Environmental Groups Say MA Biomass Reg. Weak
(WWLP) – September, 21, 2011 – Go to article →
Mass. Residents Gather at State House
(The Examiner) – Sept. 21, 2011 – Go to article →
Environmental Coalition Presses Governor to Beef Up Biomass Regulations
(The Patriot Ledger) – September 21, 2011 – Go to article →
Mass. Activists Call for Tough Wood Power Rules
(The Boston Herald) – September 17, 2011 – Go to article →
The Wilderness Society Letter on Biomass
June 2, 2011 – Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Draft Regulation on Woody Biomass Eligibility: Download PDF →
More Handouts for Clearcuts & Smokestacks?
Josh Schlossberg – (Opinion, North Adams Transcript) – February 9, 2011 – Full article →
I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, independent or progressive, Libertarian or secessionist, you’d probably agree that one of our federal government’s top priorities is to bring 100 percent accountability and transparency to managing the tax dollars of hard-working Americans.
While some of us might quibble about certain aspects of taxation, almost all of us would agree that any taxed wages of the American public must be invested exclusively in genuine and essential improvements to our nation. The economic downturn has created a political climate in which voters of all stripes are united against wasteful and unnecessary government spending.
Each of the ruling parties, be they Democrats or Republicans, has the revival of the economy at the top of its list. The Right is adamant on its mandate to cut back on federal spending to reduce the deficit and will block key legislation to prove its point. The Left continues to push for investments in green jobs to put people back to work, stimulate the economy, combat climate change and reduce our dependence on oil. How will they ever find common ground?
Here’s one way: by stopping the flood of hundreds of millions of dollars of “clean energy” taxpayer subsidies diverted to polluting, greenhouse gas spewing, forest biomass power incinerators. Continue reading
I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, independent or progressive, Libertarian or secessionist, you’d probably agree that one of our federal government’s top priorities is to bring 100 percent accountability and transparency to managing the tax dollars of hard-working Americans.
While some of us might quibble about certain aspects of taxation, almost all of us would agree that any taxed wages of the American public must be invested exclusively in genuine and essential improvements to our nation. The economic downturn has created a political climate in which voters of all stripes are united against wasteful and unnecessary government spending.
Each of the ruling parties, be they Democrats or Republicans, has the revival of the economy at the top of its list. The Right is adamant on its mandate to cut back on federal spending to reduce the deficit and will block key legislation to prove its point. The Left continues to push for investments in green jobs to put people back to work, stimulate the economy, combat climate change and reduce our dependence on oil. How will they ever find common ground?
Here’s one way: by stopping the flood of hundreds of millions of dollars of “clean energy” taxpayer subsidies diverted to polluting, greenhouse gas spewing, forest biomass power incinerators. Continue reading
Correcting Biomistakes
Josh Schlossberg – Letter to the Editor →
Thanks for covering the issue of burning forests for electricity in Vermont, aka biomass incineration … While [Andy] Bromage writes a well-balanced article [“Biomass Busted? Why Wood-Fired Power Is Catching Heat in Vermont,” December 22], there are some inaccuracies. The article states that “depending on how it’s combusted and what pollution controls a plant has, biomass can produce lower net carbon emissions than coal.” While pollution controls can lower — but not eliminate — toxic air pollutants … you can’t filter out carbon dioxide.
Further, the Massachusetts Department of Energy’s “Manomet” study concludes that burning forest biomass for electricity puts out higher smokestack emissions than coal over at least a several-decades time frame — climate scientists insist we must cut our CO2 emissions now.
The article also claims biomass is “infinitely more renewable” than coal, which isn’t the case. Trees grow back, but forests are nothing without soil. The more you log, the more you compact, erode and impoverish soil — particularly with biomass, which robs the high-nutrient tops and branches. It’s time that we accept that infinite growth just isn’t possible on a finite planet.
Thanks for covering the issue of burning forests for electricity in Vermont, aka biomass incineration … While [Andy] Bromage writes a well-balanced article [“Biomass Busted? Why Wood-Fired Power Is Catching Heat in Vermont,” December 22], there are some inaccuracies. The article states that “depending on how it’s combusted and what pollution controls a plant has, biomass can produce lower net carbon emissions than coal.” While pollution controls can lower — but not eliminate — toxic air pollutants … you can’t filter out carbon dioxide.
Further, the Massachusetts Department of Energy’s “Manomet” study concludes that burning forest biomass for electricity puts out higher smokestack emissions than coal over at least a several-decades time frame — climate scientists insist we must cut our CO2 emissions now.
The article also claims biomass is “infinitely more renewable” than coal, which isn’t the case. Trees grow back, but forests are nothing without soil. The more you log, the more you compact, erode and impoverish soil — particularly with biomass, which robs the high-nutrient tops and branches. It’s time that we accept that infinite growth just isn’t possible on a finite planet.