Slouching to judgment

In his column Sunday headlined “Opponents rush to judgment on tire-to-energy plant,” Pat Howard took up the company line when he chastised those who have raised questions about the potentially adverse environmental effects of the proposed waste recycling plant, admonishing them to withhold their opposition until all their questions have been answered.

Howard should heed his own advice. After all, he’s doing exactly what he’s accused opponents of doing, rushing to judgment, albeit from the opposite direction in favor of proceeding with the project notwithstanding the sponsors’ failure to provide basic information on its potential environmental effects.

He writes, somewhat duplicitously, that “Many plant opponents have put their verdict ahead of the evidence.” Well, so have he and his ilk. They just reached a different verdict. The opposite of no action, which opponents espouse, is some action to move forward, which is what Howard advocates, a rush to judgment, if you will.

“Before the company files a single permit document with the state Department of Environmental Protection,” he writes, “ its opponents have seen and heard enough….My experience in this business has taught me to be wary of folks who start with a conclusion and reason their way back from there."

Whatever Howard’s “experience in this business” may be, it’s obviously not been enough to inform him that the preparation of a permit for a major industrial project and its submission to government authorities is the first big step of what invariably becomes an irreversible process.

At that point, it gains an irresistible constituency and political momentum which carries the process through to completion, bowling over any opposition in its path. If a project of this sort isn’t nipped before the permit is issued, it never will be, barring a catastrophic development.

I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t. Unlike Howard, I shall slouch, not rush to judgment.