Dogwood Alliance

If you get a chance, call your Senator and ask them not to make a longer term commitment on an unproven and false solution to climate change. Here is a link to who is on the committee: http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm Sample call script below...

"I am calling about the biomass tax extenders that may be voted on tomorrow. I want to ask all Committee members that they not make this long-term commitment to this industry given all of the public health concerns and carbon accounting problems with these proposals. The 22,000-member Massachusetts Medical Society opposes all proposed biomass power plants in Massachusetts as an "unacceptable risk to public health." The Florida Medical Society and a number of local chapters of medical societies, as well as chapters of Physicians For Social Responsibility and regional arms of the American Lung Association, are warning of serious public health impacts from the 200 existing and proposed biomass power plants in the United States. Scientists and environmental organizations such as the Massachusetts Sierra Club are also warning that due to a carbon accounting error these power plants will greatly increase carbon emissions under the pretense of lowering them. Incentivizing biomass could make it impossible for the U.S. to reach its carbon reduction targets. I urge all committee members to vote no on tax extenders for biomass. " Votes: +0

I agree that climate change is for real and that use of fossil fuels has played a significant role. The IPCC report conclusions, despite recent disclosures of minor errors, are not altered by these errors. I'm motivatated by the science, not current or past politicians. So let's do something.

I disagree with you in that I support woody biomass as an energy source. The link below is from the US Dept. of Energy, and clearly shows abundant biomass resources in the South, and limited commercial sources of wind and solar energy. Not my data; theirs.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/maps_data/renewable_resources.html

If increased atmospheric CO2 is the problem, then burning fossil fuels, whether coal from Wyoming, natural gas from the South, or oil from Saudi Arabia, releases carbon stored for millions of years into the atmosphere, enriching the atmosphere. Woody biomass also contains carbon, but this is part of our current environment (unlike fossil fuels) and the trees replanted or released to grow after thinning will continue to store carbon. This is why the DOE and scientists refers to woody biomass as being carbon neutral.

Now let's look at the private landowners in the South, as these folks hold 70% of the forested acreage. They've planted trees over the past several decades, but seen decreased markets for their products. Their primary motivation for owning land is not likely to be income generation from timber (though important), but some other factor, often as a legacy. They do not see this as an opportunity to whack down the trees, but as an opportunity for new markets to replace those lost. You will not see massive clearcutting for biomass because of the economics; landowners are interested in managing their timber to produce much higher value products than just biomass. There will be dedicated energy plantings, but not to the extent some people fear.

I believe we need *all* energy sources on the table, but used in a constructive and logical manner. This includes wind, solar, biomass, etc., but also recognizes that we will be dependent on various forms of fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Votes: +0

I have seen those same maps, and unfortunately I find them misleading. Just because we have a lot of forestland in the region (approximately 200M acres), that does not mean that we should consider burning them as a "renewable" resource. First, it is ridiculous to suppose that we can replace fossil carbon with terrestrial carbon. Second, as we have seen in the past with chip mills and the paper industry, opening the door to this industry will quickly move from wood waste being burned to whole trees and wood chips decimating our forests and communities across the South.

Sustainable supply does not equal sustainably managed forests, the biomass industry will bring more large-scale clearcutting, more conversion of natural forests to pine plantations, and loss of more of the last endangered forests contained in the region. Not to mention the associated impacts on water supply, human health, and loss of critical hunting, fishing and wildlife habitat.

DOE is using poor accounting. Scientists across the globe have disputed their accounting showing that our best bet is to allow forests to sequester more carbon rather than cutting them down to burn to offset "dirtier" industries. The accounting system they use which calls burning forests carbon neutral does not take into account the loss of carbon from logging and soil disturbance, the fossil fuels burned in transportation, nor the carbon released in the mill when the wood is burned. Worse still is that more science is coming to light that burning wood for energy releases equivalent and in some cases higher levels of toxics and particulates than even coal.

I also have to disagree with you on dedicated energy plantings. Currently, there is a huge push to deregulate GMO cold-tolerant eucalyptus because the paper industry's own analysis shows that biomass logging will meet or beat current logging levels for paper. So in addition to opening Pandora's box with the introduction of GMO eucalyptus, we will see other species like hybrid poplar and alder grown on very short-rotation cycles to meet the demand. At a recent bio-energy conference I attended hosted by biomass proponents, they anticipated forests clearcut on 4-8 year rotations which is even shorter than management for pulp logs.

We wholeheartedly agree that we have to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, but believe that embracing the bio-energy market, as has been shown with corn ethanol, will lead to unforeseen and dangerous outcomes. We need not embrace false solutions and should put our investment dollars and best scientific minds behind creating the next generation of renewable energy rather then embracing a technology that has been around since caveman days. Votes: +0

To ScotQ:

You find the information contained in the maps indicated above “misleading.” Let’s try again. The National Renewable Energy Lab has a tremendous amount of information on renewable energy. Below is a link to a number of maps on their web site. This shows that wind is a “Poor” source of energy in the South.” Solar energy is much more feasible in the southwest US. But the South does has plenty of trees that can be used as biomass.

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/maps.html

So let’s acknowledge what the science is saying: that the renewable energy opportunities in the South will be a function of what we have available, and biomass is one of the key sources of energy.

Next, no one is claiming that “we can replace fossil carbon with terrestrial carbon.” Fossil fuels will be with us for many years.

Next to decimating our forests and communities. Removing markets, such as a potential biomass market, is a disincentive to landowners, does not promote sustainable forest management, and removes potential jobs in the biomass sector from rural areas already suffering from high unemployment rates. My state has increased forested acreage since the mid 80’s by some 16.8%. In that time we have also seen many forest products mills close, resulting in fewer markets for the private landowners who hold 70% of the forested land. One of the best ways to make sure forests will be there for future generations is to allow landowners and their families to benefit financially from good management decisions.

You use vague language that is almost impossible to respond to: “scientists across the globe have disputed…”; “more science is coming to light..”, etc. I have provided you with specific references (NREL in this case), and would appreciate some similar specificity when you make contentions. I would be particularly interested in a source for : “burning wood for energy releases equivalent and in some cases higher levels of toxics and particulates than even coal.” The NREL paper cited below examines air quality in part. It concludes that 1) biomass releases less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, 2) most other emissions are reduced, and 3) NOx is increased somewhat (less than 5%).

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/42046.pdf

I cannot get overly excited by Eucalyptus. Based on 15 years of working with landowners, few will really be interested in converting their forests to what is perennial corn. They have other interests in their land and timber, and these interests will trump any benefit derived from Eucalyptus.

Last, when I was born there were 2.6 Billion people on the earth. When my grandson is my age, there are projected to be 8.7 Billion people. I believe it is irrational not to pursue all reasonable energy opportunities here in the South.
Votes: +1