The huge flaw in how Congress is approaching burning wood

News and discussion of carbon-free energy sources

The huge flaw in how Congress is approaching burning wood

Postby Wilberforce » Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:47 pm

The huge flaw in how Congress is approaching burning wood for energy
By Chelsea Harvey
June 16

Along with 196 other countries around the world, the United States has made a number of ambitious climate commitments that experts say will depend heavily on the expansion of renewable energy and the increasingly stringent regulation of carbon output. But some potential new legislation, which critics claim relies on scientifically questionable assumptions, has scientists and environmentalists worried about taking a step backward when it comes to climate goals.

The controversy centers on a specific provision in the House appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017 regarding the burning of biomass (typically wood and other plant material) for energy. The bill proposes that the Environmental Protection Agency treat biomass energy as carbon neutral —that is, the agency would assume the practice does not contribute any extra greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere — under certain conditions.

Biomass is, in fact, generally regarded as a renewable energy source, since more trees can be grown after the old ones have been harvested for energy. However, renewable energy and clean energy are not always one and the same. Burning biomass for energy actually releases substantial amounts of carbon into the air — in fact, some research has suggested that it may even be worse for the climate than burning coal.

The proposed legislation suggests that biomass energy be treated as carbon neutral as long as national forest stocks are stable or increasing. The rationale is that trees serve as a carbon sink, taking up carbon from the atmosphere and storing it away — so if more trees are growing, they’ll cancel out the carbon emissions released by burning other plant matter.

Scientifically, though, the argument has a lot of problems, experts say.

“It takes decades to centuries for carbon to accumulate in what I call the forest carbon bank,” said Beverly Law, a professor of global change biology and terrestrial systems science at Oregon State University. On the other hand, burning trees for energy releases all their carbon into the atmosphere immediately. This means that biomass energy has an immediate effect on the climate, one that would take years of tree-growing to reverse.

The Senate is considering its own version of the appropriations bill as well, although it’s unclear for now how the language regarding biomass energy differs from the House version. An earlier draft of the Senate bill, obtained by The Washington Post, contained nearly identical language, although it suggested evaluating stocks on a regional basis instead, a move intended to account for differences in forest ecosystems throughout the country. However, people familiar with the matter have indicated that the language may have since changed. The draft is expected to be reviewed by the full Senate appropriations committee on Thursday.

The House bill also indicates that the same carbon-neutral treatment should apply if the biomass in question comes from residual matter leftover from mills, harvests or other forest management activities — in other words, if the biomass was dead and considered waste in the first place. It’s true that these bits of matter would eventually decompose and lose their carbon to the atmosphere anyway — but Law pointed out that, occurring naturally, this process would take long periods of time, whereas burning the plant matter would release all its carbon immediately.

In fact, she and colleague Mark Harmon, another forest expert at Oregon State, recently submitted a letter to Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, expressing their concern about the language, which they claimed “is very likely to be extremely counterproductive to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.”

In a separate letter to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who will soon be reviewing the Senate’s version of the bill, nearly 50 environmental groups expressed similar concerns.

If such legislation were to go into effect, many biomass energy facilities would not be subject to the carbon-cutting regulations proposed for other industries in the Clean Power Plan. Rather, they would be regarded in much the same way as solar or wind farms. Critics worry that this treatment could slow the ability to meet domestic climate goals, particularly now that the practice is gaining popularity and some coal-fired power plants in the country are being re-outfitted to burn biomass as well.

This is not the first time this controversy has arisen. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a sweeping energy bill addressing everything from advancing the electric grid to researching clean coal technologies. But environmentalists largely decried an aspect of the bill involving biomass energy.

Similar to the legislation proposed in the appropriations bills, the energy bill proposed that the EPA recognize biomass burning as a carbon-neutral energy source. This provision received comparable backlash at the time, including a letter signed by dozens of scientists.

Energy and Environment newsletter

The science and policy of environmental issues.

“This amendment puts forest carbon in the atmosphere contributing to climate change instead of keeping it in living, productive forests that provide multiple benefits of water and wetland protection, flood control, soils protection, wildlife habitat, improved air quality and recreational benefits for hunters and all who enjoy being in the great out-of-doors,” they wrote. “Legislating scientific facts is never a good idea, but is especially bad when the ‘facts’ are incorrect.”

Granted, there’s another side to this issue. It’s true that forests do serve as a valuable source of carbon storage — so over a long enough period of time, enough new trees could actually end up absorbing the same amount of carbon emitted by burning biomass. In fact, a 2014 letter to the EPA, signed by more than 100 university experts, praised the advantages of biomass burning and noted that “most debates regarding the carbon benefits of forest biomass energy are about the timing of the benefits rather than whether they exist.”

It remains to be seen whether the current protests will trigger change in either the energy bill (which has yet to be signed into law) or the appropriations bill. But scientists and activists remain concerned about the possibilities.

“Our global target is to keep temperatures from getting above 2 degrees Celsius by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and so with that agreement we need to be tracking the carbon closely — and this would simply be adding it to the atmosphere,” Law said. “It’s a problem in our international agreements. It goes against what we’re trying to do.”

source
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... or-energy/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS:
Greens decry 'biomass loophole' ahead of Interior-EPA vote

Sean Reilly, E&E reporter
E&E Daily: Thursday, June 16, 2016

Environmental groups are pre-emptively objecting to the possible inclusion of an "anti-environmental" rider in a fiscal 2017 Senate spending bill that could undercut the treatment of biomass emissions as a carbon source.

The bill, which would set budgets for U.S. EPA, the Interior Department and the Forest Service, is scheduled for a Senate Appropriations Committee markup this morning.

The panel won't make the legislative text and an accompanying report public until after the markup ends. Attempts to confirm that the bill contains a policy rider related to biomass were unsuccessful yesterday; it was also unclear whether any committee member will seek to add such language as an amendment.

But in a Tuesday letter to Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and other leaders, 48 green organizations voiced concern about any provision to set policies "that fail to account for the carbon pollution emitted by biomass facilities."

"Such language has already been attached to the House companion bill, and would set a dangerous precedent for climate science by proposing fundamentally flawed carbon accounting," the groups wrote. Signers included Friends of the Earth and other national organizations, along with groups like the Dogwood Alliance and Green Delaware.

In last year's comparable appropriations bill, the Senate panel tucked in a provision that would have treated emissions from burning wood and other "forest biomass" as carbon neutral, an approach that industry advocates argue is warranted because trees absorb carbon dioxide. The provision was dropped from the final omnibus spending legislation signed in December.

In a statement to E&E Daily last night, Donna Harman, president and CEO of the American Forest and Paper Association, signaled that the industry hoped to see something similar in this year's measure. Paper and wood product manufacturers get most of their power by burning sawdust and other "manufacturing residuals," Harman said, thereby avoiding CO2 emissions each year equal to the output of some 35 million cars.

Critics counter that trees absorb CO2 much more slowly than combustion releases it. In a separate letter yesterday to Cochran and ranking member Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), former Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) also opposed adoption of a "biomass loophole."

Waxman, who now runs a lobbying and communications firm, highlighted one study that painted a mixed picture. While forest biomass has the potential to significantly reduce carbon releases, it may outpace fossil fuels as an emissions source in the short-term, according to the findings cited by Waxman. He urged the committee to reject any provision that "ignores carbon pollution from burning biomass."

Waxman is working for a group of European environmental organizations on this issue, a firm employee said.

source
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060038912
• The Surgeon General has determined that there is no safe level of exposure to ambient smoke!

• If you smell even a subtle odor of smoke, you are being exposed to poisonous and carcinogenic chemical compounds!

• Even a brief exposure to smoke raises blood pressure, (no matter what your state of health) and can cause blood clotting, stroke, or heart attack in vulnerable people. Even children experience elevated blood pressure when exposed to smoke!

• Since smoke drastically weakens the lungs' immune system, avoiding smoke is one of the best ways to prevent colds, flu, bronchitis, or risk of an even more serious respiratory illness, such as pneumonia or tuberculosis! Does your child have the flu? Chances are they have been exposed to ambient smoke!
User avatar
Wilberforce
 
Posts: 6057
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: USA

Return to Carbon Neutral Energy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron