnmrgygdthe 0exveii State Supreme Court. Even though Hu Honua attorneys tried in vain to convince the Supreme Court justices that its client's Power Purchase Agreement(PPA) with HELCO was just fine because burning wood is deemed"renewable" by certain government agencies, the Court ruled against HuHonuo. The Court ruled that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) should have considered greenhouse gas emissions inissuing the permit. But they hadn't. The PUC issued the PPA based only on Hu Honua's designation as "renewable" but did not consider greenhouse gas emissions edall. For this reason, the Court remanded the PPA hothe PUC for reconsideration, which is still underway. Resolution 301 is fundamentally flawed for precisely the same reason. Just as the PUC erred by failing to recognize greenhouse gas emissions,"so does Resolution 301. Just because we officially designate waste-to-energy as "renewable," it does not stop it from emitting up to 2.5 times the CO2 of coal. The bottom line iacarbon inthe atmosphere, and the Supreme Court made this extremely clear, citing recent instances of climate catastrophe. If the County were sincere in seeking energy alternatives that were truly renewable, it would look into solar and wind, which both na|eoso negligible amounts ofCO2 into the Earth's atmosphere. Mahalo for your attention to this important distinction. Comm NP 1 Ref. Date SEP 16 2019 Sylvia Dolena, Pele Lani Farm, LLC District 5, Mountain View, HI On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:11 AM Sylvia Dolena<sylviadolena@gmail.com>wrote: To: COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO: COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,WATER,ENERGY,AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT HERBERT M. "TIM"RICHARDS,III Chair and Presiding Officer r MATT KANEALI`I-KLEINF'ELDER Vice Chair Aloha, In response to Resolution 301: waste and energy, I oppose any consideration of incineration as a solution to waste management. Please oppose Resolution 301 for the following reasons: ■ Trash incineration is incredibly bad for the climate, releasing 2.5 times as much carbon dioxide CO2 to make the same amount of electricity as a coal power plant. This is evidenced by national data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) in their eGRID database. CLIMATE CRISIS IS A FACT. We cannot afford to release more greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere. ■ Incinerators are expensive to construct and expensive to keep running. Incinerators create only a few, often dangerous,jobs for people in the community where they operate. ■ Incinerators cause a net outflow of money from small communities. ■ Incinerators rely on recyclable trash as fuel. LET'S BUILD RECYCLING FACILITIES INSTEAD. ■ Incineration competes with recycling, including composting. It is the lazy way to deal with waste, and this laziness leads to more dioxins in air, land and water. ■ Incinerators do not reduce the volume of waste. ■ Ash and gases coming out of an incinerator are just as much waste as is put into the incinerator. ■ Incinerators convert garbage to another form of pollution, which are dioxins. Dioxins are more difficult to control and even more toxic. ■ Incinerators create a new solid waste problem: toxic ash more difficult to deal with in a safe manner. ■ Incinerators generate one fourth of the energy that can be conserved by recycling the same materials. ■ Waste-to-energy incineration does not reduce dependence on petroleum. ■ Incinerating plastic and tires prolongs petroleum dependence: plastic and tires are made from petroleum. ■ Waste-to-energy" incinerators must operate at full capacity to realize assumed waste reduction volume. ■ EPA has identified incinerators as the primary source of dioxins in the environment. ■ Dioxins are chemicals produced by burning plastics. ■ Dioxin is one of the most toxic and dangerous chemicals ever tested. ■ Minute doses of dioxin cause cancer, birth defects, reproductive and other disorders. i ■ "Environmental dioxins increase the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma among the population living in the vicinity of a municipal solid waste incinerator." [Epidemiology, 2003] Experiences in other communities: ■ "Waste-to-energy" incinerators seldom operate at full capacity. ■ The amount of garbage that the local communities would feed incinerators has been overestimated:- The verestimated:The cost of incineration has been higher than the communities were initially led to believe. ■ In order to comply with the guaranteed tonnage clause typically in contracts, communities are sometimes subsidizing incinerators to make up for negative financial outcomes. ■ Promised reduction in waste volume is not always achieved, leaving more"residuals"--ash. Proven alternatives to reduce waste avoid incineration and generate savings for local government and businesses. ■ Transfer stations in rural communities. 2 ■ Municipal-scale composting of pre-and post-consumer food scraps, green waste, and cardboard. ■ Local recycling-based manufacturing. ■ Reduction in waste generation within business firms and government agencies. ■ Purchase of recycled and recyclable materials by business firms and government agencies. ■ Producer responsibility policies, also known as product stewardship. Proven alternatives are (and incineration is not): Diversified, without putting "all eggs in one basket." Community-based, favoring local business, local employment, local sales, and local income. Clean, allowing healthy lifestyles and preservation of aesthetic assets. Adaptable to changes in markets, waste stream contents, and technology. Efficient in the use of energy and other resources. Res. 301-19: URGES THE DIRECTORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO COLLABORATE AND DEVELOP A PLAN FOR A WASTE STREAM REDUCTION TECHNOLOGY FOR RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY GENERATION FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII Seeks to address an increasing supply of solid waste through a waste stream reduction technology mechanism that would conserve County funds, reduce the use of fossil fuels, and improve environmental conditions on Hawaii Island. Reference: Comm. 462 Intr. by: Mr. Richards Regards, Sylvia Dolena, Pele Lani Farm, LLC District 5, Mountain View, HI