Despite requiring clearcutting of millions of forest acres per year, the Department of Energy declines to assess carbon pollution impacts from a biofueled economy.
False claims that wood pellets are climate-friendly misrepresent Forest Service science and are an ominous sign for US forests.
Legislating that bioenergy produces no carbon pollution makes as little sense as legislating that climate change does not exist.
Status of amendments that would force EPA to treat bioenergy as carbon neutral, and the urgent need for legislative opposition
Legislating that biomass energy has no carbon pollution is legislating a lie.
Policy riders forcing EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as emitting zero carbon pollution defy climate science and the demonstrable fact that burning trees for power emits more carbon than coal or gas.
Watch this space for comments for upcoming meetings on Massachusetts subsidies for thermal bioenergy, including wood pellets
Senate Legislation Cedes the US Forest Carbon Sink to the Biomass Industry – Even as Forests Are Already Declining
We all know burning trees drives climate change, but Senate legislation now being considered would dictate that burning more trees does not increase carbon pollution.
"Threatened Forests": Incredible film documents forest destruction by Enviva, other bioenergy producers
Irrefutable evidence of the forest destruction by the wood pellet industry.
The biomass industry's Carbon Ponzi Scheme may fool lawmakers, but it won't fool the atmosphere
It really is that simple. Claims that biomass "reduces" emissions rely on not counting the CO2 emitted when the biomass is burned.
Slides from PFPI's portion of April 6 briefing on biomass energy, hosted by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey's office.
Our analysis of RGGI’s own projections for CO2 emissions shows that if biomass CO2 were counted, actual emissions could be more than 40% higher than are currently projected.
The Biomass Power Association wants Massachusetts to rescind regulations on biomass power plants and go back to a system of paying them to pollute because these highly carbon-intensive facilities can't meet the state's standards.
Wood-burning power plants and waste incinerators emit more CO2 than coal plants, so why is EPA allowing bioenergy and waste incineration in the Clean Power Plan?
A significant discrepancy between the executive summary and the body of report makes it look as if EPA is intentionally misrepresenting its research.
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.
Emission reductions should be "quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent and enforceable." Is this even possible with biomass?
Municipal Waste Burning: More Polluting Than Coal, But Treated as Zero-Emissions in the Clean Power Plan
A new analysis finds that the Clean Power Plan treats burning even fossil-fuel derived wastes like plastics as having zero emissions.
White House threatens veto of EPA appropriations bill due to riders, including bioenergy carbon neutrality provision
Legislating biomass as carbon neutral is dumb and dangerous. Apparently the White House agrees.
Coalition calls on White House to take wood-burning power plants out of plan for reducing greenhouse emissions
There’s really no better way to sabotage the Clean Power Plan than by burning up the forest carbon sink in power plants and then treating the electricity generated as if it has zero emissions.
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.
Representative Beyer (VA) to EPA: Treating biomass as carbon neutral allows Virginia's forests to be harvested for fuel
"I share the concern that Virginia will become known as a state that harvests forests to reduce its dependence on coal, rather than one that develops renewable technologies that clearly reduce emissions, such as solar and wind"
If you're someone who's been suckered by biomass industry claims that burning trees doesn't emit carbon, this post's for you.
Clearcutting forests for biomass to keep aging coal plants operating – the biomass industry’s “Clean Power” plan
It’s time to stop referring to this dirty, environmentally destructive industry as “clean” energy, and start calling it what it is - an obscenity.
The facility, which received millions in federal clean energy funding, has a “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy for fuel contamination
Letter from Rep. Connolly (VA) to EPA: Treating bioenergy as carbon neutral may undermine the Clean Power Plan
Treating biomass as carbon-neutral may have unintended consequences that could actually undermine and inhibit our ability to reduce carbon emissions.
We can’t reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan by replacing coal with the only thing that emits more carbon pollution: biomass
Since this resolution was offered last year, Washington, DC has eliminated renewable energy subsidies for low efficiency biomass power, meaning that Dominion will not be able to benefit from this market.
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
Dominion Power and other big utilities want to replace coal with wood, threatening forests and the climate.
Treating bioenergy as if it has no carbon emissions could make proposed coal-to-wood conversions in Ohio viable, threatening the state's forests with being cut for biomass fuel.
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.
EPA Proposes Final Guidance for Counting Carbon Emissions from Wood-burning Power Plants: Admits They Degrade Climate, Then Ignores Science
No doubt many of the biomass power plants responsible for emitting 78 million tons of carbon dioxide - more than the combined power sector emissions of 13 states - claim they're burning "sustainably" sourced fuels
The Bureau of Land Management has a terrible track record for inspecting gas wells its own scientists have said are high risk. Now the George Washington National Forest is at risk from drilling, and BLM oversight.
With the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission’s resolution, every major water provider in the DC area now opposes gas extraction in the George Washington National Forest
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?
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?