Mayor Poe Fowls Climate on Trip to Honolulu

Biomass Generators Are Not Carbon Neutral

The Obama White House Opposed Legislation That Claims Biomass is Carbon Neutral

In 2015 the Obama administration disagreed that Biomass generation was categorically carbon neutral, however the left-leaning Gaineville City commission ignored the best scientific advice backed by their own political party leader.

“The Administration objects to the bill’s representation of forest biomass as categorically ‘carbon-neutral.’ This language conflicts with existing EPA policies on biogenic CO2 and interferes with the position of States that do not apply the same policies to forest biomass as other renewable fuels like solar or wind. This language stands in contradiction to a wide-ranging consensus on policies and best available science from EPA’s own independent Science Advisory Board, numerous technical studies, many States, and various other stakeholders.”

 

Then in 2018, the EPA decided to ignore their own science to declare Biomass as carbon neutral.

EPA Declares Biomass Carbon Neutral—Biomass, Forestry Industries Quietly Paved the Way.

As a conservative and climate denier, then EPA head, Scott Pruitt became compromised due to scandal.  It could also be that Pruitt felt the issue of carbon neutrality was less important than the potential for job creation in the forest industry under the Trump mandate of MAGA.

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/epa-declares-biomass-carbon-neutral-biomass-forestry-industries-quietly-pav

 

The viewpoint from non-corrupted sources maintains that Biomass Power Generation Can No Longer Be Justified in the Face of Accelerating Global Deforestation.

Between 1990 and 2016, the world lost 502,000 square miles of forest - an area larger than South Africa.

https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/five-forest-figures-international-day-forests

 

28 March 2019 - Seventy-third Session, High-level Meeting on Climate and Sustainable Development

Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting.

Ambition, Urgency Needed to Address Global Emergency, Secretary-General Says

Just over a decade is all that remains to stop irreversible damage from climate change, world leaders heard today as the General Assembly opened a high‑level meeting on the relationship between the phenomenon and sustainable development.

The meeting — held pursuant to General Assembly resolution 72/219 (2017) — will run through 29 March with a focus on protection of the global climate for present and future generations, in the context of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm

Wood is being harvested for Biomass generation at a rate faster then replacement trees can grow. There is no doubt that the Biomass industry is contributing to global warming by promoting global deforestation. Biomass generation exceeds coal in CO2 emissions by 150 percent. Therefor, the promise of carbon neutrality in future decades cannot be achieved.

Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming

From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/?redirect=1

Deforestation Is Accelerating - Despite Mounting Efforts to Protect Tropical Forests. What Are We Doing Wrong?

Forests Are Collateral Damage in Major Economic and Political Events

The 2017 tree cover loss numbers are in, and they’re not looking good. Despite a decade of intensifying efforts to slow tropical deforestation, last year was the second-highest on record for tree cover loss, down just slightly from 2016. The tropics lost an area of forest the size of Vietnam in just the last two years.

In addition to harming biodiversity and infringing on the rights and livelihoods of local communities, forest destruction at this scale is a catastrophe for the global climate. New science shows that forests are even more important than we thought in curbing climate change. In addition to capturing and storing carbon, forests affect wind speed, rainfall patterns and atmospheric chemistry. In short, deforestation is making the world a hotter, drier place.

In light of these high stakes, those of us in “Forestry World” who dedicate our professional lives and personal passions to saving the rainforest need to pause and reflect: If the indicators are going in the wrong direction, are we doing something wrong?

Brick on the Accelerator, Feather on the Brake

There’s no mystery on the main reason why tropical forests are disappearing. Despite the commitments of hundreds of companies to get deforestation out of their supply chains by 2020, vast areas continue to be cleared for soy, beef, palm oil and other commodities. In the cases of soy and palm oil, global demand is artificially inflated by policies that incentivize using food as a feedstock for biofuels. And irresponsible logging continues to set forests on a path that leads to conversion to other land uses by opening up road access and increasing vulnerability to fires.

To a certain extent, the bad news in the 2017 tree cover loss numbers reflects collateral damage from unrelated political and economic developments in forested countries. Colombia’s 46 percent increase in tree cover loss is likely linked to its recent conflict resolution, which opened up to development large areas of forest previously controlled by armed rebel forces. While the doubling of Brazil’s tree cover loss from 2015 to 2017 was in part due to unprecedented forest fires in the Amazon, the uptick is likely also attributable to a relaxation of law enforcement efforts in the midst of the country’s ongoing political turmoil and fiscal crisis. Indeed, it is striking how many of the world’s tropical forested countries have either experienced a recent change in government (Liberia, Peru), are currently in political crises (Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo), are in the midst of elections (Colombia), or will face elections in the near future (Indonesia).
https://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/deforestation-accelerating-despite-mounting-efforts-protect-tropical-forests

Biomass Subsidies Could Intensify Deforestation
Industry pushes for carbon neutral designation and with it, subsidies
https://www.theepochtimes.com/biomass-subsidies-could-intensify-deforestation_2135531.html

___________________________________

August 19, 2016

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On behalf of our organization that promotes science-based energy policy, we applaud the administration’s public opposition to the “biomass loophole” that would enable utilities to burn wood for electricity while ignoring its carbon pollution.

We greatly appreciated the July 11th Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) that “strongly” objected to the biomass provision in the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, H.R. 5538. This measure would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to define forest biomass energy as carbon neutral, which would ignore the pollution from burning wood for electricity. The provision, as the SAP noted, “would compel EPA to disregard the scientific recommendations of its own Science Advisory Board and other technical studies.” We also welcome the administration’s opposition to similar language in the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

We urge the administration to promptly reiterate its public opposition to these provisions and any other similar proposal. Most immediately, this includes opposition to the biomass loophole in the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act, S. 2012, pending in a Senate-House conference committee. This bill would define wood burning for electricity as carbon neutral and ignore the carbon pollution from this practice. This provision could significantly weaken our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, undermine the effectiveness of the Clean Power Plan, and compromise our commitment to help prevent global temperature increases under the COP 21 Paris Agreement of 2015.

Burning wood inefficiently generates electric power. Therefore, it produces carbon dioxide emissions that are typically 150 percent greater per unit of electricity than those from a coal burning power plant. Wood combustion produces up to 400 percent more pollution compared to a natural gas burning power plant. Theoretically, replacement of the mature trees burned for electricity with saplings can eventually offset the carbon dioxide pollution created by the wood combustion. However, studies determined that such offsets take a long time to occur because it takes decades of sapling growth to sequester the same amount of carbon as a mature tree.

Burning wood for electricity also reduces the ability of a forest to act as a “carbon sink” to sequester and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. From the atmosphere’s point of view, decreasing a carbon sink has the same effect as increasing pollution from another source. Both boost carbon levels in the atmosphere. Burning trees for electricity, therefore, harms the climate in two ways. Burning wood increases emissions compared to using fossil fuels while decreasing the capture of carbon pollution from the atmosphere.

Our organization, the Partnership for Policy Integrity, is based in Massachusetts and uses science, legal action, and strategic communication to promote science-based energy policy. We were involved in the debate over proposed new bioenergy plants there. Before Gov. Deval Patrick considered approval of the proposed facilities, the Massachusetts government commissioned a study of bioenergy’s impacts. The 2010 analysis found that wood burning for electricity would undermine Massachusetts’ ability to meet its 2020 and 2050 emission reduction targets. The state subsequently ended its renewable energy subsidies for commercial scale bioenergy plants. The U.S. Senate energy bill and the appropriations bills would prevent the EPA from making a similar science-based decision about biomass combustion.

Treating bioenergy as carbon neutral undermines the goal of reducing carbon pollution under the Clean Power Plan. This is not a guess — the European Union (EU) already tried this approach. The EU classified bioenergy as carbon neutral while putting a price on carbon pollution. The result was a massive increase in burning wood for electricity because this practice avoids the carbon price. Wood pellets made from U.S. forests provide the majority of biomass burned in the United Kingdom. As states begin to make pollution reductions under Clean Power Plan, we could see a similar increase in wood-burning to replace coal because the Senate bill treats the former energy technology as pollution free. Instead of the biomass loophole, we need policies that increase forest acreage and lower power plant emissions to achieve the Clean Power Plan’s goal.

We commend you for the multiple programs you launched to reduce the carbon pollution responsible for climate change. We applaud your opposition to Congressional efforts to define away forest bioenergy pollution by classifying it as carbon neutral. We urge the administration to promptly and visibly oppose the biomass loophole in S. 2012 during the energy bill conference. We offer our assistance and support for this effort. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mary S. Booth, PhD
Director
Partnership for Policy Integrity

https://www.pfpi.net/thank-you-president-obama-for-recognizing-biomass-isnt-carbon-neutral