Quantcast
Energy

40+ Leading Scientists Call on EPA to Protect Forests From Biomass Industry

By Sasha Lyutse

Yesterday, 41 leading scientists sent a letter to the EPA calling on the agency to protect our forests from the growing sucking sound created by biomass power plants. The scientists urged the agency to put in place a regulatory system that is both science-based and takes into account the key recommendations of the science panel the agency itself commissioned.

Since trees are less energy dense than coal, more have to burn to produce the same amount of energy and harvesting them for fuel foregos the carbon they would have absorbed from the atmosphere.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock

As power plants look for alternatives to fossil fuels, some are turning to burning wood or other plant materials—known as biomass—to generate electricity. The biomass industry argues that because trees grow back, biomass offers a “carbon neutral” form of energy

But not all biomass is created equal. Trees are not the same as perennial grasses or harvest residues that can either regrow quickly, would otherwise be burned in the field or are not needed for other purposes. And the latest science tells us that burning whole trees for energy results in more carbon emissions than burning coal for decades. That’s because trees are less energy dense than coal, so you have to burn a lot more of them to produce the same amount of energy. Even worse, harvesting them for fuel means we forego the carbon they would have absorbed from the atmosphere if we left them standing.

In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took on this question. It issued a three-year exemption for biomass-burning plants from permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act (basically a requirement that each new and modified industrial source gets a construction permit before starting to build, showing that it will use the “best available control technology” for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act). The agency then initiated a science-driven process to develop rules for properly quantifying biomass carbon emissions from plants burning biomass. It issued a draft methodology for doing the necessary carbon accounting, then empaneled a group of expert scientists, known as the Science Advisory Board (SAB), to assess the scientific validity of the proposed approach.

Now in the home stretch of developing those rules, the message from the scientific community is clear: 

Regulations governing how stationary sources account for biogenic carbon emissions must be based on sound science and ensure adequate protections for forests and the climate and the EPA must follow through on the science-driven process for creating those regulations that it put in place more than two years ago. As the letter states,

"Doing otherwise at this juncture will fail the test of rigorous, science-based policymaking and could result in regulations that distort the marketplace towards greater use of unsustainable sources of biomass, with significant risks to our climate, forests and the valuable ecosystem services they provide and we rely on.”

The scientists also shared their serious reservations about the accounting methodology the EPA proposed in its draft framework and underscored three key conclusions of the SAB’s final report:

  1. Bioenergy is not inherently carbon neutral. Instead, it is critical that the EPA consider the heterogeneity in biomass feedstock types, sources and bioenergy production methods define carbon outcomes based on “what the atmosphere sees”.
  2. The EPA cannot grant biomass-burning power plants credit for forest growth and carbon sequestration that would be happening anyway. Only when bioenergy results in additional carbon being sequestered above and beyond the anticipated baseline (the “business as usual” trajectory) can there be a justification for concluding that such energy use results in little or no increase in carbon emissions. 
  3. The EPA must develop a scientifically-sound methodology for determining the carbon emissions impact to the atmosphere from burning long-recovery biomass feedstocks—most notably, whole trees. This requires comparing forest growth and carbon sequestration on the landscape with biomass sourcing for energy production to what would have happened absent bioenergy. 

Power plants account for 40 percent of our national carbon footprint. That makes the EPA’s effort to reduce carbon pollution from power plants a key part of the Obama administration’s climate fighting initiatives and ensuring that we are rigorously accounting for biomass carbon emissions will be critical to its integrity. As the scientists conclude, the only way to encourage bioenergy facilities to source low-carbon biomass resources, efficiently burn or otherwise convert them to electricity and to use the electricity and heat in the applications that most effectively reduce carbon emissions is for the agency to follow the science. 

It’s critical that the EPA heeds the science community’s call and follows through on the standard it set for itself in issuing rules for the bioenergy industry. It can do both by adopting its science panel's key recommendations.

Visit EcoWatch’s BIODIVERSITY page for more related news on this topic.

Show Comments ()

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Sponsored
Climate
Global warming in Iceland. Getty Images

Arctic Warming Amplifies Extreme Weather Events Globally: Wildfires, Flooding Likely to Be More Severe

Warming in the Arctic is causing the jet stream, a belt of air held "up" around the Arctic by the temperature difference between the Arctic and warmer climates, to weaken and slow.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
DWalker44 / Getty Images

Tons of Plastic Trash Enter the Great Lakes Every Year – Where Does It Go?

By Matthew J. Hoffman

Awareness is rising worldwide about the scourge of ocean plastic pollution, from Earth Day 2018 events to the cover of National Geographic magazine. But few people realize that similar concentrations of plastic pollution are accumulating in lakes and rivers. One recent study found microplastic particles—fragments measuring less then five millimeters—in globally sourced tap water and beer brewed with water from the Great Lakes.

Keep reading... Show less
Science
Gorancakmazovic / Getty Images

Blotting Out the Sun to Save the Earth? Seriously?

By Jeff Turrentine

Science fiction doesn't always stay fictional. Space exploration, robots and self-driving cars are just a few of the modern-day wonders that once existed only as plot devices or fantastical theories. Our capacity for turning science-fictional notions into the stuff of everyday life has grown with each new generation of scientists and microchips, such that more and more ideas previously deemed too far "out there" are now actually here, or at least technologically plausible.

Keep reading... Show less
Climate
Flames of the Simi Valley fire ravage a Southern California mountain side on Oct. 29, 2012. U.S. Air Force / Senior Master Sgt. Dennis W. Goff

'Hothouse Earth' Co-Author Says 'People Will Look Back on 2018 as the Year When Climate Reality Hit'

By Jessica Corbett

Amid a flurry of "breathless headlines" about warnings in a new study that outlines a possible "Hothouse Earth" scenario, one co-author optimistically expressed his belief that "people will look back on 2018 as the year when climate reality hit."

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Popular
Kodachrome25 / Getty Images

Roof-to-Garden: How to Irrigate with Rainwater

By Brian Barth

The average American household uses about 320 gallons of water per day, a third for irrigation and other outdoor uses. Collecting the water flowing down your downspouts in rainstorms so you can use it to irrigate in dry periods is often touted as a simple way to cut back. But setting up a functional rainwater irrigation system—beyond the ubiquitous 55-gallon barrels under the downspout, which won't irrigate much more than a flower bed or two—is a fairly complicated DIY project.

Keep reading... Show less
Health
A family wears face masks as they walk through the smoke filled streets after the Thomas wildfire swept through Ventura, California on Dec. 6, 2017. MARK RALSTON / AFP / Getty Images

How to Protect Your Children From Wildfire Smoke

By Cecilia Sierra-Heredia

We're very careful about what our kids eat, but what about the air they breathe?

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Health
Hero Images / Getty Images

Study: Children Have Better Nutrition When They Live Near Forests

Spending time in nature is known to boost mental and emotional health. Now, a new global study has found that children in 27 developing nations tend to have more diverse diets and better nutrition when they live near forests.

The paper, published Wednesday in Science Advances, provides evidence that forest conservation can be an important tool in promoting better nutrition in developing countries, rather than clear-cutting forests for more farmland.

Keep reading... Show less
Health
Navy torpedo bomber spraying DDT just above the trees in Goldendale, WA in 1962. USDA Forest Service

Maternal DDT Exposure Linked to Increased Autism Risk

A study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry Thursday found that mothers exposed to the banned pesticide DDT were nearly one-third more likely to have children who developed autism, Environmental Health News reported.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!