last post! please read. Some final thoughts on biomass harvesting

[Mary Booth]

All, since the group is going away, I wanted to post one last piece of input for the TSC report, regarding biomass harvesting.

 

I notice that EOEEA’s comments included the provision that biomass harvesting not be conducted on state lands to support large-scale biomass plants, or something to that effect. I fear that the intent here is to leave the door open to harvesting of biomass for small-scale plants. But, it is the scale of harvesting that matters, not the scale of the plants! The economical way to do biomass harvesting is to strip a site clean, and it really doesn’t matter the size of the plant that burns the wood.

 

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, if DCR wants to do harvesting that is most in line with preserving ecosystem functions, then this requires leaving  all slash in place.

 

Increasing my concern, since we started this process, I’ve also become aware of another threat to forests, and that is increased harvesting for wood pellet industry. The pellet industry is taking off in the southeast, and could also do so in the northeast. Pellets generated around here are mostly sold to the domestic residential market, but a HUGE market is emerging in UK and Europe. The UK is currently proposing over 3,000 MW of biomass plants, and more if you count co-firing in coal plants. All the proposals expect to get wood from overseas, and most are located on deep-water ports to facilitate international transport.

 

There’s also an emerging market here in the US, since more and more coal plants will be co-firing wood to be considered more “green”. Coal plants prefer to use pellets due to the greater consistency and firing characteristics of the fuel. Plants that replace part of their fuel with wood will be eligible for renewable energy credits and will get production tax credits for generating renewable energy, as it’s currently defined. The market here for green energy is developing quickly, and the economic forces at work are huge – just in the last couple of years there are 60 new pellet plants proposed nationally and 95 MAJOR biomass plants or co-firing proposals.

 

It is amazing to me that it could ever be cost-effective to co-fire pellets, much less ship them overseas, but it’s happening already in Georgia. Pellets sell for about ten times more per ton than wood chips, so potentially it’s a more lucrative market and cutting truly could increase in response to demand. Bottom line: I’m more concerned than ever that state lands be protected from over-exploitation until the current wave of stupidity about renewable energy subsides. Please take this threat seriously - there has literally been an exponential increase in the number of pellet plant and biomass power proposals of late, and there is no way this won’t affect forests in a big way.

 

Finally… nice working with you all – I hope we will continue to work together. On balance I think there is far more to like than not to like in the report, and I am greatly encouraged at the progress that’s been made.

 

Mary

 

 

 

--

Mary S. Booth, PhD
mbo...@massenvironmentalenergy.org
**********************************************
check out our website:
www.massenvironmentalenergy.org

[Fred Heyes]

forester liscensing is a consumer statute

and you will see coming soon a particularly huge reminder of that

 

also

 

service plumbers=plumbing inspector

service electricians=electrical inspector

service architects=building inspectors

service drivers=registry cops

service contractors=building inspectors

service equipment operators=public safety inspectors

service lawyers=judges and the bar

etc etc

 

sorry joe I just don’t see it the way you do…has a landowner of yours ever had a stop order issued??

were hius/her rights protected by that??

 

fred

 

 

p

[Joseph Zorzin]

Fred, it's interesting how the wood industry loves the oversight of service foresters- but just abhors having a lic. forester prepare cut plans. Very odd indeed. Makes you wonder. I thought business preferred the private sector to do things, not government. There wouldn't be an ulterior motive, would there?

 

If it's consumer protection, why does the industry massively detest any effort to end high grading by ending short term cut plans? Why did Todd Frederick say that requiring a forester to prepare a cut plan would be a revolutionary act against industry?

 

Does any other profession fight so hard to NOT require its services? Does the AMA say, "we don't want any requirement that only a doctor can practice medicine". Why was the forester lic. law written with that "and" instead of an "or" where it says that if you practice forestry AND call yourself a forester you must have a license- gee, that sure was a massive sellout of the profession by those who think any 3 year old can practice forestry- as long as they don't call themselves a forester.

 

I'm sure you aware just how angry the surveyors get when foresters try to do surveys- they don't allow it. And when they file a survey, nobody confirms that it's done right. When a dentist fixes your teeth, no service dentist shows up to see if the work was done right.

 

You mostly listed trades, not professions- showing that you think forestry is just a trade not a profession. In most of the trades you listed- if those tradesmen make a big mistake, it could cost the lives of a lot of people if a building falls down, catches on fire or if the sewage backs up- so it makes sense to have those inspectors. But having an inspector confirm that the mgt. plan I make for a forester owner is correct- that I didn't just make it up- given the fact that I'm  licensed professional- is just a plain absurd waste of tax dollars.

 

And, do you really think the service foresters served the interest of the public when they failed to do anything about the messed up logging jobs on state lands in recent years? The "solution" of service foresters neither stopped those mistakes nor do they stop high grading on private land. Yet, the service foresters have the gall to proclaim their opinion of constitutional law- what a joke. Personally, I'm getting tired of having my work be autographed by state people for the past 37 years- they really add little to value I produce yet get paid more- in a parasitic fashion.

 

If the regs were such that when anyone other than a lic. forester prepares a cut plan, those were reviewed by the state- that might make sense, almost- but to have one lic. forester review the work of another when no pressing ecological urgency really requires it- totally bonkers.

 

Only the forestry profession loves to shoot itself in the foot. Or, perhaps there are ulterior motives but we won't go there- that would not be polite, that would be, gosh, that would be POLITICAL and we know that kind of discussion is forbidden in the forestry world.

 

The forestry world needs massive reform- but it's resisted extremely hard by "forestry leaders". The reform is a half century overdue. Such reform is in everybody's interest. If will come eventually if not now- when it does, the history of the forestry world will not look kindly on those who resisted the reform.

Joe

[Fred Heyes]

joe,

 

I find your thinking narrow.and what was your response to my last two lines???

[Joseph Zorzin]

Fred, the service forestry program is nothing more than a protection racket for the wood industry. And, as for your last 2 lines- yes, one of my clients had a stop order issued once. The problem was that there are loggers out there who should not have logger's license. I had a logger on a job who didn't follow any rules or the contract or the cut plan. I blame the state for giving licenses to both loggers and foresters who are unqualified by education and/or training. We can pursue this discussion further if you dare.

 

So, do you really think it's appropriate for the service foresters to be pontificating on the constitution?

[Joseph Zorzin]

And, Fred- as long as we're having a nice polite discussion- please explain what Todd Frederick meant when he wrote back to Glen Fredon a decade ago his explanation of why a lic. forester shouldn't be required to file a cut plan- he said, "it would be a revolutionary act against industry". Many  people have wanted to know what he meant- it all seems so mysterious- people just can't seem to figure out what he was getting at. Maybe you can explain.

 

I have quoted Todd Frederick hundreds of times in the past decade. Not once, not a single time has any "forestry leader" dared to even acknowledge Todd's statement, never mind try to explain it. I think they hide their heads in the sand when they see that quote- realizing that it was a smoking gun which said a lot more than they're willing to admit- hence, they don't dare comment on it. I think it gave away the driving force in state forestry policies.

 

Joe

[Fred Heyes]

I have not read their comments….but I will

 

fred

 

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zorzin

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 7:58 AM
To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Bob Leverett'; 'Robert O'Connor'; 'David Cash'; 'Rick Sullivan'; 'Mike Leonard'

[Fred Heyes]

joe

 

I really cant speak for todd…I worked with todd a lot and always found him in support of improving forestry in the commonwealth.

Forestry in the commonwealth  is not industry driven.

 

fred

[Joseph Zorzin]

oh, well, once again- nobody dares to try to explain what Todd meant..... probably because it's so mysterious, so oblique, so symbolic- penetrating to the depth of what he said is like trying to make sense out of the writings of.... James Joyce....

[Joseph Zorzin]

Wow, Mike - that is one interpretation.... amazing that you could penetrate such an obscure comment by Todd- I tried for years to understand it with no luck- you might be on to something here, but gee, it's not nice to imply that our state officials  might be more focused on what's good for the industry than what's good for the public and private forest owners and THEIR forests. To imply that would imply that ---- gee, that our system of democracy is somehow.... defective- that, God forbid, it is now more of an illusion of democracy- that it is.... actually a front for all businesses- that we are in some new sort of government not yet described by political scientists.... which is probably a good reason to never use the tools of political science when trying to make sense of the controversies in the forestry world- doing so might open up explanations better left suppressed.

Joe

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Leonard

To: Joseph Zorzin ; forestfutur...@googlegroups.com

Cc: 'Rick Sullivan' ; 'David Cash' ; 'Robert O'Connor' ; 'Bob Leverett'

Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 8:42 AM

Subject: Re: service forestry, joe

Well Joe everybody knows what Todd Frederick meant but they won't admit it. He meant that some operators in forest industry would no longer have access to cheap stumpage rustled from private woodlots. State policy has always been that it's OK to allow landowners to get ripped off because it helps to prop up our local sawmills. Well there aren't too many sawmills left in MA so what's the excuse now?

The other big reason is because this policy helps to prop up the forest bureaucracy because the bureaucrats can continue to say they need to "educate" landowners, etc. It's the job of consulting foresters to educate landowners so I would appreciate it if the forest bureaucrats would just stay out of my business.

I

Mike