Also read Biomass Energy Generation Myths

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed that biomass incinerators be required to report greenhouse gas emissions when the government starts regulating carbon next year. But The Oregonian’s editorial board argues that this will “shackle” the biomass industry “with hobbling costs.” Is the fear that greenhouse gas reporting will expose the heavy carbon burden of burning wood to make energy?

The Clean Air Act requires that facilities measure, report and minimize air pollution and climate-altering greenhouse gases. Biomass plants should be no different in this regard than other industrial processes. The EPA decision denying the industry’s request for an exemption from the Clean Air Act is based on the evidence that burning trees to generate energy can actually increase rather than help curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA isn’t the only agency casting doubts on the wisdom of burning biomass for energy. The state of Massachusetts’ Department of Energy Resources published a decision in July to require that biomass plants report their greenhouse gas profile. Reporting will be required so that the state can meet its renewable energy standard and carbon reduction goals. Massachusetts will require, for example, that biomass energy production demonstrate maximum energy efficiency standards, a 50% reduction in GHG over a 20-year cycle, and forest practices that are measurably sustainable, and a limit on the total timber per acre eligible to be harvested for biomass fuels.

The Department of Energy was convinced by a Massachusetts study that concluded that burning forest biomass creates a “carbon debt.” The debt occurs when we outpace the earth’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The carbon debt increases as trees are removed from forests, because their ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere is diminished, and the carbon naturally stored in their woody tissue is prematurely released by burning them in an incinerator. According to another study, the significant carbon debt can take as long as over two and a half centuries to repay if biomass is used as a fossil fuel replacement.

Burning biomass is also a dirty air problem. Even with air pollution controls, these plants will collectively pump ton after ton of toxins into the air every day — chemicals that will rain down on the neighborhoods closest to the plant. A number of professional medical societies are warning the public that breathing sooty emissions from biomass incinerators is known as the most dangerous form of pollution and a significant health risk. The Oregon Chapter of the American Lung Association is predicting that patients, particularly children with asthma, respiratory and cardiac ailments, will experience increases in the incidence of respiratory problems. These diseases can be worsened by small micro pollutants, the type of pollution that will increase with the proliferation of biomass plants in Oregon.

The environmentalist Aldo Leopold reminded us that the first rule of intelligent tinkering was to “keep all the pieces,” not burn them.

Burning biomass, a process that depletes natural resources and pollutes our neighborhoods, is not the renewable and clean-energy panacea that commercial timber companies would have us believe. If we are to go down this path, Oregon residents must call upon our elected officials to require reasonable safeguards, starting with a complete state environmental impact report, carbon life-cycle accounting, and compliance with future, tighter Clean Air Act mandates.

Lisa Arkin is executive director of the Oregon Toxics Alliance.
Editorial published from The Oregonian

Thoughts, Comments, Questions…

   Subscribe in a reader