Print

Yet Another Anti-Biomass Study

Here is me stating the obvious: one thing that the U.S. cannot decide in regard to woody biomass-derived energy is whether or not it is carbon neutral.
By Anna Simet | May 03, 2013

 Here is me stating the obvious: one thing that the U.S. cannot decide in regard to woody biomass-derived energy is whether or not it is carbon neutral.

I think I’ve heard every argument on both sides, backward and forward, up and down, in a box, with a fox. I have also witnessed uninformed protestors sneak in and disrupt important industry meetings, meetings where sustainability, carbon neutrality, and things our industry can do to stop wild fires from burning down homes are topics of discussion (there’s obviously a lot to protest there).

Check out the latest sensational headline of a notice released from Greenpeace: “Burning Trees for Energy like Pouring Gasoline to Put Out a Fire.”

It bases its letter off of what it says is a peer-reviewed study, titled “Fuelling a Biomess.” I haven’t done any studies myself, but it’s probably safe to say that if it’s going to be read and/or respected at all by the other side of the argument, I wouldn’t title it in a way that induces eye rolling.

At least the Manomet study seemed to have a little neutrality.

Said Greenpeace, “The new study contradicts industry assertions that this kind of ‘biomass’ fuel is clean and carbon neutral. The science behind the report shows how using forests for energy can be worse for the climate than burning coal.”

What kind of science does it use? Whether or not trees absorb carbon isn’t debatable. It is not an assertion. It is a fact. From the time a tree is planted, it is absorbing carbon. When it dies, that carbon is released back into the air. A new tree is planted, and the cycle begins again.

On that note, I’ll let you check it out for yourselves. Comments welcome. http://www.scribd.com/doc/71163321/Biomess