Burning shredded tires and pesticide-treated railroad ties, the L'Anse Warden plant is allowed by its permit to emit more pollution than Michigan's coal plants.
EPA's fracking study found proven harm, serious risk and inadequate science - so what's the problem?
The report found that fracking can -- and has -- contaminated drinking water through several pathways, refuting drilling industry protests that such contamination is impossible.
The facility, which received millions in federal clean energy funding, has a “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy for fuel contamination
We can’t reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan by replacing coal with the only thing that emits more carbon pollution: biomass
DC and MD Health and Environmental Advocates to EPA: Highly Polluting Bioenergy Doesn't Belong In The Clean Power Plan
You can’t meet carbon and air pollution reduction goals by replacing coal with something that’s dirtier than coal
Massachusetts Environmental Groups to EPA – Treating Bioenergy as Having Zero Emissions Undermines the Science
EPA’s decision to override established science and treat biomass energy as carbon neutral is disappointing for clean energy advocates and is a threat to the hard-won, science-based rules adopted in Massachusetts.
WEBINAR slides: The Role of Biomass in the Clean Power Plan - EPA's Accounting Punt and Emerging Threats to Forests
EPA's proposal to ignore bioenergy emissions is a disaster for forests and the climate - join us to find out why.
There is no better time than ‘National Bioenergy Day’ (October 22nd) for people to learn how much taxpayer money has been wasted on highly polluting biomass burners in Pennsylvania.
Bioenergy Greenwashing Explained
Garbage incineration and biomass burning create environmental, health, and financial risk. Private lenders know this - why doesn't DOE?
For a group that complained so much about "inaccuracies" in our report on bioenergy pollution, BPA sure got a lot of things wrong in their response.
Lax regulations allowing contaminated wastes to be burned as biomass mean that communities need to protect themselves - they can’t count on air permits to minimize bioenergy pollution.
Environmental Groups in 23 States Decry Unregulated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Excessive Air Pollution From Biomass Plants
Why give tax credits to an industry that accelerates forest harvesting, emits more climate-disrupting greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, and increases air pollution?
DC's RPS has been swamped by high-emissions bioenergy burning fuels that are dirtier than coal.
Are legislators ready to explain to families with asthmatic children why the state is paying their neighbors to increase air pollution?
Environmental groups respond to Congressman Maloney dust-up with the White House over Taylor Biomass
We’re not surprised that the President won't discuss the Taylor Biomass DOE loan guarantee. Political pressure makes it harder for DOE to objectively evaluate the project.
The court's decision recognizes that the plain intent of the Clean Air Act is to regulate pollutants emitted at the smokestack - including CO2.
PFPI found Solutia is violating EPA health standards by emitting hundreds of tons of sulfur dioxide each year, but the switch to natural gas will reduce emissions.
The coal plant at Solutia in Springfield is violating air quality standards in one of the most polluted regions of Massachusetts.
Taylor Biomass repeatedly uses the word ‘clean’ in their DOE loan guarantee application, but emissions under the facility's New York State air permit are no better than a conventional garbage incinerator.
The Tennessee Valley Authority doesn’t need renewable energy that increases forest harvesting in the Southeast.
If Connecticut wants move away from purchasing “dirty” biopower from Maine, shouldn’t the state make sure its biopower is actually low-emissions?
How did something that emits so much conventional pollution, and more greenhouse gases than coal, come to be incentivized as "green" energy?
Gasification is not a magic technology that makes toxics disappear. New garbage gasifiers in Massachusetts will emit hundreds of tons of air pollution and consume materials that should be recycled.
The Solutia coal plant causes violations of air quality and health standards in the Springfield region. It's time it was modernized.
Pennsylvania has spent millions of dollars in public funds on bioenergy that emits more pollution than oil and gas.
Lithonia, GA and Manchester, UK, are facing polluting, high-emissions biomass power plants sold as "green" power, even though air pollution is already at unhealthy levels.
The biomass plant proposed for North Springfield VT will be a large source of pollution and use unsustainable amounts of wood for fuel.
The NYPSC denial of NiGen’s petition throws the company back on their own devices.
We all pay for phony "clean" and "renewable" energy choices — in publically funded subsidies, but also in toxic air pollution, climate warming, and damage to the environment. It's time to reclaim the concept of clean energy, lest it be contaminated forever.
Senator Collins’ bill to improve cookstoves in the third world outlines exactly why she should support better pollution controls on industirial boilers here at home.
Now is not the time to weaken the Clean Air Act, which has served Maine and the nation well for decades.
The Niagara Generation plant burns coal, tires, and “clean” construction and demolition wood to produce electricity. Now it wants subsidies for dirty wood, too.
Americans across the political spectrum want renewable energy that protects health and the environment, and understand that burning trees for energy is not "clean and green".
There’s no faster way to move carbon into the air than by cutting and burning forests, and permit data shows biomass is dirtier than coal. But consumers pay more for this so-called “clean” energy.
"Until the state has a solid understanding of how much wood is realistically available without diminishing the long-term health and diversity of our forests, and until there is a protective harvesting standard in place, there should be a moratorium on any new, large-scale facilities in Vermont.”
New ratepayer subsidies to burn trash in New Jersey ? Sounds like a plan that only the waste industry could love, but it’s the state's "green" Energy Master Plan that writes a new chapter in NJ's waste industry story.
Lisa Jackson: "We all remember 'too big to fail'; this pseudo jobs plan to protect polluters might well be called 'too dirty to fail.' How we respond will mean the difference between sickness and health — in some cases, life and death — for hundreds of thousands of people."
Biomass power plants won’t reduce residential wood-burning and the pollution it produces one iota, but will add hundreds of tons more new particulate matter and ozone-precursors to the air.
DOE’s loans are intended to support development of “innovative and advanced clean technologies”. We’re wondering what’s so innovative, advanced, and clean about a garbage burner.
Numbers from the Beaver Wood Energy biomass plant reveal it will be one of the biggest polluters in Vermont.
The biomass power industry produced 1.4% of power in the United States in 2009, but a far greater proportion of air pollution. How is this "clean" energy, again?
The goal of the Vermont Energy Plan is to help the state develop energy sources that are abundant, safe, and healthy, and above all, do not exacerbate climate change. Biomass energy does not meet these criteria.
Taxpayers and ratepayers should not have to pay extra for “renewable” energy that accelerates forest cutting, increases greenhouse gas emissions, and pollutes the air.
It’s a measure of how pervasive the “biomass benefits climate” myth has become that even the well-respected Climate Progress blog, edited by the great Joe Romm, seems to have bought into the propaganda.
A new report gives the most comprehensive listing to date of biomass power facilties proposed around the country, and the taxpayer and ratepayer-funded incentives driving explosive growth in the biomass industry.
The American Lung Association does not support biomass combustion for electricity production...and strongly opposes the combustion of wood and other biomass sources at schools and institutions with vulnerable populations.
What the NH biomass plant operators know, and what their statements demonstrate, is that biomass fuel is getting scarce and costly, the biomass industry is heavily dependent on subsidies, and that pollution controls can be prohibitively expensive.
Only in the la la land of biomass energy would burning trees be considered pollution control. But that’s where renewable energy policy is headed if the industry has its way.