Bangor Daily News, Dec. 23
Talk of a biomass-to-hydrogen conversion project is great news for the Millinocket area. Nearly a year ago, the region was rocked by the closure of the Great Northern paper mills, stalwarts of the local economy. Although one mill is back up and running, hundreds of people have lost their jobs. Anyone who promises decent jobs will be more than welcome.

But this project is notable for much more than the jobs it may provide. This project, in the very early talking stages at this point, may also provide economic and environmental benefits to the state and even the country.

It would enable the Great Northern company, under new ownership, to reduce the amount of waste it hauls to its landfill, slated to be filled in six years. … The hydrogen would then be used to create cheap, efficient electricity that could help reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

A new consortium, made up of the town of Millinocket and businesses and tentatively known as Maine New Energy, already has been created. The group’s aim is to build a 10-megawatt electricity plant at a cost of $10 million to $50 million within five to six years.

The only problem with this facility is that it can’t be built sooner.

It will be good for the region, good for the state and good for the nation. … There has been growing talk of the need for alternative energy sources. Hydrogen … has come to the forefront. If Maine can play an active part in the development of hydrogen production, it should. …

The first step is a feasibility study to investigate operational questions and to determine the marketability of hydrogen power. The study is expected to cost up to $700,000, money the consortium is seeking from state and federal sources. Given the national interest in hydrogen power and the state’s commitment to fostering economic development throughout Maine, the money should quickly be made available.


The power of profanity


Chicago Tribune, Dec. 19
When rock star Bono won a Golden Globe earlier this year, he didn’t simply spout the usual platitudes. He made a bit of live television history. That’s because after winning the award, he exclaimed, “This is really, really (expletive) brilliant!”

The expletive was the familiar f-word, which is not often, if ever, heard on network television. After a national parents’ group protested, the Federal Communications Commission issued a ruling that to some was even more shocking. It said, basically, that it’s OK to say the f-word on network television, as long as it’s “fleeting and isolated” and not referring to sex.

Not surprisingly, that outraged the watchdogs. Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media, accused the FCC of opening the door to a “complete breakdown in moral sanity.”

As far as we can tell, however, that door’s been open for some time now. …

Relax. This isn’t a diatribe against profanity or a screed preaching abstinence from foul language. You don’t have to be a priggish school marm to occasionally be offended by America’s decades-long slide into gratuitous profanity. But we appreciate a choice expletive now and then. …

In the right place and at the right time, profanity can be satisfying, even cathartic. Done with a certain aplomb, it can even be creative. But only if used sparingly and in the right settings. In a bus with children in earshot? No. In a loud bar or among friends? Maybe. But even then, caution is advised: Blurting out curses in front of colleagues isn’t likely to burnish your reputation for eloquence. …

… The kind of casual profanity that permeates not only the airwaves but American streets, schools, homes and offices only cheapens and coarsens the culture. It is indiscriminate and, ultimately, tedious.

Unfortunately, what’s on television accurately reflects many Americans’ predilection for rampant and gratuitous profanity. …

We wouldn’t welcome a return to the puritanical era of “Gone With the Wind,” when Clark Gable’s utterance of “damn” set off a nationwide fit of tsk-tsking. But we’d like to encourage a little more respect for the power of profanity. …

The French have a phrase: le mot juste. It means, the right word. Most of the time, that’s not a curse.


Shortsighted plan


Kansas City Star, Dec. 23
The new Healthy Forests Restoration Act is disguised as an attempt to prevent devastating forest fires like those that raged through the West the last two years.

The title of President Bush’s legislation is misleading. It won’t do much to keep forests healthy or to stop forest fires. It will allow loggers to pillage national forests of old-growth trees, which are actually the most fire-resistant.

But what else should we expect on environmental issues from the president and his minions in the departments that are supposed to protect and preserve America’s resources, parks, forests and clean air and water?

Congress, too, has disappointed in these areas.

The Healthy Forests Act follows a familiar pattern. Instead of healthy forests, where blazes are less likely to spread, Americans get another fire-sale of their public property to special interests. …

The forest law recently signed by Bush is inadequate in initiating significant new fire protections for forests or communities.

Most helpful would be thinning woods and reducing brush around populated areas most prone to fire, as environmentalists have urged.

Instead, Bush’s initiative is a payoff to the timber industry and an appeasement of certain Western interests that see the public’s lands only as something to exploit. …