climate
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/tags/climate
enStudy: Thinning Forests for Bioenergy Can Worsen Climate
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/study-thinning-forests-bioenergy-can-worsen-climate
<span>Study: Thinning Forests for Bioenergy Can Worsen Climate</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p> </p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">A new study out of the Geos Institute in Ashland, Oregon concludes that selectively logging or “thinning” forests for bioenergy can increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and exacerbate climate change.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The study, <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/files/biomass/library/biomass_thinning_study.pdf">“Thinning Combined With Biomass Energy Production May Increase, Rather Than Reduce, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,”</a> by D.A. DellaSala and M. Koopman, challenges bioenergy and timber industry assertions that logging forests will aid in the fight against climate change.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">DellaSala and Koopman also refute assumptions that wildfires are bigger or more severe than in the past, citing multiple studies showing that the occurrence of wildfire has actually “changed little from historical (early European settlement) times.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The Western Governor’s Association has stated that 10.6 million acres of western forests are available for “hazardous fuel reduction.” Yet, instead of instead of the build up of “fuel” (aka small trees and understory plants) being the main driver of large wildfire, the study authors blame climate, namely drought and high temperatures, explaining that, “during severe weather events, even thinned sites will burn.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Instead of preventing large wildfires, the study argues that thinning can increase the chance of severe fire by opening the forest canopy which can dry out the forest, leaving flammable slash piles on the ground, and allowing winds to penetrate the previously sheltered stands, potentially spreading wildfire. Post-fire “salvage” logging is also thought to increase the risk of a re-burn. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Carbon emissions from wildfire have long been an argument to log forests, in an effort to harness energy from trees that may burn at some point anyway. Yet findings show that after a fire the majority of the carbon remains in dead trees, with severe fires that kill most trees in the area emitting 5-30% of stored carbon. Severe fires account for 12-14% of the area burned in large fires. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Even in the cases where thinning would be effective at stopping wildfire--typically small fires of limited threat to public safety--the study cites computer simulations estimating a 5-8% chance of a thinned parcel experiencing fire within the first twenty years, when fuels are lowest. The chance of encountering severe fire is 2%.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">DellaSala and Koopman also urge an accurate carbon accounting of forest bioenergy, cautioning that the amount of carbon dioxide released from burning woody biomass is “often comparable to coal and much larger than that of oil and natural gas due to inefficiencies in burning wood for fuel compared to more energy- dense fossil fuels.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">In the rare cases in which a thinned forest is allowed to grow back without repeated logging, the several decades over which forests could reabsorb carbon “conflicts with current policy imperatives requiring drastic cuts in emissions over the near term.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The study warns about “large-scale clearing of forests” at a time when natural forests are needed to buffer the planet against runaway climate change. </span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">"Woody biomass," said DellaSalla in a December 17 phone interview, "almost never pencils out as an efficient renewable energy source." </span></span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Mon, 12/14/2015 - 16:47</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuels" hreflang="en">biofuels</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuel" hreflang="en">biofuel</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/forests" hreflang="en">forests</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 14 Dec 2015 21:47:16 +0000Anonymous2427 at https://www.energyjustice.netEXCLUSIVE: Biomass Energy and the Carbon Neutral Shell Game
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/exclusive-biomass-energy-and-carbon-neutral-shell-game
<span>EXCLUSIVE: Biomass Energy and the Carbon Neutral Shell Game</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><div><em><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">- by Brett Leuenberger, July 6, 2015 (Graphics by Brett Leuenberger)</span></span></em></div>
<div> </div>
<div style="width:15%; float:right; border-width:medium; border-width:thin; border-style:outset; background-color:rgb(200,200,200); margin-left:5px; padding:3px; padding-top:0px; font-size:85%">Related Content: <strong><a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/climate">Biomass Incineration and Climate</a></strong> (debunking carbon neutrality)</div>
<div>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"489","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","style":"width: 333px; height: 431px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"371"}}]]<span style="font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Who would have ever thought that clean renewable energy could come from a smokestack? And yet, according to our U.S. government and the biomass industry, that’s exactly what’s happening when you burn trees (biomass) for energy. </span></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">I don’t know about you, but when it comes to renewable energy, I think of wind turbines and solar panels producing clean, emission-free renewable energy.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">While the final rulemaking process for biomass emissions is still in review, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released this <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/Biogenic-CO2-Emissions-Memo-111914.pdf">memo</a> last November from Janet McCabe to industry stakeholders, which endorses most biomass emissions as carbon neutral:</span></div>
<div> </div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">"For waste-derived feedstocks, the EPA intends to propose exempting biogenic CO2 emissions from GHG BACT analyses and anticipates basing that proposal on the rationale that those emissions are likely to have minimal or no net atmospheric contributions of biogenic CO2 emissions, or even reduce such impacts, when compared with an alternate fate of disposal."</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Most of us can agree with the fact that we’re facing unprecedented global climate change due to our use of fuels that emit greenhouse gases (mainly carbon) into the atmosphere. There are a few possible ways to address this global climate challenge. One way is to vastly reduce or terminate our use of carbon emitting fuel sources by transitioning to emission-free energy sources like wind, solar and tidal. We could expand on that idea by creating hyper-local communities that focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy through the use of <a href="http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid/role-microgrids-helping-advance-nation-s-energy-system">micro-grids</a>. That’s why the carbon emissions from biomass are so critically important, especially as we look to our future energy and transportation needs and how those choices affect our earth’s climate.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><em><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The Biomass Boondoggle</span></span></em></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">There are multiple environmental issues with burning wood for biomass energy. Burning wood (pulp, chips, trimmings, sawdust residues and whole trees) for biomass energy actually <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349024/BEAC_Report_290814.pdf">emits more</a> carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than fossil fuels. Compared to fossil fuels, woody biomass is significantly less energy efficient and you need to burn at least twice as much wood to produce the same amount of thermal energy. For example, one ton of wood pellets produce 16.5 million BTU’s of energy while one ton of #2 fuel oil produces (52% more) 33.8 million BTU’s of energy.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Burning trees for biomass is a <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/debunking_the_biomass_myth/">double whammy</a> for the environment; not only are you adding more carbon emissions than fossil fuels, but you are also removing trees that work as carbon sinks and sequester vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The biomass industry claims they use low value waste wood for fuel, but overwhelming evidence shows the industry repeatedly using <a href="http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/will_national_forests_be_sacrificed_to_the_biomass_industry/">whole trees</a> for biomass and wood pellet production. </span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Similarly, the industry is not obligated to account for the immediate or future loss of carbon sequestration from harvested trees. When compared to other “free” renewable energy sources like wind and solar, biomass energy is considerably more expensive to operate and requires long-term costs for sourcing the woody biomass fuel. Likewise, using woody biomass as a fuel source for electric utility power is not always cost effective in a competitively priced energy market. Here’s an example of a biomass plant forced to <a href="http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/06/10/wisconsin-plant-a-win-for-paper-mill-a-loss-for-ratepayers/">shut down</a>; it was cheaper to remain idle than trying to supply power to the grid, leaving ratepayers on the hook.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The emissions from woody biomass contain high concentrations of <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef5019548">particulates</a>, which increase the air quality health risks to humans. Burning biomass exacerbates the problem of ocean acidification by taking locked-up terrestrial carbon (trees) and transforming it to atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is the major cause of <a href="http://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/Home/WhatisOceanAcidification.aspx">ocean acidification</a>. The growing U.S. biomass industry is creating an increased <a href="http://www.fs.fed.us/woodybiomass/">demand for wood</a>, which can escalate clearcutting, deforestation, forest fragmentation, land-use changes and species habitat loss, as pointed out in this multi-disciplinary collegiate <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/publications/NWF_Biomass_Wildlife_Full_Report.pdf">study</a> from the Southern Environmental Law Center.</span></span></div>
<p><!--break--></p>
<div><em><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">What Grows in the Forest, Stays in the Forest</span></span></em></div>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"490","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","style":"width: 333px; height: 448px; margin: 3px 10px; float: right;","width":"357"}}]]</p>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The importance of forest ecosystems to store and sequester carbon is a critical part to combatting global climate change. </span></span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">The healthy cycle of forest growth and decay supports the cultivation of mosses and lichens, which in a recent </span><a href="http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1639/0007-2745-118.1.032" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">study</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> revealed that they are responsible for sequestering one third of the earth’s terrestrial carbon. Likewise, forests are extremely important in capturing and holding carbon in deep </span><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130611122103.htm" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">mineral soil</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">. Global scientists are now promoting and implementing </span><a href="http://esciencecentral.org/journals/terrestrial-carbon-sequestration-as-a-climate-change-mitigation-activity-jpe.1000110.pdf" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">afforestation practices</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> to help reduce CO2 levels and increase forest carbon sinks. In an effort to help mitigate CO2 emissions, the U.S. Forest Service is cooperatively working with state agencies in the removal and thinning of trees for wildfire prevention and as a source of biomass fuel, but </span><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111220133913.htm" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">evidence</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> shows that this practice actually increases carbon emissions. </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">This is what Oregon State University (OSU) had to say in its study:</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Even if wood removed by thinning is used for biofuels it will not eliminate the concern. Previous studies at OSU have indicated that, in most of western Oregon, use of wood for biofuels will result in a net loss of carbon sequestration for at least 100 years, and probably much longer.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">This forest biomass study from OSU has taken on a new importance considering that Oregon just passed a bill (<a href="http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2015/SB752/">SB 752</a>) to become the first state to declare woody biomass as carbon neutral.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><em><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The Magical Carbon Neutral Machine</span></span></em></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The EPA claims that woody biomass is carbon neutral because the industry is using waste wood that would be landfilled or incinerated and new trees can quickly regrow and reabsorb the carbon emissions made from the biomass energy in a process known as the short-timeframe carbon cycle. They also claim that fossil fuel emissions are not carbon neutral because that carbon is primarily locked up in the bedrock layer and is part of the long-timeframe carbon cycle. The EPA’s carbon accounting claims for both biomass and fossil fuel emissions can categorically be argued.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">First of all, the biomass carbon that is reabsorbed and sequestered by new tree growth can’t be accurately measured in a timeframe that reflects the carbon neutral point. The EPA’s overly complicated review of assessing the carbon emissions recovery period for biomass suggests a quick timeframe of less than a couple decades, while arguably others in the scientific community proclaim the carbon emissions from biomass could take upwards of <a href="http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/biomass/manomet-biomass-report-full-hirez.pdf">45 years</a> to become only as bad as coal, and <a href="http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/media/The_upfront_carbon_debt_of_bioenergy_Joanneum_Research.pdf">hundreds of years</a> to approach carbon neutrality.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Another important and overlooked issue with burning biomass is the unnatural movement of terrestrial carbon to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Our atmosphere will be in a <strong>perpetual</strong> state of having significant <strong>“carbon debt”</strong> because <strong>every day</strong> the growing biomass industry is instantly ejecting massive amounts of CO2 emissions into the air which took decades for the removed trees to sequester and store as terrestrial carbon.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Just because you can sequester and regrow more trees doesn’t mean that biomass is carbon neutral; it’s the precarious location and duration of the biomass CO2 emissions in our biosphere during its uncertain carbon recovery period that poses a direct threat to our climate. The biomass CO2 emissions that are poured into our atmosphere don’t just magically disappear; those emissions have a timeline of sequestration known as the carbon recovery period. Every day a new timeline of biomass emissions with its own carbon recovery period is stacked into our atmosphere. As those emission timelines overlap, the cumulative amount of CO2 rises dramatically creating a bubble of carbon debt. </span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Essentially, the EPA’s carbon neutral stance on woody biomass is bolstering a cycle of perpetual carbon debt, which is in direct conflict with President Obama’s latest White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr2822r_20150623.pdf">press release</a> that addresses forest biomass energy as not categorically carbon neutral.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Secondly, fossil fuels are derived from plant and animal biomass and both (biomass and fossil fuels) are made up of organic carbon compounds, therefore their carbon emissions should be scientifically measured equally. Biomass and fossil fuels are both part of the ongoing natural process of carbon growth, carbon sequestration and geologic carbon reclamation that occurs within our lithosphere. Essentially the only difference between a tree branch and a piece of coal is time and pressure. Carbon is carbon; you can’t have good emissions and bad emissions, they both are major unwieldy sources of greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change and need to be treated as such. </span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><em><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The Dirty New Face of Renewable Energy</span></span></em></div>
<div> </div>
<div>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"491","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"365","style":"width: 333px; height: 253px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"480"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">The carbon neutrality of woody biomass has become the means to playing a dangerous renewable energy shell game and here’s why. Presently the EPA is cooperatively working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to promote the use of woody biomass as a carbon neutral renewable energy solution to </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/04/biomass-not-zero-carbon-fuel-source-so-why-does-clean-power-plan-propose-treat-it-way" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">replace</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> the carbon emissions of fossil fuels and to help achieve emission compliance for President Obama’s <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/cleanpowerplan">controversial</a> </span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Clean Power Plan</span><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">.</span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The EPA is also ignoring its own science that proves the high emissions of biomass, as pointed out by Glenn Hurowitz in an <a href="http://www.catapultaction.com/epa-opens-huge-new-loophole-in-carbon-rules/">article</a> published in Catapult:</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Unfortunately, while EPA recognizes in its statement that burning trees for electricity can produce substantial pollution, and that it should be subject to strong carbon accounting procedures, its actual policy does little to ensure that any actual carbon accounting will occur. EPA says that states should be able to set standards for “sustainability,” but doesn’t define what amounts to sustainability. That’s a loophole big enough to drive a bulldozer through.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">In the EPA’s November 2014 Revised <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenic-emissions.html">Framework</a> for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources, they were quoted as saying:</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The plant growth associated with producing many of the biomass-derived fuels can, to varying degrees for different biomass feedstocks, sequester carbon from the atmosphere. For example, America’s forests currently play a critical role in addressing carbon pollution, removing nearly 12 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year. As a result, broadly speaking, burning biomass-derived fuels for energy recovery can yield climate benefits as compared to burning conventional fossil fuels.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">By its own admission, the EPA is promoting (more carbon emissions) the burning of our forests that are already effectively <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110414131851.htm">sequestering</a> the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. This is a shell game tactic; the EPA is simply replacing emissions with emissions and calling it renewable. More importantly, it’s the change in location of these carbon emissions that becomes vitally important. You’re basically harvesting locked up terrestrial carbon (trees) and moving it to atmospheric CO2, which in turn increases global warming. </span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The EPA makes no mistake about its intentions to foster the use of woody biomass as a primary renewable energy source for states to meet their federal clean air standards, with this quote from their revised framework assessment:</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Because of the positive attributes of certain biomass-derived fuels, the EPA also recognizes that biomass-derived fuels can play an important role in CO2 emission reduction strategies. We anticipate that states likely will consider biomass-derived fuels in energy production as a way to mitigate the CO2 emissions attributed to the energy sector and include them as part of their plans to meet the emission reduction requirements of this rule and we think it is important to define a clear path for states to do so.</span></span></li>
</ul>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">With the EPA green lighting the woody biomass and wood pellet industry as carbon neutral, other emission-free renewable energy industries like wind and solar stand to suffer. The biomass industry is the fastest growing renewable energy segment in the United States, and in 2014, the U.S. more than doubled its exports from the previous year to become the largest wood pellet exporter for biomass fuel in the world. Wood pellet exports are expected to <a href="http://blog.forest2market.com/enviva-ipo-wood-pellet-demand">increase 400%</a> by 2019.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The biomass industry continues to rely on the EPA’s flawed science and blindly promotes biomass as carbon neutral with a concerted public <a href="http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/11940/peer-reviewed-science-reveals-markets-are-vital-for-sustainability">greenwashing</a> campaign. For instance, the forest industry recently published biomass101.org, which tries to <a href="http://www.biomass101.org/media-accountability/">discredit</a> the findings of entities that expose the carbon emission problems with burning biomass. The industry and stakeholders clearly stand to <a href="http://www.nafoalliance.org/media-room/nafo-blog/472-epa-gets-it-on-biomass-if-they-focus-on-the-carbon">gain monetarily</a> if biomass is promoted as a carbon neutral source of renewable energy.</span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Instead of the EPA grandstanding its attention on the carbon neutrality of woody biomass, they should be measuring the actual amount of biomass used at the source and its future carbon sequestration loss, along with the measured carbon emissions generated from the smokestack to determine if it’s a viable energy source that actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing the carbon emissions from fossil fuels with the higher carbon emissions of biomass is not carbon neutral and does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if anything it <a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/02/20/burning-trees-electricity-dirtier-than-coal/">makes it worse</a>. </span></span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Woody biomass energy has the highest carbon emissions and is one of the dirtiest forms of energy on the planet, and yet the <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/209863-on-biomass-epa-should-follow-the-science">EPA</a> and the biomass industry continually <a href="http://www.reenergyholdings.com/epa-issues-new-carbon-guidance-for-biomass-power/">promote it</a> as carbon neutral. Fortunately there are many vitally important renewable and energy efficiency industries that are working diligently to support and commercialize emission-free energy sources that foster the reversal of global climate change while ensuring our long-term energy and transportation needs.</span></span></div>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Tue, 07/07/2015 - 22:22</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuels" hreflang="en">biofuels</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuel" hreflang="en">biofuel</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/spa" hreflang="en">spa</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/carbon-neutral" hreflang="en">carbon neutral</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 02:22:22 +0000Anonymous2407 at https://www.energyjustice.netOregon Senate OK’s Carbon Neutral Biomass Bill
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/oregon-senate-ok%E2%80%99s-carbon-neutral-biomass-bill
<span>Oregon Senate OK’s Carbon Neutral Biomass Bill </span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>- April 9, 2015, <a href="http://www.ktvz.com/news/senate-oks-knopp-biomass-carbonneutral-bill/32475538">KTVZ</a></em></span></span></p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"465","attributes":{"alt":"carbon power plant","class":"media-image","style":"width: 444px; height: 381px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Comic: Tom Toles"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">State Sen. Tim Knopp (R- Bend) carried Senate Bill 752 on the Senate floor Monday and the effort to declare biomass "carbon-neutral" sailed through unanimously.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">SB 752 declares biomass to be carbon neutral, taking a rule previously created by the Department of Environmental Quality and making it law. It is chief sponsored by Knopp and Sen. Chris Edwards (D-Eugene), chair of the Senate Environment and National Resources Committee.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The bill passed out of committee last week on a bipartisan, unanimous vote and did the same on the Senate floor Monday.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">"I believe it's important for Oregon to endorse the carbon neutrality of biomass. We have the opportunity to create jobs while also pursuing sound environmental policy." said Knopp.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">SB 752 now heads to the House, where Knopp hopes it will be taken up soon. "This is a good bill, especially for rural Oregon," he said." I'm looking forward to the House sending this bill to the governor for her signature."</span></span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Tue, 04/21/2015 - 19:28</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/oregon" hreflang="en">oregon</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuels" hreflang="en">biofuels</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuel" hreflang="en">biofuel</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/knopp" hreflang="en">knopp</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 21 Apr 2015 23:28:39 +0000Anonymous2396 at https://www.energyjustice.netCompany to Burn Biomass in Escanaba, Michigan Coal-Fired Plant
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/company-burn-biomass-escanaba-michigan-coal-fired-plant
<span>Company to Burn Biomass in Escanaba, Michigan Coal-Fired Plant </span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>- by Jenny Lancour, April 3, 2015, <a href="http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/616419/Power-plant-public-hearing-planned.html?nav=5243">Escanaba Daily Press</a></em></span></span></p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"447","attributes":{"alt":"Escanaba, Michigan coal plant","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 228px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: Escanaba Daily Press"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Anyone wanting to express comments on a company's recent proposal to buy Escanaba's power plant can attend a public hearing next week at city hall, according to city officials.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">A public hearing on a purchase proposal submitted by Sterling Energy Group, Inc. will be held during the joint meeting of council and the Electrical Advisory Committee beginning at 6 p.m. CDT Wednesday in council chambers.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Sterling Energy has offered to buy the coal-fueled power plant and equipment for $250,000 and plans to invest additional funds into the property to convert the facility to burn biomass.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The plant has been for sale for several years because it is less costly for the city to buy power compared to generating energy by burning coal. Escanaba has been buying power from a supplier for more than three years.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Council announced SEG's proposal last month but took no action pending next week's public hearing allowing citizen input on the matter.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">SEG - headquartered in Gary, Ind. - buys coal-fired plants which no longer have a useful life and retrofits them into biomass-fueled facilities.</span></span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">For example, the company owns a biomass plant in Niagara Falls, N.Y., which was converted to burn the renewable fuel of slash - the leftover waste products from forest harvests.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">SEG is looking to retrofit the Escanaba plant to burn an estimated 200,000 tons of biomass a year consisting of more than 80 percent forest slash and "C&D" wood - a mulch made from construction and demolition debris - and less than 20 percent of railroad ties.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">In addition to the $250,000 purchase of the property, SEG also offered to post a $200,000 non-refundable deposit to pay the city's past legal bills and additional legal fees to complete the sales transaction.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Employees currently working at the plant would be hired on with the new company.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">According to a demolition estimate completed a few years ago, it would cost the city more than $600,000 to demolish the power plant building which also contains asbestos, noted Electric Superintendent Mike Furmanski.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Furmanski discussed the public hearing following Wednesday's council meeting when he presented an update on the city's recently-constructed substation.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">A new unit was built following an explosion at the power plant's substation on Feb. 2. The load from a rental mobile substation has been transferred to the new unit, explained Furmanski.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Extra load which was put on the city's west-side substation after the explosion, will be transferred to the new unit during the next week, he added.</span></span></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Fri, 04/03/2015 - 14:24</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/3" hreflang="en">Coal</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/escanaba" hreflang="en">escanaba</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/michigan" hreflang="en">michigan</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Fri, 03 Apr 2015 18:24:05 +0000Anonymous2383 at https://www.energyjustice.netStudy: The Dark Side of Forest Carbon Sequestration
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/study-dark-side-forest-carbon-sequestration
<span>Study: The Dark Side of Forest Carbon Sequestration</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p> </p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"439","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"317","style":"width: 275px; height: 231px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"378"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Science has taught us that humans and trees have a symbiotic relationship: humans and other living creatures exhale carbon dioxide, which trees absorb to produce oxygen, which we then breathe. It’s a perfect circle that maintains life on Earth as we know it. But a recent study out of Rhode Island’s Miskatonic University has identified an unsettling aspect of this natural process.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The study, <em>Rapid Uptake of Carbon Dioxide by Northeastern Spruce-Fir Forests</em>, by Dr. Howard Philips et. al., posits that trees aren’t simply sequestering carbon dioxide voluntarily exhaled by humans, mammals, and other creatures, but are generating a vacuum effect that virtually sucks CO2 from our lungs before we’re done breathing it. Medically speaking, the process accelerates breathing rates, causing shallow breathing, reducing oxygenation of the brain, blood, tissues, and organs. </span></span></p>
<p><!--break--><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Study author Phillips downplays the health implications, saying the effect is unlikely to cause harm to healthy adults, but children, the elderly, and those suffering from lung disease, such as asthma and COPD, may be at a slightly elevated risk.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Dr. Clark Smith, phrenologist at East Virginia Medical Institute, is concerned about the findings, but hopeful that the research may lead to a reduction in some forms of lung disease. “Without jumping to conclusions,” said Dr. Smith, “this may be the missing piece of the puzzle in regards to curing millions of certain chronic pulmonary disorders.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Cutler Linden, president of Healthy Forests Together, a collaborative group representing timber, biomass, and environmental interests in the Pacific Northwest, lauds the study. “For years, we’ve been cautioning the public that wild forests are a threat to human health and the natural world through wildfire, sopping up of limited water supplies, and falling trees,” said Linden, a biomass facility operator for Seneca Sawmill, based in Lane County, Oregon. “Now science is finally catching up to common sense, reinforcing our need to convert forests into carefully managed, genetically-modified, monocrop tree farms.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Federal and state governments are already acting on the study by planning large logging projects. The White River National Forest in Colorado has announced plans to clearcut hundreds of thousands of acres of lodgepole pine that have experienced beetle infestations, while the Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources and the Vermont Department of Conservation plan to log state forests to fuel a dozen proposed biomass heating facilities, incentivized by recent legislation. </span></span></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Wed, 04/01/2015 - 12:08</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/forests" hreflang="en">forests</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/forestry" hreflang="en">forestry</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/environment" hreflang="en">environment</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/lung-disease" hreflang="en">lung disease</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/carbon-dioxide" hreflang="en">carbon dioxide</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:08:08 +0000Anonymous2377 at https://www.energyjustice.netCitizens Urge EPA and Congress to Choose Public Interest Over Politics on Energy Policy
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/citizens-urge-epa-and-congress-choose-public-interest-over-politics-energy-policy
<span>Citizens Urge EPA and Congress to Choose Public Interest Over Politics on Energy Policy</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>- Mike Ewall and Samantha Chirillo</em></span></span></p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"370","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"400","style":"width: 333px; height: 333px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"400"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">In December, 900 Americans, including 100 organizations across the U.S. collectively voiced their <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/cleanpowerplan">concerns</a> about major parts of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, in comments submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Citizens specifically asked the EPA to:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">· set more aggressive targets and address environmental justice</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">· not encourage more fracking (gas) or nuclear energy, and close the methane loophole</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">· disallow a shift from coal to biomass and trash burning and close the biogenic CO2 loophole</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The EPA released their <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/biogenic-emissions.html">revised framework</a> in November 2014, shortly before the comment deadline on the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. In a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/Biogenic-CO2-Emissions-Memo-111914.pdf">memo</a> dated November 19, 2014, EPA announced its decision to virtually ignore the carbon dioxide emissions of biomass energy in its revised <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/Framework-for-Assessing-Biogenic-CO2-Emissions.pdf"><em>Framework for Assessing Biogenic CO2 Emissions from Stationary Sources</em></a>. After years of urging to accurately account for these emissions, grassroots advocates across the U.S. contend that the EPA’s biogenic carbon loophole will open the door to an onslaught of incineration that will harm public health, exacerbate runaway climate change, and degrade our nation’s forests and drinking watersheds.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Ignoring its own Scientific Advisory Board, the EPA has demonstrated that politics trump science when it comes to climate change. <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass/climate">Sound science</a> has shown that biomass energy facilities are not “carbon neutral” and emit 50% more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than a coal-fired facility. Trash incineration emits <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/egrid">2.5 times</a> as much CO2 as coal per unit of energy produced.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Sound science has also shown that a biomass energy facility emits higher levels of dangerous pollutants, such as particulate matter, per unit of energy produced than a coal-fired facility, harming especially children and the elderly. In the case of trash incineration, it's far <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/worsethancoal">more polluting</a> than coal by every available measure.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">This new EPA policy allows CO2 emissions from burning waste to be completely ignored. This would include incineration of trash, food waste, animal waste (such as poultry litter), sewage sludge and construction/demolition waste. This is justified on the assumption that these wastes would cause more global warming emissions if landfilled, as if conventional landfilling is the only alternative.</span></span></p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
<!--{cke_protected}{C}%3C!%2D%2D%0A%20%2F*%20Font%20Definitions%20*%2F%0A%40font-face%0A%09%7Bfont-family%3ATimes%3B%0A%09panose-1%3A2%200%205%200%200%200%200%200%200%200%3B%0A%09mso-font-charset%3A0%3B%0A%09mso-generic-font-family%3Aauto%3B%0A%09mso-font-pitch%3Avariable%3B%0A%09mso-font-signature%3A3%200%200%200%201%200%3B%7D%0A%40font-face%0A%09%7Bfont-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09panose-1%3A2%204%205%203%205%204%206%203%202%204%3B%0A%09mso-font-charset%3A0%3B%0A%09mso-generic-font-family%3Aauto%3B%0A%09mso-font-pitch%3Avariable%3B%0A%09mso-font-signature%3A3%200%200%200%201%200%3B%7D%0A%20%2F*%20Style%20Definitions%20*%2F%0Ap.MsoNormal%2C%20li.MsoNormal%2C%20div.MsoNormal%0A%09%7Bmso-style-parent%3A%22%22%3B%0A%09margin-top%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-right%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-bottom%3A10.0pt%3B%0A%09margin-left%3A0in%3B%0A%09mso-pagination%3Awidow-orphan%3B%0A%09font-size%3A12.0pt%3B%0A%09font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%0A%09mso-ascii-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-ascii-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-hansi-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-hansi-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-bidi-font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%0A%09mso-bidi-theme-font%3Aminor-bidi%3B%7D%0Aa%3Alink%2C%20span.MsoHyperlink%0A%09%7Bcolor%3Ablue%3B%0A%09text-decoration%3Aunderline%3B%0A%09text-underline%3Asingle%3B%7D%0Aa%3Avisited%2C%20span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed%0A%09%7Bmso-style-noshow%3Ayes%3B%0A%09color%3Apurple%3B%0A%09text-decoration%3Aunderline%3B%0A%09text-underline%3Asingle%3B%7D%0Ap%0A%09%7Bmargin-top%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-right%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-bottom%3A10.0pt%3B%0A%09margin-left%3A0in%3B%0A%09mso-pagination%3Awidow-orphan%3B%0A%09font-size%3A10.0pt%3B%0A%09font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%0A%09mso-ascii-font-family%3ATimes%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-hansi-font-family%3ATimes%3B%0A%09mso-bidi-font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%7D%0A%40page%20Section1%0A%09%7Bsize%3A8.5in%2011.0in%3B%0A%09margin%3A1.0in%201.25in%201.0in%201.25in%3B%0A%09mso-header-margin%3A.5in%3B%0A%09mso-footer-margin%3A.5in%3B%0A%09mso-paper-source%3A0%3B%7D%0Adiv.Section1%0A%09%7Bpage%3ASection1%3B%7D%0A%2D%2D%3E-->
/*--><!]]]]><![CDATA[>*/
/*--><!]]>*/
</style>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">The new EPA policy, still largely uncertain, will at best ignore CO2 emissions from forest and agriculture-derived biomass and at worst provide political cover for the destruction of the public’s natural resources in the most vulnerable states. Each state gets to choose whether it will address these sources in its compliance plan to meet Clean Power Plan goals. The memo states that “. . . t</span></strong>he EPA expects that states' reliance specifically on sustainably-derived agricultural- and forest-derived feedstocks may also be an approvable element of their compliance plans.” <strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Rather than specifying the requirements to pass a sustainability test, “the agency </span></strong>expects to recognize the biogenic CO2 emissions and climate policy benefits of waste-derived and certain forest-derived industrial byproduct feedstocks, based on the conclusions supported by a variety of technical studies, including the revised framework” and consultations with various stakeholders. This could include industry, industry-funded scientists, and environmental groups funded to make deals with the industry. </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"> </p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">“Government agencies already work with industry, biased scientists, and compromised environmental groups to label destructive public forest logging as ‘sustainable.’ What’s worse with this new EPA policy is that it falsely portrays this logging as beneficial for the climate, and now the states most politically dominated by the timber industry can get more money to log more of our forests without taxing the multinational private forest owners,” explains Roy Keene, public interest forester for 40 years and Executive Director of <a href="http://www.ourforestsforever.org">Our Forests</a>, based in Oregon, the state with the largest timber harvest volume.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The EPA recognizes that some states, like Oregon, already have “sustainable” forest management plans without critically evaluating from even a carbon accounting standpoint what is “sustainable” or “sustained yield,” as forest management plans call it. The O&C Act of 1937 mandated that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sustain the whole forest and its multiple uses by the public -- the waterways, soils, recreation value, and timber harvest – although never implemented as such. The National Forest Management Act mandates that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) calculate non-declining yield (a.k.a. “sustained yield”) levels from the sale of timber from each forest. <span> </span>However, the mandates and the reality are totally different. Already an increasing trend not only among state agencies, but also in the U.S. Forest Service, managers are hiding data on timber harvest and soil and telling nonprofits they’ll have to file a Freedom of Information Act request to get data. </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"> </p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Over time, these agencies, including the USFS, have shifted from using the board foot to the inappropriate cubic foot as a unit of measurement yet still claim a “sustainable yield” of timber. The cubic foot is adequate when measuring the entire volume of the tree. However, the board foot, used to measure just the wood that can be made into lumber, is generally considered the more honest unit of measure of harvest volume from a forest when comparing among trees of different sizes or stands of different ages. A larger tree without defect has more board feet per cubic foot that can be made into lumber than a smaller tree. The larger tree historically has had a higher price per cubic foot than a smaller tree, although biomass energy market is now increasing the value of that smaller tree that is meanwhile less suitable for use in construction. Agencies using cubic feet overinflate the harvest volume of younger trees to justify replacing one slower-growing older tree with six faster-growing seedlings. Even if the cubic feet in a logged stand increases, the quantity of wood in that stand that can be made into a board foot of dimensional lumber declines. </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"> </p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"><a href="http://www.forestclimate.org/Olga_Krankina_Eugene_conf1.pdf">The total carbon stored also declines then</a>, especially considering that half of the carbon in Pacific Northwest forests is stored in the soil and largely lost upon logging. In his book <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5ql8AN1G6N4C&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=board+feet+instead+of+cubic+feet+forestry&source=bl&ots=_YoUBB-LK7&sig=plhcev_vRZIL4k-HMUnw97DJfhg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5124VJi7M4aWyQTH_4DACQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=board%20feet%20instead%20of%20cubic%20feet%20forestry&f=false"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Reforming the Forest Service</i></a>, Randal O’Toole predicted that board foot sales from national forests would decline 30% as long as the USFS reports cubic feet while making the bogus sustainable yield justification. Of course, the market for chips has increased all the while. Drawing a flawed comparison using cubic feet ignores both the longer-term economic and ecosystem benefits of an older, biodiverse stand over a young plantation. When an agency changes the unit of measurement it uses, one can no longer validly compare its harvest data before and after the change. </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Moreover, existing state plans are complex, involving multiple levels of government and stakeholders and took years to create. Will the EPA force any state to revise its forest management plan when it was partly written and claimed to be “sustainable” by scientists at the state’s leading agriculture university (e.g. Oregon State University)? States without existing plans can simply “encourage participation in sustainable forest management programs developed by third-party forestry and/or environmental entities,” the EPA recognizes. However, the way the system works currently, forest certifiers have a financial incentive to certify, and certified forests are not independently and credibly monitored, according to Keene. There are no common minimum sustainability standards among certifying bodies, which focus on process, not on outcomes. Consumers do not have adequate information. University of Alberta policy analysts have recognized such market failures of certification and that, <a href="http://www.sfmn.ales.ualberta.ca/en/Publications/~/media/sfmn/Publications/ResearchPapers/Documents/WP_SES-5.ashx">“given the drawbacks associated with certification, there may be more appropriate alternatives”</a> for “the elusive goal of sustainable forest management.” </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"> </p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The “environmental entities” may be logging selectively instead of clearcutting but are logging a much larger area and destroying the soil using a mechanized approach rather than creating jobs and are not independently monitored. There is little to no citizen involvement or oversight of either forest certification schemes or logging operations contracted by or consented to by environmental groups. <span> </span>If “sustainable forest management” is so “sustainable,” why the lack of transparency and accountability?</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></strong></span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">The timber and bioenergy industries and their politicians, leading proponents of the EPA’s biogenic carbon loophole, also promise that more logging and burning will yield more jobs and revenue. However, based on Oregon State Employment Department and U.S. Forest Service data, dramatic <a href="http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/32645632-78/county-silent-on-timber-tax-exemptions.html.csp">increases in the timber harvest volume from the end of the 2009 recession and 2013 are not accompanied by proportional increases in jobs or revenue</a>. Keene argues that cutting and burning more of the public’s carbon-storing forested watersheds at a time when chip and pellet exports to fuel facilities in Europe and Asia are at an all time high is making the U.S. a resource colony. If Obama and Congress want to increase jobs and bolster rural economies, why don’t they stop the rising export of raw logs and chips from public forests and tax private exports?</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"><a href="http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/32417692-78/make-timberland-owners-pay-fair-share-of-taxes.html.csp">At least half of the harvest volume from privately owned forests in Oregon is already exported to Asia in one form or another, untaxed</a>. The southeastern U.S. has been the leading export region of forest biomass to European countries that similarly do not count carbon dioxide emitted from biomass energy facilities. In early November, <a href="http://www.dogwoodalliance.org/2014/11">citizens in Chesapeake, VA, protested</a> the climate impact and degradation to their own environment from biomass export.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"> </span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">“We’re alarmed that the Obama Administration’s climate action in the form of this EPA decision will actually worsen climate change, further drain local economies and disproportionately impact the poorest Americans,” said Chirillo, M.S., M.P.A., Steering Committee member of the <a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/biomass">Anti-Biomass Incineration Campaign</a>.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"> </p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Chirillo explains that the timing of the EPA’s decision is not surprising, as the Subcommittee on International Trade, chaired by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, and others in Congress put the finishing touches on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the newest NAFTA-derived trade deal. “This trade deal, combined with the EPA’s legitimizing burning forests for energy essentially greases the skids for more of the public’s forest resources and jobs to be shipped overseas, contributing to climate change while degrading public health and food security at home. Hardly sustainable.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Although U.S. Senator Wyden’s O&C bill to increase logging on public forests in Oregon ultimately stalled, the EPA decision gives similar or even more destructive logging legislation by Republican majorities in both houses new political cover. </span></span></p>
<p>
<style type="text/css">
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
<!--/*--><![CDATA[/* ><!--*/
<!--{cke_protected}{C}%3C!%2D%2D%0A%20%2F*%20Font%20Definitions%20*%2F%0A%40font-face%0A%09%7Bfont-family%3ATimes%3B%0A%09panose-1%3A2%200%205%200%200%200%200%200%200%200%3B%0A%09mso-font-charset%3A0%3B%0A%09mso-generic-font-family%3Aauto%3B%0A%09mso-font-pitch%3Avariable%3B%0A%09mso-font-signature%3A3%200%200%200%201%200%3B%7D%0A%40font-face%0A%09%7Bfont-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09panose-1%3A2%204%205%203%205%204%206%203%202%204%3B%0A%09mso-font-charset%3A0%3B%0A%09mso-generic-font-family%3Aauto%3B%0A%09mso-font-pitch%3Avariable%3B%0A%09mso-font-signature%3A3%200%200%200%201%200%3B%7D%0A%20%2F*%20Style%20Definitions%20*%2F%0Ap.MsoNormal%2C%20li.MsoNormal%2C%20div.MsoNormal%0A%09%7Bmso-style-parent%3A%22%22%3B%0A%09margin-top%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-right%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-bottom%3A10.0pt%3B%0A%09margin-left%3A0in%3B%0A%09mso-pagination%3Awidow-orphan%3B%0A%09font-size%3A12.0pt%3B%0A%09font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%0A%09mso-ascii-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-ascii-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-hansi-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-hansi-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-bidi-font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%0A%09mso-bidi-theme-font%3Aminor-bidi%3B%7D%0Aa%3Alink%2C%20span.MsoHyperlink%0A%09%7Bcolor%3Ablue%3B%0A%09text-decoration%3Aunderline%3B%0A%09text-underline%3Asingle%3B%7D%0Aa%3Avisited%2C%20span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed%0A%09%7Bmso-style-noshow%3Ayes%3B%0A%09color%3Apurple%3B%0A%09text-decoration%3Aunderline%3B%0A%09text-underline%3Asingle%3B%7D%0Ap%0A%09%7Bmargin-top%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-right%3A0in%3B%0A%09margin-bottom%3A10.0pt%3B%0A%09margin-left%3A0in%3B%0A%09mso-pagination%3Awidow-orphan%3B%0A%09font-size%3A10.0pt%3B%0A%09font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%0A%09mso-ascii-font-family%3ATimes%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-font-family%3ACambria%3B%0A%09mso-fareast-theme-font%3Aminor-latin%3B%0A%09mso-hansi-font-family%3ATimes%3B%0A%09mso-bidi-font-family%3A%22Times%20New%20Roman%22%3B%7D%0A%40page%20Section1%0A%09%7Bsize%3A8.5in%2011.0in%3B%0A%09margin%3A1.0in%201.25in%201.0in%201.25in%3B%0A%09mso-header-margin%3A.5in%3B%0A%09mso-footer-margin%3A.5in%3B%0A%09mso-paper-source%3A0%3B%7D%0Adiv.Section1%0A%09%7Bpage%3ASection1%3B%7D%0A%2D%2D%3E-->
/*--><!]]]]><![CDATA[>*/
/*--><!]]>*/
</style>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">“This kind of legislation is <em>de facto</em> privatization. It allows more industry manipulation with even less public involvement, basic accounting, or scrutiny of forest practices that contribute to climate change. The water that flows out of the forest irrigates farms. <a href="http://www.ourforestsforever.org/climate-change-calls-for-new-forest-practices/">More logging and biomass extraction will exacerbate the drying effects of climate change,”</a> forester Keene warns.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:.1pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:.1pt;margin-left:0in"> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;">Forest legislation in Congress generally does not consider already degraded watersheds and does not account for the economic effects on agricultural irrigation or domestic water supply. In 2014, the National Weather Service rated drought in Oregon as “severe” and neighboring California, a top food-producing state, as “extreme.”</span></span><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family: times new roman,times,serif;"> Currently, most states do not require that new bioenergy facility owners show they can continuously source enough biomass to keep producing energy, let alone leave water supplies intact, before state agencies under the authority of the EPA hand out pollution permits. How can states or the EPA claim "sustainable forest management" without supply assessment?</span></span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Fri, 01/02/2015 - 14:23</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuels" hreflang="en">biofuels</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuel" hreflang="en">biofuel</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/epa" hreflang="en">EPA</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewables" hreflang="en">renewables</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Fri, 02 Jan 2015 19:23:18 +0000Anonymous2320 at https://www.energyjustice.netWill Energy Storage Plus Solar Inspire Customers to Abandon Utilities?
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/will-energy-storage-plus-solar-inspire-customers-abandon-utilities
<span>Will Energy Storage Plus Solar Inspire Customers to Abandon Utilities?</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>- by Lisa Cohn, February 28, 2014, <a href="http://energyefficiencymarkets.com/will-energy-storage-plus-solar-inspire-customers-abandon-utilities-soon/">Energy Efficiency Markets</a></em></span></span></p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"363","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 266px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">To hear the Rocky Mountain Institute tell the story, it’s not a question of whether utility customers will start defecting from their utilities in favor of off-grid solutions that involve energy storage and solar energy. It’s a question of when.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Truth is, it’s already happening in Hawaii—where solar plus storage are cost-effective when compared to utility electric prices, says Jon Creyts, a managing director at RMI. Along with Homer Energy and CohnReznick Think Energy, RMI just released a report detailing the potential for customer defection from the electric grid in major markets by 2025. And customers could do this without incurring higher costs, the report says.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">“The economics for grid parity today are already happening in Hawaii. A very robust set of developers and suppliers entered and were doing quite well,” Creyts says. However, the utility experienced troubles taking in high levels of solar from independent solar producers. The power was overloading some of the transmission lines. So regulators took action to restrict developers’ activity, he says.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">It makes sense that this is happening in Hawaii, where utility rates are three times higher than the average rates in the US. But what may come as a surprise is the speed at which off-grid solar, combined with energy storage, may be cost-effective in other parts of the US, particularly California and New York City, says Creyts.</span></span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">“One of the surprising findings from the report: We wanted to understand when these systems could compete with retail electricity prices,” he says. “We found that in the southwest—particularly northern California–and also the northeast–especially New York City– these systems could be economic for tens of millions of customers in the next 10 years,” says James Mandel, a manager at RMI.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">And that’s based on conservative estimates, he says. With less conservative estimates, we’ll see an even faster defection by customers from utilities, he says.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">“If these reduce costs more dramatically, we could see those tens of millions of customers see favorable economics by 2020. That would be a rapid transition, and a real challenge to the utility business models,” says Mandel. For example, in Westchester, N.Y., commercial customers may find that it’s financially sensible to go for solar and storage by 2019, says Creyts.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">While a mass move by customers to solar-plus-energy storage could hurt utilities, it could provide numerous advantages to customers and the environment. We’d see more clean energy at competitive costs, fewer emissions, and these customers would be immune from utility blackouts. And, according to RMI, the customers would not see compromised reliability.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">However, utilities may need to start bracing for this change, says Mandel. Next, RMI plans to release a report detailing how utilities can benefit from the trend.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">“We have a companion report under way that will focus on utility business models and alternatives that can use this resource effectively” says Mandel.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">“The systems could be used to provide grid resources in order to manage the grid. They could also be used to provide self-sufficiency for individual customers.”</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Of course, before anyone could jump ship from their utilities, they’d likely need financing for the solar-plus-storage option. A number of companies are now offering innovative financing options, especially for rooftop solar systems. But additional financing options would be helpful, he says.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">So what’s to prevent customers from defecting? Will they be afraid to leave the utilities they’ve worked with for years and years?</span></span></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Wed, 12/31/2014 - 13:53</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/energy" hreflang="en">energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/utilities" hreflang="en">utilities</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/solar" hreflang="en">solar</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/clean-energy" hreflang="en">clean energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:53:16 +0000Anonymous2314 at https://www.energyjustice.netDestruction of Demand: How to Shrink Our Energy Footprint
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/destruction-demand-how-shrink-our-energy-footprint
<span>Destruction of Demand: How to Shrink Our Energy Footprint</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>- by Richard Heinberg, November 4, 2014, <a href="http://www.postcarbon.org/how-to-shrink-the-economy-without-crashing-it-a-ten-point-plan/">Post Carbon Institute</a></em></span></span></p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"362","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 333px; height: 237px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">The human economy is currently too big to be sustainable. We know this because Global Footprint Network, which methodically tracks the relevant data, informs us that </span><a href="http://www.footprintnetwork.org/pt/index.php/newsletter/v/living_planet_report_humanity_now_needs_1.5_earths" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">humanity is now using 1.5 Earths’ worth of resources</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">We can temporarily use resources faster than Earth regenerates them only by borrowing from the future productivity of the planet, leaving less for our descendants. But we cannot do this for long. One way or another, the economy (and here we are talking mostly about the economies of industrial nations) must shrink until it subsists on what Earth can provide long-term.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Saying “one way or another” implies that this process can occur either advertently or inadvertently: that is, if we do not shrink the economy deliberately, it will contract of its own accord after reaching non-negotiable limits. As I explained in my book <a href="http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book"><em>The End of Growth</em></a><em>, </em>there are reasons to think that such limits are already starting to bite. Indeed, most industrial economies are either slowing or finding it difficult to grow at rates customary during the second half of the last century. Modern economies have been constructed to require growth, so that shrinkage causes defaults and layoffs; mere lack of growth is perceived as a serious problem requiring immediate application of economic stimulus. If nothing is done deliberately to reverse growth or pre-adapt to inevitable economic stagnation and contraction, the likely result will be an episodic, protracted, and chaotic process of collapse continuing for many decades or perhaps centuries, with innumerable human and non-human casualties. This may in fact be the most likely path forward.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Is it possible, at least in principle, to manage the process of economic contraction so as to avert chaotic collapse? Such a course of action would face daunting obstacles. Business, labor, and government all want more growth in order to expand tax revenues, create more jobs, and provide returns on investments. There is no significant constituency within society advocating a deliberate, policy-led process of degrowth, while there are powerful interests seeking to maintain growth and to deny evidence that expansion is no longer feasible.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Nevertheless, managed contraction would almost certainly yield better outcomes than chaotic collapse—for everyone, elites included. If there is a theoretical pathway to a significantly smaller economy that does not pass through the harrowing wasteland of conflict, decay, and dissolution, we should try to identify it. The following modest ten-point plan is an attempt to do so.</span></span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">1. <strong>Energy: cap, reduce, and ration it.</strong> Energy is what makes the economy go, and expanded energy consumption is what makes it grow. Climate scientists advocate capping and reducing carbon emissions to prevent planetary disaster, and cutting carbon emissions inevitably entails reducing energy from fossil fuels. However, if we aim to shrink the size of the economy, we should restrain not just fossil energy, but <em>all</em> energy consumption. The fairest way to do that would probably be with <a href="http://www.teqs.net/">tradable energy quotas</a>.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">2. <strong>Make it renewable.</strong> As we reduce overall energy production and consumption, we must rapidly reduce the proportion of our energy coming from fossil sources while increasing the proportion from renewable sources in order to avert catastrophic climate change—which, if allowed to run its current course, will itself result in chaotic economic collapse. However, this is a complicated process. It will not be possible merely to unplug coal power plants, plug in solar panels, and continue with business as usual: we have built our immense modern industrial infrastructure of cities, suburbs, highways, airports, and factories to take advantage of the unique qualities and characteristics of fossil fuels. Thus, as we transition to alternative energy sources, the ways we use energy will have to adapt, often in profound ways. For example, our food system—which is currently overwhelmingly dependent on fossil fuels for transport, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides—will have to become far more localized. In the best instance, it would transition to an ecological, perennial-based agriculture designed for the long haul.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">3. <strong>Restore the commons.</strong> As Karl Polanyi pointed out in the 1940s, it was the commodification of land, labor, and money that drove the “<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_%28book%29">great transformation</a>” leading to the market economy we know today. Without continued economic growth, the market economy probably can’t function long. This suggests we should run the transformational process in reverse by decommodifying land, labor, and money. Decommodification effectively translates to a reduction in the use of money to mediate human interactions. We could decommodify labor by helping people establish professions and vocations, as opposed to seeking jobs (“slavery on the installment plan”), and by promoting worker ownership of companies. As economist <a href="http://www.henrygeorge.org/">Henry George</a> said over a century ago, land—which people do not create by their labor—should be owned by the community, not by individuals or corporations; and access to land should be granted on the basis of need and the willingness to use it in the community’s interest.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">4. <strong>Get rid of debt.</strong> Decommodifying money means letting it revert to its function as an inert medium of exchange and store of value, and reducing or eliminating the expectation that money should reproduce more of itself. This ultimately means doing away with interest and the trading or manipulation of currencies. Make investing a community-mediated process of directing capital toward projects that are of unquestioned collective benefit. The first step: cancel existing debt. Then ban derivatives, and tax and tightly regulate the buying and selling of financial instruments of all kinds.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">5. <strong>Rethink money.</strong> Virtually all of today’s national currencies are loaned into existence (usually by banks). Debt-based monetary systems assume both the growing need for debt, and the near-universal ability to repay it, with interest—relatively safe assumptions when economies are stable and expanding. But debt-based money probably won’t work in an economy that is steadily contracting: as the amount of outstanding debt ebbs in tandem with rising numbers of defaults, so does the money supply, leading to a deflationary collapse. In recent years the panic to prevent such a collapse has led central banks in the US, Japan, China, and the UK to inject trillions of dollars, yen, yuan, and pounds into their respective national economies. Such extreme measures cannot be maintained indefinitely, nor reverted to repeatedly. When debt-based currencies do fail, alternatives will be needed. Nations and communities should pre-adapt by developing an ecosystem of currencies serving complementary functions, as advocated by alternative monetary theorists such as <a href="http://reinventingmoney.com/">Thomas Greco</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4Z0o6d8XTY">Michael Linton</a>.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">6. <strong>Promote equity.</strong> In a shrinking economy, extreme inequality is a social time bomb whose explosion often takes the form of rebellion and revolt. Reducing economic inequality requires two simultaneous lines of action: First, reduce the surplus of those who have the most by taxing wealth and instituting a maximum income rate. Second, improve the lot of those who have least by making it easier for people to get by with minimal use of money (prevent evictions; subsidize food and make it easier for people to grow their own). This effort can be helped through the widespread cultural glorification of the virtue of material modesty (the reverse of most current advertising messages).</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">7. <strong>Reduce population.</strong> If the economy shrinks but population continues to expand, there will be a smaller pie to divide among more people. On the other hand, economic contraction will entail much less hardship if population ceases growing and starts to decline. Population growth leads to overcrowding and hyper-competition anyway. How to achieve population decline without violating basic human rights? Enact non-coercive policies to promote small families and non-reproduction; wherever possible, employ social incentives rather than monetary ones.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">8. <strong>Re-localize.</strong> One of the difficulties in the transition to renewable energy is that liquid fuels are hard to substitute. Oil drives nearly all transportation currently, and it is highly unlikely that alternative fuels will enable anything like current levels of mobility (electric airliners and cargo ships are non-starters; massive production of biofuels is a mere fantasy). That means communities will be obtaining fewer provisions from far-off places. Of course trade will continue in some form: even hunter-gatherers trade. Re-localization will merely reverse the recent globalizing trade trend until most necessities are once again produced close by, so that we—like our ancestors only a century ago—are once again acquainted with the people who make our shoes and grow our food.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">9. <strong>Re-ruralize.</strong> Urbanization was the dominant demographic trend of the 20thcentury, but it cannot be sustained. Indeed, without cheap transport and abundant energy, megacities will become increasingly dysfunctional. Meanwhile, we’ll need lots more farmers. Solution: dedicate more societal resources to towns and villages, make land available to young farmers, and work to revitalize rural culture.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">10. <strong>Promote the pursuit of social and inner sources of happiness.</strong> Consumerism was a solution to the problem of overproduction; it entailed engineering the human psyche to become more individualistic and to demand ever more material stimulation. Beyond a certain point this doesn’t make us happier (in fact, just the opposite), and it can’t go on much longer. When people’s ability to afford consumer products wanes, as does the economy’s ability to produce and deliver those products, people must be encouraged to enjoy more traditional and innately satisfying rewards—including philosophical contemplation and the appreciation of nature. Music, dance, art, oratory, poetry, participatory sports, and theater can all be produced locally and featured at seasonal festivals: fun for the whole family!</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">* * *</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">More recommendations could certainly be fielded, but ten is a nice round number.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Surely many readers will wonder: Isn’t this just running “progress” in reverse, and isn’t doing so antithetical to our core value as a society? Yes, during the past few centuries we have become hooked on the idea of progress, and we have come to define progress almost entirely in terms of technological innovation and economic growth—two trends that are approaching dead ends. If we wish to avoid the cognitive pain of having to relinquish our deep-seated infatuation with progress, we could redefine that word in social or ecological terms. Similarly, many people who judge that society is far too wedded to the pursuit of economic growth to be persuaded to give it up advocate redefining “growth” in terms of increasing human happiness and societal sustainability. Such efforts at redefinition have some limited usefulness. Certainly the act of collective self-limitation involved in deliberately shrinking the economy would denote a new level of species maturity that would likely be reflected throughout our culture. Socially and spiritually, this would be a step forward—and is hence perhaps describable as progress or growth. But it is hard to monopolize the redefinition of terms like “progress” or “growth”: there are already powerful interests hard at work tying new meanings of the latter to inventive interpretations of manicured and manipulated GDP, employment, and stock market data.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">It might be more honest to refer to the program outlined above as a simple reversion to sanity. It is also our best chance for preserving the best of civilization’s scientific, cultural, and technological achievements over the last few centuries—achievements that could be lost altogether if society collapses in a way similar to past civilizations.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">The recommendations above imply the ability and willingness of elites to turn the ship around. But both their ability and willingness to do this are questionable. Our current political system seems designed to prevent collective self-limitation, and also to resist serious attempts at reform. The plainest gauge of the likelihood of the implementation of my ten-point plan is a simple thought exercise: name a single prominent politician, financier, or industrialist who would propose or advocate even a small portion of it.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Still, there’s a deep irony here. While there’s no support for degrowth among elites, many if not most of the elements of the above plan have a very large real or potential constituency among the populace in general. How many people would prefer life in a small, stable community to existence in an overcrowded, hyper-competitive megacity; a profession to a job; debt-free life to the chains of onerous financial obligations? Maybe by articulating the plan and its objectives, and exploring the implications in more detail, we can help this constituency coalesce and grow.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>(A talk given at a Teach-in on Techno-Utopianism and the Fate of the Earth, <a href="http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/821939">http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/821939</a> organized by International Forum on Globalization, October 26, 2014, at The Great Hall at The Cooper Union, New York City)</em></span></span></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Wed, 12/31/2014 - 13:47</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/energy" hreflang="en">energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/clean-energy" hreflang="en">clean energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/population" hreflang="en">population</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/localize" hreflang="en">localize</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/sustainability" hreflang="en">sustainability</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Wed, 31 Dec 2014 18:47:00 +0000Anonymous2313 at https://www.energyjustice.netKeep Corporate Polluters at Bay, Please Donate Today!
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/keep-corporate-polluters-bay-please-donate-today
<span>Keep Corporate Polluters at Bay, Please Donate Today!</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"360","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","height":"480","style":"width: 222px; height: 318px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","width":"335"}}]]<strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><em>Energy Justice Network </em></strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">is one of the few national nonprofits in the U.S. organizing with grassroots communities to say NO! to </span><em style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">all forms</em><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> of dirty energy, from fracked gas, to coal plants, to biomass and waste incineration, to nuclear power.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Over 2014, we have raised $89,700 from individual donors, only $10,300 away from our goal of $100,000! </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u>Will you contribute </u></strong><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u><a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/donate">$15-$150 for 2015</a> </u></strong><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u>so we can keep helping communities like yours chase corporate polluters out of town?</u></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">We know there are a lot of organizations out there clamoring for your financial </span><a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/donate" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">support</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">, but here's what's different about </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><em>Energy Justice Network</em></strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">1) </span><u style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Grassroots</u><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">- We offer our organizing expertise to communities fighting dirty energy proposals, empowering their advocacy, not taking it over. We provide the know-how gleaned from decades of experience pushing back against predatory polluters, so you don’t have to reinvent the wheel in your advocacy.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">2) </span><u style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Bang For Your Buck</u><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">- Our lean and mean staff of sixmeans the vast majority of your tax-deductible donation directly funds grassroots community support work, instead of wasteful organizational overhead. Your money funds the organizing, networking, and informational resources needed to protect communities like yours from corporate polluters. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">3) </span><u style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Taking the Hard Line</u><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">- We believe that any energy source requiring a smokestack or cooling tower does more harm than good to the community that hosts it. We work to develop national solidarity to support only genuinely clean energy projects that don’t pollute the air or depend on finite and unsustainable resources.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Since 1999, </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><em>Energy Justice Network</em></strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> has been there for you to provide community organizing support, networking, research, trainings, legal and technical support, policy analysis, and so much more! </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u>Will you help ensure we can build on this support in 2015 by </u></strong><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u><a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/donate">donating</a> </u></strong><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><u>today?</u></strong></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">You can scour the nation and not find as focused, effective, and efficient organization as </span><strong style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"><em>Energy Justice Network</em></strong><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;"> to support with your </span><a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/donate" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">tax-deductible donation</a><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">. We hope we can count on your help this year by making a </span><a href="http://www.energyjustice.net/donate" style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">$15-$150 donation</a> <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">for 2015!</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>In Solidarity,</em></span></span></p>
<p><em style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">Mike, Traci, Aaron, Alex, Josh, and Samantha</em></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Mon, 12/29/2014 - 19:50</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/energy" hreflang="en">energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/clean-energy" hreflang="en">clean energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/forestry" hreflang="en">forestry</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/tracking" hreflang="en">tracking</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/57" hreflang="en">hydraulic fracturing</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/3" hreflang="en">Coal</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:50:17 +0000Anonymous2311 at https://www.energyjustice.netCensus Bureau Releases Biomass Incinerator Data
https://www.energyjustice.net/index.php/content/census-bureau-releases-biomass-incinerator-data
<span>Census Bureau Releases Biomass Incinerator Data</span>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;"><em>- by Erin Voegele, December 3, 2014, <a href="http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/11273/census-bureau-releases-biomass-power-plant-data">Biomass Magazine </a> </em></span></span></p>
<p>[[{"type":"media","view_mode":"media_large","fid":"327","attributes":{"alt":"","class":"media-image","style":"width: 300px; height: 178px; margin: 3px 10px; float: left;","title":"Photo: US Census Bureau"}}]]<span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">The U.S. Census Bureau recently released new economic census statistics on renewable energy, reporting that revenues for electric power generation industries that use renewable energy resources increased 49 percent from 2007 to 2012, reaching $9.8 billion. In 2007, revenue was only $6.6 billion. Biomass is among the four newly delineated industries addressed by the Census Bureau.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 16px;">According to information released by the Census Bureau, the 2007 Economic Census included wind, geothermal, biomass, and solar electric power under the broad “other electric power generation” industry, under NAICS code 221119. By the 2012 Economic Census, those industries had been broken out separately, with the “other electric power generation” industry limited to only tidal electric power generation and other electric power generation facilities not elsewhere classified.</span></p>
<p><!--break--></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Under the new categorization system, biomass is listed under NAICS code 221117. The Census Bureau reports biomass power generation achieved $934.6 million in revenues according to the 2012 Economic Census.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Industry statistics published by the Census Bureau indicate 105 biomass power plants in the U.S. in 2012. California had the highest number of biomass power plants, followed by Virginia. The annual payroll of these facilities is an estimated $128 million, with total employment reported at 1,647. The revenue per establishment was more than $8.9 million, with revenue per employee at $567,000. Revenue per $1 of payroll was $7.3 while payroll per employee was $77,551. The number of employees per establishment averaged 15.7. According to the 2012 Economic Census, revenue per capital was $3 and population per establishment was nearly 2.99 million.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:16px;"><span style="font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Since 2012 was the first year the new biomass NAICS code was in use, comparisons are not available for 2007 Economic Census data. Additional information on the Census Bureau’s biomass power plant data is available on the bureau’s <a href="http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/TheDataWeb_HotReport2/econsnapshot/2012/snapshot.hrml?NAICS=221117">website</a>.</span></span></p>
</div>
<span><span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang="">Anonymous (not verified)</span></span>
<span>Mon, 12/08/2014 - 12:23</span>
<div class="field field--name-taxonomy-vocabulary-2 field--type-entity-reference field--label-above">
<div class="field--label">Tags</div>
<div class="field--items">
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/2" hreflang="en">Biomass</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/bioenergy" hreflang="en">bioenergy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuels" hreflang="en">biofuels</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/biofuel" hreflang="en">biofuel</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/taxonomy/term/41" hreflang="en">climate change</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/renewable-energy" hreflang="en">renewable energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/clean-energy" hreflang="en">clean energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/energy" hreflang="en">energy</a></div>
<div class="field--item"><a href="https://www.energyjustice.net/tags/climate" hreflang="en">climate</a></div>
</div>
</div>
Mon, 08 Dec 2014 17:23:03 +0000Anonymous2285 at https://www.energyjustice.net Deprecated: Directive 'allow_url_include' is deprecated in Unknown on line 0