What is the Public Hearing?
We experienced our first public hearing, and it was certainly an experience in every sense of the word. We attended the EPA hearing on the air quality permits in Racine, OH on Tuesday, June 2 in order to gain an understanding of how a public hearing is run and to provide some support for the environment and the environmentally-conscious.
Elisa warned us that the atmosphere could be intimidating, so we were not entirely sure what to expect when we walked into the school where the hearing was being held. Thankfully, we met up with some of Elisa’s friends and other environmental supporters before we entered the building (Elisa could not attend due to a class). Everything was very standardized at the entrance (“Hello, I’m the facilitator;” “Please sign your name here;” “Here is a sheet about the meeting;” “Please take a seat;” etc.) and it appeared on the surface to be something that people simply attended to get information.
The meeting began with an introduction from a representative from the Public Interest Center of the Ohio EPA about what the hearing was about and how it would be organized.
Check out the far left
He was followed by a representative from the Division of Air Pollution Control of the Ohio EPA who gave a short PowerPoint presentation about why the hearing was being held, something that I am still somewhat confused about since only the wording of a rule in the permit had been changed, not the actual effects of the permit. He was very soft spoken, and he came off as rather uninterested in the entire affair. The PowerPoint contained a fair amount of technical jargon that he failed to explain for those of us in the crowd who are unfamiliar with terms and codes that the EPA uses. After he finished, it was time for Q&A…
It was easy to tell what side of the argument (for or against AMP-Ohio’s proposed coal plant in Meigs County) each person in attendance represented, especially since like-minded people sat together. The majority of those in attendance represented local workers’ unions; they were mostly burly men in trucker caps and t-shirts (“Joe the Electrical Worker” to use the phrasing of our most recent presidential election). The sizable minority of environmentalists appeared to be your run-of-the-mill hippies and liberal intelligentsia.
The first shot fired came from the pro-power plant camp. One man stood up and claimed to speak for the “silent majority” of those in the area who need jobs and want to see the benefits of the AMP plant in the local economy. Following this statement, the man sitting right next to us stood up and told those in favor of “progress” to stand and be recognized – about two-thirds of the room stood up in one sweeping motion. After this intimidating show of solidarity, the same man looked at the corner or of the room directly in front of him (where the environmentalists sat) and said, “While we’re at it, any environmentalists who use electricity should also stand up. Come on, don’t be shy. I just want to see.” Needless to say, that corner of the room just looked at him.
Let the games begin.
People from the audience were called up in the order they submitted their names at the beginning of the hearing. Advocates for the power plant spoke their peace, saying that a new coal plant would maintain jobs in an impoverished area. They spoke of how this plant would use the newest and cleanest technology to date. They said that we need electrical power: demand necessitates the supply. Some said that they have been working in plants for decades and are still as healthy as a horse. They cheered for each other and called out admiration. Some addressed the environmental advocates directly, saying that no one wants pollution, but right now this is the best possible option. With all of this in mind, their arguments boiled down to jobs and the need for monetary income.
When the environmental advocates got up to speak, there were some quiet jeers; but what really created an air of intimidation was the sheer number and the camaraderie exhibited by the pro-coal representatives. Some students spoke (with voices shaking from their nerves) about how they think we need to stop over-using our resources and prepare the way for a more sustainable future. Some locals spoke about the air quality in the area and how, although the new plant would be using scrubbers and new technology, the issue is that it would be adding its emissions to the already overburdened area. Some people expressed concern that the EPA’s Division of Air Quality and the Division of Water do not have active discussion about how air emission affect Mercury levels in the Ohio River. Those in favor or protecting the already-tarnished environment in Meigs County were definitely outnumbered, but they made some good points and stood their ground in a room where you could feel the animosity and tension in the air.
One person in the entire lineup of hearing participants really analyzed what stems the disagreement concerning coal-fired power and the environment (a shout-out to Katie for pointing this fact out to me), and this person also happened to be the representative for Elisa Young by reading a statement that Elisa had prepared. This young woman pointed out to the people in attendance that they were all worried about one thing: the future for their children. Those on the side of the new coal plant wanted financial security so that they could afford to take care of their families. Those on the side of preventing the new powerhouse wanted some peace of mind that their children’s development would not be complicated by health problems caused by the chemicals and carcinogens that are released by the process of burning fossil fuels. She urged the audience to stop bickering about who is right and who is wrong; and she asked them to really sit down and have active discussions about what is really necessary for improving the future that we leave behind for our offspring.
We had to leave immediately after this statement due to prior arrangements we had made with our host for the evening, but the final message given to us was the perfect summation and explanation of what we had experienced in that public hearing. The underlying issue concerning the debate in Meigs County is posterity, and the fear that something might not be left to hand down to future generations, be it clean air and water or financial stability. The issue is survival of offspring, a desire that is shared by all living things; and, when the debate is looked at as something that stems from a biological instinct, I think it is obvious which resource is most important. The environment is a resource that we cannot squander because it is not something that is man-made (such as money and the entire concept of finances as a whole). If we really cannot have both financial security and a healthy habitat (at the very least in Meigs County, although this is definitely a worldwide issue), let us weigh the options properly. Without an environment that we can thrive in, there is not human life; and without human life, what is financial security?
0 Comments to “What is the Public Hearing?”
No Comments. Send your comment.
Leave a Reply