- by Rachel Smolker, Biofuelwatch

- by Karen Orr, Energy Justice Network

A study on the health risks from a biomass power incinerator proposed for Placer County, California contains “several fallacies,” according to Norma Kreilein, MD, a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Friends: We've always done excellent work on a shoe-string budget.  Our small crew has been providing critical support to community environmental leaders all over the U.S., enabling countless victories against coal, gas, incineration and other existing and proposed polluters.

After bringing together the nation's grassroots "No New Coal Plants" network in 2006, helping stop over 100 coal plant proposals, we've focused back on biomass and trash incinerators, which are far more polluting, expensive an

Friends of the Earth (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), Greenpeace, and the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Dear Biomass Opponent,

Thank you for being a part of the national Anti-Biomass Incineration Campaign. As I’m sure you already know, over the past few years our grassroots network across 32 states has shed light on the harmful health and environmental impacts from biomass incineration at the local, regional, national and international level.

Massive emissions of greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide make biomass and coal burning facilities major contributors to climate change. Yet one large source of climate pollution that’s been flying under the radar has been pulp and paper mills—until now.

[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"57","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"317","width":"480"}}]]

For many people, nothing typifies the American Dream more than buying a house in a small town to start a family. Five years ago school teacher Robert Hughes and his wife purchased a home in Rothschild, Wisconsin, population 5,000 and had two children, now three years and three months old.