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.
The Clean Power Plan contains loopholes that could actually make climate change and air pollution worse. Citizens can help states write compliance plans that reduce emissions and avoid dirty energy.
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.
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.
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
Bioenergy Greenwashing Explained
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
High-emissions biomass power doesn't belong in a renewable energy portfolio alongside no-emissions technologies like wind and solar.
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."