The Potential Environmental Benefit of the Plant

Miriam Silverman’s book Stopping the Plant explains the controversy that embroiled Columbia County from 1999 to 2005, concerning St. Lawrence Cement Company’s (SLC) plans to build a new cement plant along the banks of the Hudson river. The book is successful in that it objectively states the arguments of each group. In fact, as I read the book I found myself identifying with the arguments put forth by SLC. It seems that modern environmentalism is overly sentimental, placing too much focus on aesthetics and not actual environmental health. In many ways, this was true of the SLC debate.

Silverman outlines the debate by citing three main arguments against the plant. First and foremost, opponents of the plant were concerned with, "the potential visual impact on the beauty of the Hudson" (7). The second point of opposition included the potential adverse effects on tourism and real estate and the third dealt with the actual environmental health of the region. In my opinion, the environmental health of the Hudson River was not the central issue in this debate. Silverman devotes an entire chapter to discussing "aesthetic" and it seems that the opposition’s main concern was that the plant would look bad. The plant may not have been beneficial to the environmental health of Columbia County in particular, but the Hudson river, and the world in general, would have benefitted from the construction of this plant. Silverman points out that SLC was not ignoring environmental concerns (chapter 3). On the contrary, SLC was very concerned with environmental regulations and while the plant may have introduced new pollutants to Columbia County, the discontinuation of production at the older Catskill plant would have decreased overall emissions in the Hudson River. Silverman is very clear in illustrating that this is not a classic example of environmental activism, where the corporation stresses economic gain at the expense of the environment. Both sides argued for the environmental benefit of their particular point of view, and while the opposition did raise very real environmental concerns about potential plant emissions they failed to see the national implications their actions.

The national implications of this debate are illustrated in the first few pages of the book. Silverman explains SLC’s argument that a new plant would decrease America’s dependence on imported cement by 7% (6). Many foreign companies that produce our cement are not held to the same stringent regulations as American companies and as such, increased domestic production of cement helps to cut down on pollution in general. Furthermore, with the modern concerns of greenhouse gasses a decrease in the need to transport goods across large distances can be seen as environmental friendly. What frustrates me about this debate is that environmentalist rhetoric was used by the opposition when in fact both sides had legitimate claim to environmentalism. There is a particular example in the text that illustrates my point. Many residents of Columbia County expressed concern about the visual effects of SLC’s proposed 406 ft smokestack and the image of this smokestack was important to gathering support for the opposition. The roll of a smokestack is to help decrease emission of harmful pollutants that cause acid rain and to elevate any escaping pollutants away from humans. Silverman alludes to this in discussing the debate over its length (16). The opposition used the stack as a point of concern and a powerful image in their environmental activism. This is ironic because in many ways, the smokestack is illustrative of successes in American environmentalism. Smokestacks are only needed because of the strict emission controls placed on American companies. This particular example is indicative of a much larger point; the opposition to SLC’s proposed plant called themselves environmentalists, but their activism may not have benefitted the greater environmental good.