PFPI's report "Climate of Deception" found many companies portray wood-burning power plants as having negligible or even zero emissions, although these plants emit more air pollution than coal and gas.
Garbage incineration and biomass burning create environmental, health, and financial risk. Private lenders know this - why doesn't DOE?
Decreasing public and policy support for bioenergy makes the company’s renewable energy investments in bioenergy a liability, instead of an asset.
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.
Dominion should conduct a study explaining the risk to their substantial biomass power investments if, and when, bioenergy CO2 is regulated
Public Service Board states North Springfield Sustainable Energy would “not promote the general good”
Environmental Groups in 23 States Decry Unregulated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Excessive Air Pollution From Biomass Plants
Investors With $100 Billion in Assets Complain to SEC of Misleading and Incomplete Statements About Climate Benefits, Carbon Neutrality, and Risk of Regulatory Action.
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 Pioneer Renewable Energy project would have burned almost 600,000 tons of wood a year, the equivalent wood yielded by clearcutting 6,000 acres of Massachusetts' forests annually.
The court's decision recognizes that the plain intent of the Clean Air Act is to regulate pollutants emitted at the smokestack - including CO2.
Biomass power emits three times more CO2 than the standard the Administration is proposing for power plants.
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.
Considering renewable energy is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including low-efficiency, high-emissions biomass power in state RPS programs doesn't make sense.
Plans for forest thinning and biopower in California would require logging millions of forest acres per year. Is this really the state's "carbon free" renewable energy plan?
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.
The State of Massachusetts is serious about reducing carbon emissions and policymakers realized that providing renewable energy subsidies to a technology that makes climate change worse didn’t make sense.
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?
By pretending that cutting and burning whole trees doesn’t add carbon to the atmosphere, the newly watered-down Massachusetts regulations claim the legitimacy of being “based on Manomet” - while ignoring that study’s key finding.
The biomass industry often claims they don’t burn whole trees for fuel. New pictures show that not only are whole trees used for fuel, but these are very large trees indeed.
EPA has been presented with ample evidence that biomass energy increases greenhouse gas emissions, but has ignored the science to favor a politically-connected industry.
What do Australia and Massachusetts have in common? Both governments are have cutting edge energy policies that acknowledge the drawbacks of biomass energy – showing that biomass energy is truly an emerging threat to forests worldwide, but that sane policy responses are possible.
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.