Center for Biological Diversity concerns about biomass

mandchurley

unread,

Feb 16, 2010, 2:57:34 PM2/16/10

to forest-futures-advisor...@googlegroups.com, ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com, Bruce Spencer, william...@tufts.edu

Everyone,

I live in Westfield, where we are surrounded on three sides by proposals for three large scale biomass plants, one in Russell, one in Greenfield and one in Springfield. If there is one concern that tops all others in my area, relative to our public and private forests, it is the biomass issue. That is one of the reasons that I, as a stakeholder, have been outspoken in asking that the TSC draft of recommendations contain language that is UNAMBIGUOUS in stating that wood from our public forests should not go for fuels for these large plants. In addition, there is concern that turning to burning of wood in an uncontrolled number of smaller plants is a threat as well. There is even concern that the state fuelwood timber sales have not been properly structured or monitored. I just wanted you to see this Announcement from the Center for Biological Diversity. Claudia Hurley

From: Center for Biological Diversity <bioac...@biologicaldiversity.org>
Subject: Stop Forests From Becoming Energy Farms

Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 11:53 AM

One of the biggest new threats to forests in the United States is a modern take on a very old idea: burning wood for energy. Dozens of large, dirty, wood-burning electricity facilities -- staggeringly inefficient -- are now being planned across the country. A single such facility would require increased logging on tens of thousands of acres of forest each year.

Based on the flawed premise that any burning of wood is carbon neutral, electricity generated by burning trees and wood wastes -- referred to as "biomass" -- is counted as renewable energy by numerous state and federal programs intended to shift our reliance away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, biomass burning is far from carbon neutral.

Carbon dioxide released from the smokestack of a biomass facility warms the planet just like CO₂ from a coal plant. And while an area logged to fuel a biomass facility may ultimately grow back, it takes decades or even centuries for a forest to recapture as much carbon as is lost when it's logged. We don't have decades to waste if we are to reduce our emissions fast enough to save the polar bear, coral reefs, and much of the world's biodiversity from global warming.

Take action today and protect our forests. The Department of Agriculture has proposed regulations that would expand a massive, misguided subsidy program that encourages the harvest and burning of trees for energy. Please act now to let federal officials know that tax dollars should not go to the timber industry and power companies to subsidize actions that pollute the air, undermine climate solutions, and contribute to deforestation.

Click here to find out more and take action.

If you have trouble following the link, go to http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2298.

Sample letter:

Subject: End Subsidies for Biomass Burning

I am writing to request that forest lands be excluded from the Biomass Crop Assistance Program. Government subsidies should only go to those energy sources that are truly carbon neutral. Because it can take centuries for a forest to recapture the carbon lost to logging, woody biomass burning is not carbon neutral on the timeframe relevant to solving the climate crisis. Biomass energy production produces a tremendous amount of greenhouse gas emissions in the near term and threatens our nation's forest ecosystems, water quality, and wildlife in the long term. Please issue regulations that actually protect our forests rather than subsidize their destruction. Thank you.

Please take action by April 9, 2010.

Donate now to support our work.

Forest photo courtesy Flickr Creative Commons/Nicholas_T.

Center for Biological Diversity

P.O. Box 710

Tucson, AZ 85702

1-866-357-3349