The White House strongly objects to language in the House Appropriations Bill that would compel EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as if they emit zero carbon pollution.
Posts tagged "Carbon neutrality"
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.
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.
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.
Emission reductions should be "quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent and enforceable." Is this even possible with biomass?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dominion should conduct a study explaining the risk to their substantial biomass power investments if, and when, bioenergy CO2 is regulated
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.
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.
Biomass power emits three times more CO2 than the standard the Administration is proposing for power plants.
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?
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 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.
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.
Numbers from the Beaver Wood Energy biomass plant reveal it will be one of the biggest polluters in Vermont.
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.
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.
The Massachusetts rules will require for first time anywhere in the world that renewable energy credits for biomass energy be granted based on a common sense, life cycle assessment of the carbon emissions of burning forest wood to generate electricity.
By delaying regulation of biomass carbon, EPA is greenlighting biomass emissions of 350 million tons of unregulated CO2 a year, equivalent to all the coal fired power plants in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Ohio.
The environmental impact assessment from the Department of Energy reads like a biomass industry talking points memo, with whole chunks of text lifted straight from documents submitted by the developer.
NAFO's strategy to convince EPA that biomass carbon emissions shouldn't count relies on outsourcing carbon pollution to forests somewhere else.
EPA does not need to wait three years to assess the greenhouse gas implications of burning biomass for energy, and doing so will create a fleet of permanently unregulated plants that are huge greenhouse gas emitters.
Carbon dioxide emissions from the biomass boiler will be 3,120 pounds per megawatt-hour, more than six times the 510 pounds per megawatt-hour allowed for the facility’s new natural gas burner.
The Manomet study relies on a number of assumptions that minimize the calculation of net carbon emissions from biomass, meaning that actual emissions are likely significantly greater than the study concludes.
The only independent, multi-stakeholder study of the carbon impacts of burning trees to generate electricity found that it would take 40 years of forest regrowth just to get to parity in carbon pollution with burning coal for those same four decades. To get to parity with natural gas would take almost a century.
Acting as if the carbon emitted from trees cut and burned here will be sequestered by trees over there makes as much sense as letting a coal plant write off its emissions because it’s not cutting trees over there, either.
The current boom in biomass energy depends entirely on the mutually reinforcing myths of renewability and carbon neutrality. But in practice, biomass energy is far carbon neutral and actually looks a lot more like coal and oil.