http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/
Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole
Center for Biological Diversity, July 15, 2013
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air Act limits 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 love. It will 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 Virginia in 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
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
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane duane330@aol.com wrote:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/
Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/, July 15, 2013
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that Clean Air Acthttp://ecowatch.com/p/air/clean-air-act-air/limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities that burn biomass, including tree-burning power plantshttp://ecowatch.com/2013/our-forests-arent-fuel-new-campaign-against-burning-american-forests-for-electricity/. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.”
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/clearcutting/
The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/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 http://ecowatch.com/p/air/climate-change-air/. 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 Forcehttp://www.catf.us/, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation http://www.clf.org/ and the Natural Resource Council of Maine http://www.nrcm.org/.
“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 Councilhttp://www.nrdc.org/. “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will 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 Centerhttp://www.southernenvironment.org/, which is representing Dogwood Alliance http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/, Georgia ForestWatch http://www.gafw.org/, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League http://coastalconservationleague.org/ and Wild Virginiahttp://www.wildvirginia.org/in 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 coalhttp://ecowatch.com/p/energy/coal-mining-pollution/—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
I know some forest soils, including some in West Virginia, are among the world’s best known natural carbon sinks. All that carbon does NOT go into the atmosphere but rather is sequestered deep in the soil in what are called folistic epipedons.
From: mvcac-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:mvcac-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Liebhold Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:12 AM To: MVCAC@osenergy.org; Duane Subject: Re: [MVCAC] Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole
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
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane duane330@aol.com wrote:
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/
Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole
Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ , July 15, 2013
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that http://ecowatch.com/p/air/clean-air-act-air/ Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities that burn biomass, http://ecowatch.com/2013/our-forests-arent-fuel-new-campaign-against-burning-american-forests-for-electricity/ 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.”
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/clearcutting/ Image removed by sender.
The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ 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 http://ecowatch.com/p/air/climate-change-air/ 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 http://www.catf.us/ Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the http://www.clf.org/ Conservation Law Foundation and the http://www.nrcm.org/ 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 http://www.nrdc.org/ 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 love. It will 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 http://www.southernenvironment.org/ Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/ Dogwood Alliance, http://www.gafw.org/ Georgia ForestWatch, http://coastalconservationleague.org/ South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and http://www.wildvirginia.org/ Wild Virginia in 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 http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/coal-mining-pollution/ 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
As an irredeemable tree lover, I would also be concerned about increased deforestation, if such a bill were to pass.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:24 PM, dave saville daves@labyrinth.net wrote:
I know some forest soils, including some in West Virginia, are among the world’s best known natural carbon sinks. All that carbon does NOT go into the atmosphere but rather is sequestered deep in the soil in what are called folistic epipedons. ****
*From:* mvcac-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:mvcac-bounces@osenergy.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Liebhold *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:12 AM *To:* MVCAC@osenergy.org; Duane *Subject:* Re: [MVCAC] Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole****
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****
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane duane330@aol.com wrote:****
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/**** Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole ****Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/, July 15, 2013*
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that *Clean Air Act*http://ecowatch.com/p/air/clean-air-act-air/limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities that burn biomass, *including tree-burning power plants*http://ecowatch.com/2013/our-forests-arent-fuel-new-campaign-against-burning-american-forests-for-electricity/. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.”****
*[image: Image removed by sender.]*http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/clearcutting/
The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in *Center for Biological Diversity* http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/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* http://ecowatch.com/p/air/climate-change-air/. 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*http://www.catf.us/, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the *Conservation Law Foundation* http://www.clf.org/ and the *Natural Resource Council of Maine* http://www.nrcm.org/.****
“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*http://www.nrdc.org/. “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will 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*http://www.southernenvironment.org/, which is representing *Dogwood Alliance* http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/, *Georgia ForestWatch* http://www.gafw.org/, *South Carolina Coastal Conservation League* http://coastalconservationleague.org/ and *Wild Virginia* http://www.wildvirginia.org/ in 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*http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/coal-mining-pollution/—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****
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@osenergy.org http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
I'd suggest that policies should be driven by science rather than emotions... If we don't do something about CO2 emissions, we won't have any trees left to love.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Susan Shumaker susan@stonecircleinc.comwrote:
As an irredeemable tree lover, I would also be concerned about increased deforestation, if such a bill were to pass.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 1:24 PM, dave saville daves@labyrinth.net wrote:
I know some forest soils, including some in West Virginia, are among the world’s best known natural carbon sinks. All that carbon does NOT go into the atmosphere but rather is sequestered deep in the soil in what are called folistic epipedons. ****
*From:* mvcac-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:mvcac-bounces@osenergy.org] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Liebhold *Sent:* Tuesday, July 16, 2013 11:12 AM *To:* MVCAC@osenergy.org; Duane *Subject:* Re: [MVCAC] Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole****
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****
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Duane duane330@aol.com wrote:****
http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/**** Federal Court Strikes Down Biomass Carbon Dioxide Loophole **** Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/, July 15, 2013****
On Friday, a key federal court ruling confirmed that *Clean Air Act*http://ecowatch.com/p/air/clean-air-act-air/limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution apply to industrial facilities that burn biomass, *including tree-burning power plants*http://ecowatch.com/2013/our-forests-arent-fuel-new-campaign-against-burning-american-forests-for-electricity/. The court vacated an exemption that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had carved out for “biogenic carbon dioxide.”****
*[image: Image removed by sender.]*http://ecowatch.com/2013/court-strikes-down-epa-biomass-loophole/clearcutting/
The decision, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in *Center for Biological Diversity*http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/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* http://ecowatch.com/p/air/climate-change-air/. 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*http://www.catf.us/, who argued the case for the petitioners and appeared on behalf of the *Conservation Law Foundation* http://www.clf.org/ and the *Natural Resource Council of Maine* http://www.nrcm.org/.****
“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*http://www.nrdc.org/. “This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will 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*http://www.southernenvironment.org/, which is representing *Dogwood Alliance*http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/, *Georgia ForestWatch* http://www.gafw.org/, *South Carolina Coastal Conservation League* http://coastalconservationleague.org/ and *Wild Virginia* http://www.wildvirginia.org/ in 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*http://ecowatch.com/p/energy/coal-mining-pollution/—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****
MVCAC mailing list MVCAC@osenergy.org http://wvcompletestreets.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac
-
Andrew Liebhold -
dave saville -
Duane -
Susan Shumaker