Meg Sheehan & Josh Schlossberg

The fairy tale that we can incinerate trees and other “biomass” to produce “clean and green” energy is one with a nasty ending: wasted tax dollars, a hotter planet, and sick and dying Americans. Luckily, committed grassroots activists are exposing this biomass greenwash for what it truly is and some government regulators are starting to “get it.”

On the federal level, the U.S. EPA proposes to require biomass incinerators to comply with new controls for hazardous air pollutants – but industry is calling foul, asking instead to emit dirtier air pollution than coal. The EPA wants to hear from citizens about whether biomass incineration should be considered “carbon neutral.” (Of course, the answer is NO!) Make your voice heard on this important issue in the “Take Action!” section of this month’s BIOMASS BUSTERS.

Anti-Biomass Lawsuit in Gainesville, FL

August 25, 2010  Citizens have mounted a legal challenge to a Florida State agency approval of the Gainesville Renewable Energy Center incinerator, proposed by the Massachusetts-based American Renewables, LLC. The citizen leading the coalition, former mayor of Gainesville, Dr. Thomas Bussing, intervened to enter testimony in the trial to prevent harm to human health and the environment from the incinerator, which would burn trees to make electricity.

Dr. Ron Saff, a medical doctor from Tallahassee, FL who specializes in asthma, testified that "the pollution from biomass plants causes asthma and heart attacks, cancer, shortens lives and poses a health risk to Gainesville residents."

According to permit applications, air pollution from the incinerator will include particulate matter, including PM 2.5, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), acid gases, sulfur compounds, PCBs, and dioxin-like compounds. The opponents' expert testimony demonstrated that these toxins are a danger to children, will be airborne and deposited on local residents and agricultural crops, and that the incinerator will violate state laws prohibiting objectionable odors, poses a risk of fires in the wood chip piles, and will emit dangerous greenhouse gases.

Traverse City, MI to Vote on Biomass

July 15, 2010  Two petitions have been approved by Traverse City, Michigan giving citizens a chance to vote on whether Traverse City Light & Power (TCL&P) would operate under city control and an option to demand a vote on any future proposed construction of power generating facilities, including biomass incinerators.

The petitions were circulated by a citizen coalition including former Traverse City Mayor Margaret Dodd, following a TCL&P proposal for up to four ten-megawatt tree-burning incinerators.

Fierce citizen opposition by groups such as Michigan Citizens for Energy, the Economy and Environment had resulted in a TCL&P decision to "shelve" construction plans for the incinerator back in June. The successful passage of these ballot measures would ensure that any decisions regarding biomass incineration in Traverse City will be made by citizens.

Arizona Incinerator Goes Bankrupt

July 9, 2010  The sole biomass incinerator in the state of Arizona, sited outside of the north-central town of Snowflake, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy following a notice from Salt River Project to terminate its contract to purchase power from the facility.

Biomass Greenwash in Washington

Two tree-burning biomass incinerators are proposed for Mason County, Washington in the town of Shelton--a 60-megawatt incinerator proposed by ADAGE and a 40-megawatt burner proposed by Simpson Timber Co.

Petition Filed with EPA Challenges "Carbon Neutrality" of Biomass

July 28, 2010 The Center for Biological Diversity filed a petition with the Environmental Protection Agency claiming its recently released Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks wrongly classifies forest biomass incineration as "carbon neutral." The petition cites numerous recent scientific studies that demonstrate that not only isn't burning forests for electricity carbon neutral, but is in fact a significant source of greenhouse gas pollutants.

"Burning America's forests for energy isn't clean, isn't green and certainly isn't carbon neutral," said Center attorney Kevin Bundy. "Biomass emits as much or more carbon dioxide than coal, and forests can take decades or even centuries to pull that carbon dioxide back out of the atmosphere after being logged."

New York State Restricts Biomass
August 2010 The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation released a draft policy defining what would constitute "sustainably harvested" forest biomass in order to qualify for carbon credits under the Northeast's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

Despite recent science demonstrating forest biomass emissions to be greater than coal, RGGI regulations--encompassing 10 northeastern states--consider "sustainably harvested" biomass as carbon neutral, leaving each state to devise its own standards.

New York State criteria claims forests must be "maintained in a forested state for a time period of 100 years," accompanied by a forester-approved "timber harvest plan," or certified by an entity like Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) [see photo below].

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) logging in Washington

(Photo: Steve Ringman)

This is a déjà vu for veterans of the biofuels debate, where a slew of studies pronounced large tracts of land--in other people's countries--available for growing crops to fuel our SUVs.

Besides this conversion of land for biochar crops (over an area greater than the continent of India), our knowledge about the impacts of biochar on soils, climate, crops etc. is far too limited. Embracing global, large-scale biochar at this stage would be a huge, risky experiment! Meanwhile, the biochar enthusiasts have a new "protocol" for getting their baby into the carbon markets...with an eye to providing offsets for the Alberta tar sands extraction.