We were alerted this week to a battle that took place between 1998 and 2005 on the other side of the Atlantic, a battle between St Lawrence Cement (SLC) – who wanted to build a cement plant and limestone quarry on the banks of the Hudson – and concerned residents, who ultimately won. SLC was part of Holcim, the parent company of Aggregate Industries.
St. Lawrence Cement spent $58 million dollars over more than six years in a failed effort to build a massive, coal-fired plant that would have overwhelmed the small but historic City of Hudson (NY) — population 7,500.
From that 406-foot stack would have belched a pollution-laden plume extending as long as six miles, roughly the distance from Greenport to Philmont in a direct line.
This gun to our collective heads would have been loaded with 500 million pounds of coal annually, to pulverize limestone blasted from a 1,200-acre quarry nearly as large as the entire City of Hudson. “Alternative” fuels such as garbage, tires and hazardous waste could have been added to the cauldron— a side of incinerator to go with your cement plant.
By SLC’s own admission, the plant sought permits to emit up to 20 million pounds of pollutants per year, including greenhouse gases such as nitrogen and sulfur dioxides, heavy metals and volatile organic compounds: arsenic, benzene, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and more.
... citizens discovered that SLC and its Swiss-owned parent company Holderbank—now called Holcim—had an appalling track record of fines for pollution and price-fixing violations. Whatever promises the company was making, it had broken similar promises to other communities worldwide. (The company had also used slave labor in Europe during World War II, and actively profited in South Africa during Apartheid.)
Protestors had experience of the company’s activities from elsewhere.
One said:
“You can’t trust these cement company bosses farther than you can throw ’em. Their promises don’t mean nothing unless it’s written down.”
“You can't trust this company, and you don't want them in your area.”
Opponents argued the proposed project violated state environmental regulations and would adversely affect the river, shoreline, and related habitats.
The controversy gained national attention from news outlets such as CNN and The New York Times, as well as media outlets in Canada and Switzerland. The project was withdrawn after New York Secretary of State Randy Daniels determined that the company's plans were inconsistent with New York State's 24 coastal policies.
