America needs a truthful answer

Could Berlin be part of the Cause of Global Warming by allowing a massive 66MW plant into the city?

Interesting reading from http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/press.html

"The best and most credible science indicates that greenhouse gas emissions should be
reduced in the next decade to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate warming.
How does biomass burning, and the associated emissions from deforestation, wood
cutting, grinding, and transport over hundreds of miles in trucks that get less than five
miles to the gallon qualify as reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How does building a
plant with greater carbon emissions than many fossil fuel-burning plants and a lifetime
measured in decades get us closer to our goal? Repeating the mantra that biomass is
carbon neutral is not sufficient, because given the need for immediate reductions in
emissions, this statement is only true if the carbon equivalent of all the emissions
associated with biomass burning is immediately re-sequestered in forest plantings.
MassDEP should respond to show upon what basis biomass burning for energy can be
considered carbon neutral. On what basis does the agency make this conclusion?
It is of the utmost urgency that the state adopt a “reality-based” standard for what
constitutes carbon neutrality and air quality impacts, starting with requiring a full
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass projects – the stakes are too high
for human and environmental health to be entrusted to semantic manipulations. With
regard to emissions, MassDEP must truly scrutinize the assumptions and data behind the
air quality modeling before allowing a precedent-setting project of this magnitude to go
forward, and ensure that the Town of Russell is not be made a sacrifice area for air
quality just because the state needs to achieve a certain number of so-called “renewable”
fuels projects – at any cost.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary S. Booth
13"