The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Climate Change Denier Scott Pruitt Endorses Burning Trees for Electricity
By Danna Smith
Over the last several years, study after study has documented why burning trees to produce electricity, known as "biomass," will accelerate climate change. More than 800 scientists from around the world recently signed a letter to the EU government warning that burning trees for electricity releases more carbon into the atmosphere than coal per unit of electricity generated, increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere at a critical time when we must be doing everything we can to reduce it.
As some of the world's top climate scientists, like Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Bill Moomaw, wave a big warning flag, the biomass industry charges ahead, still insisting that burning trees for electricity is helping to solve the climate crisis. "Don't worry" they say. It's "carbon neutral" and "trees grow back."
If the mounting, independent scientific evidence hasn't been enough proof yet that burning trees to generate electricity is a climate disaster, the endorsement of biomass last month by Scott Pruitt, the notorious climate denying administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should be.
Pruitt doesn't believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing climate change, even though 99 percent of scientists agree that it is. Upon assuming his position as EPA administrator he declared "The war on coal is over" and vowed to dismantle the Clean Power Plan put into place by President Obama to reduce carbon emissions from coal burning power plants. He recently asked whether global warming is such a bad thing even if the climate is changing.
So when Scott Pruitt, a man who doesn't even believe in climate change and is intent on rolling back environmental regulation at every level, publicly sides with the biomass industry in declaring that burning trees should be considered "carbon neutral" and seen as something that "benefits our forests," we should be extremely skeptical. Essentially, he is attempting to group dirty biomass energy with true renewables like wind and solar power.
For an industry that claims it is helping to solve the climate crisis, an endorsement by Scott Pruitt should be the final proof that underneath all the green smoke is an industry that cares more about corporate profits than the climate.
Danna Smith is the executive director of Dogwood Alliance.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
The Centers for Disease Control has emphasized that washing hands with soap and water is one of the most effective measures we can take in preventing the spread of COVID-19. However, millions of Americans in some of the most vulnerable communities face the prospect of having their water shut off during the lockdowns, according to The Guardian.
Aerial photos of the Sierra Nevada — the long mountain range stretching down the spine of California — showed rust-colored swathes following the state's record-breaking five-year drought that ended in 2016. The 100 million dead trees were one of the most visible examples of the ecological toll the drought had wrought.
Now, a few years later, we're starting to learn about how smaller, less noticeable species were affected.
Natthawat / Moment / Getty Images
Disinfectants and cleaners claiming to sanitize against the novel coronavirus have started to flood the market, raising concerns for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which threatened legal recourse against retailers selling unregistered products, according to The New York Times.
The global coronavirus pandemic has thrown our daily routine into disarray. Billions are housebound, social contact is off-limits and an invisible virus makes up look at the outside world with suspicion. No surprise, then, that sustainability and the climate movement aren't exactly a priority for many these days.
By Molly Matthews Multedo
Livestock farming contributes to global warming, so eating less meat can be better for the climate.