I think I want to read the decision and the facts of the case before I
jump to conclusions. While biomass "recycles" carbon instead of
releasing fossil carbon, biomass facilities also encourage
clear-cutting, and clear-cutting generates significantly more CO2 from
degradation of soil organic matter than from the biomass burned
directly. This "carbon debt" means that it may take 75 years before a
forest regrows and stores enough carbon to make up for what was lost by
clear-cutting. The few studies available suggest that the energy and
carbon balance for biomass may make sense for small local facilities,
but the balance tips against large industrial-scale facilities. While
it may seem counter-intuitive, the science does not automatically favor
biofuels as a solution to global warming, and we need to let reality
drive air pollution policy.
Jm Kotcon
>>> Andrew Liebhold 07/16/13 11:13 AM >>>
This strikes me as a very poorly informed decision. Burning
forest-derived
biomass is potentially highly desirable from a carbon standpoint. The
carbon contained in trees will be released into the atmosphere
regardless
of whether it does so by combustion or via decomposition, and is
therefore
a truly "carbon-neutral" source of energy. If it is utilized in place of
burning fossil fuels, it can greatly reduce net carbon emissions.
Whoever these people are in the Clean Air Task Force, Conservation Law
Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine, I think they would
benefit from studying a little bit of ecosystem science. There efforts
are
clearly mis-placed which is unfortunate...
-Sandy Liebhold
> Biological Diversity , July 15, 2013
>
> On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air
Actlimits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial
facilities
> that burn biomass, including tree-burning power plants.
> The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection
> Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.”
>
>
>
>
> The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit
> in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101),
found that the EPA had improperly exempted
> all sources of biogenic CO2 from permitting programs intended to
protect
> people and the environment from harmful pollution.
>
> “Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous, polluting and
ought
> to be limited to protect people and the environment,” said Kevin
Bundy, a
> senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law
> Institute. “This important decision will reduce respiratory ailments,
> protect forests and help ensure a healthier, more livable climate.”
>
> “Today’s ruling upholds [the] EPA’s authority to regulate pollution
that
> drives climate change .
> The court’s decision is grounded in an understanding that the science
shows
> that biomass fuels, including tree-burning, can make climate
disruption
> worse,” said Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force,
> who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the
Conservation
> Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of
> Maine .
>
> “The court clearly noted that the atmosphere can’t tell the difference
> between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by
burning
> trees,” said Weeks.
>
> “The science is clear that not all biomass burning is good for the
planet
> and today’s ruling rightly affirms science as the guide for how [the]
EPA
> must now move forward on biomass energy production,” said Niel
Lawrence,
> senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
> “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as
Americans
> who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they lov> also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that
are
> actually clean.”
>
> “The court’s decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now
we
> have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one
that
> avoids clearcutting the region’s wildlife-rich forests for energy
while
> intensifying climate change impacts,” said Frank Rambo, head of the
clean
> energy and air program for the Southern Environmental Law Center,
> which is representing Dogwood Alliance , Georgia
> ForestWatch , South Carolina Coastal Conservation
> League and Wild Virginiain the case.
>
> Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn
> biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of
> respiratory and cardiac problems. Biomass-fueled power plants emit
> significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that
burn
> fossil fuels—even coal—and
> it can take decades before that excess CO2 is “re-sequestered” by
> subsequent plant growth.
>
> Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their
CO2
> emissions must also control any “significant” emissions of other
regulated
> pollutants, so the court’s decision also means that communities near
these
> plants will benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma
and
> other health problems.
>
> Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535,
www.FrackCheckWV.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MVCAC mailing list
>
MVCAC@osenergy.org
>
http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
>