Leigh Touchton sent me this today.

-jsq

John,

This letter is from Pastor Michael Bryant, Webb-Miller Community Church, Hahira. He would like to publish on the LAKE blog. Dr. Manning’s response to Brad Lofton is also for publication.

Thank you,
Leigh

---

Given the complexity of the issue facing us as a community with regard to the Biomass Project, it is incumbent upon all parties involved to recognize that while the populations ill-affected will primarily be our children and elderly, the most vulnerable among us, the real issue is the fact that only 25 job are going to be produced. Likewise, if the facts bear out as proclaimed by both or either of the parties involved, and I believe if an error is made, it should be on the side of safety, the benefits to be realized are not nearly as great as the alternative approach provided by a solar energy plant.

Solar energy is much cleaner, more efficient, more abundant, and certainly less intrusive. It has few if any down-sides. Solar energy will do more for our planet and certainly have a more profound impact on lessening the emission of gases directly affecting global warming. People who have money and power seldom concede anything without a fight. This is primarily where the battle will rage. Therefore, those involved in this controversy, must as Abraham Lincoln said, appeal to “the angels of our better their nature”. We only have one planet upon which we know life is sustainable. To pollute this one place is lunacy in the pursuit of money, sheer greed.

We have, as a nation, gone through one of the worst calamities facing human kind motivated by unbridled greed. Not only was its effects felt in the United States, its tentacles spread around the world disrupting world markets.

The bane of America is that any and everything is for sale. However, we are stewards, care takers, house managers of that which we did not create. In this regard , we are failing miserably. Being a good steward of the earth requires that we seek opportunities to do protect, conserve, and preserve what has been given to us as a “sacred trust.” The Native Americans took only that from the earth which was necessary for life. Mother Earth was sacred, and they refused to abuse it by raping the land in an effort to exploit her for her resources. The earth belongs to all mankind.

Moving forward, we as a nation need to revisit our system of values. Otherwise, our failure to do so will ensure that life on the only planet we know upon which life is sustainable may not be a blessing we can pass on to future generations. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, we fancy ourselves as a Christian nation. Regarding this, we, like a good frog loudly praise our own pond. In the Bible of this Christian nation, the creation story says, we are to “replenish the earth.” We must put something back. Until George Washington Carver showed us the importance of crop rotation, the planting of particular types of crops that replenished what was taken from the earth, by repetitive usage, the land suffered. Cotton became king; the abuse of people of color through slavery was the order of the day, and America was baknrupt morally.

Growing out of that innate since of entitlement and the wherewithal to do as one desired, the notion to minimize and marginalize anything and anyone unable or too weak to fend for it or themselves has accelerated America’s journey down this destructive path in which we are considering the construction of biomas plants and other industrial sites that pollute our planet.

America is without doubt a great nation. Yet, it is a nation that has squandered its influence and prostituted its integrity in pursuit of the almighty dollar. To recover ourselves from this abyss of immoral conduct, we must acknowledge the fact that we have utterly failed in our stewardship responsiblity, that some things ought not be for sale, and that the earth is worth saving.

In closing, a psycholgist said that “children are the mirrors of our socety. Only within the last hundred years have we seen fit to pass laws that considered them as important individuals. Prior to this infanticide whihc is a terrible word, was not a crime. But, when we consider building Biomass plants within a one mile proximity to communities and schools, assisted living facilities that house the most vulnerable in our nation, something has gone awry. Perhaps, this is why we are fortunate to have a President who has seen the need to begin a process in which every American has access to healthcare. Whether you agree with him or not, and I venture that most of the gainsayers have not taken the opportunity to read the health care law in its entirety. Fortunately, I have.

Given the implications relative to the healthcare issues which accompany the construction and operation of these plants, we will eventually need to move toward a one payer healthcare system. That is not an argument or an option that most Americans are ready to have. Therefore, it is a much sagacious and saner alternative to emphaticlly insist on the construction of “solar energy plants within our communities.” China has already begun to double its effeorts in this area because they know that this is going to be the wave of the future. They have close to 30% of the market in this area, as we speak, and anticipate creating a market share between 60 to 70% while we refuse to use the technology avavilable to us in pushing the envelope in this area. And, we are merely taking baby steps in this area.

To give tax incentives to companies creating jobs in this area on American soil is a win-win situation. To make it less cost effective for companies transporting jobs overseas and engaged in the out-sourcing of jobs is a moral imperative. American companies that engage in these tactics ought to be made to feel the brunt of their unwise decisions. Likewise companies, governments, local and otherwise ought to be confronted when they seek to introduce biomass plants into our communities under the guise of an advantage which they already know will be detrimental to its populace. Just think, this biomas plant will only provide 25 jobs and create 40 megawatts of energy. Is this really a good trade off for the devastation to be realized in its aftermath? I think not!

Short Link: