Conservationists score with court’s biomass ruling
By Tennille Tracy, Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court on Friday put pressure on the Environmental Protection Agency to move quickly on a rule that addresses carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants that burn timber and agricultural waste to generate electricity.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down an EPA rule postponing greenhouse-gas standards for new biomass power plants, but it didn’t specify a timetable for the agency to act. The court said the EPA had failed to justify its reasons for the delay.
The ruling comes just weeks after President Obama unveiled a broad new plan to address climate change, targeting mostly emissions from power plants that burn coal or natural gas.
Friday’s decision could also have a direct impact on a handful of new facilities that recently obtained permits or are in the process of getting them now.
“Our industry needs regulatory certainty so that biomass resources can be utilized to their fullest extent,” said Bob Cleaves, president of the Biomass Power Association.
EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said the agency “will review the decision to determine any next steps.”
At issue is the EPA’s 2011 decision to postpone a greenhouse gas rule for “biogenic” sources of carbon dioxide—that is, emissions that come from materials other than fossil fuels.
The EPA said at the time it needed three years to study these emissions because their net effect on the environment is difficult to calculate. Part of the equation, the agency says, is figuring out much carbon dioxide trees and other biological materials absorb from the atmosphere before being decomposed or burned, emitting carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.
Biomass power plants are one large source of these emissions, but landfills, ethanol producers and other facilities also emit carbon dioxide.
The industry says biomass plants are far better for the environment than facilities that burn fossil fuels, but critics disagree.
Kevin Bundy, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, the group that sued the EPA, said the emissions still needed to be addressed. “There has been a huge push over the last few years to build these wood-fired power plants, under the theory that it’s clean power,” Bundy said. “Our real concern is that this rush to build these plants will actually make the climate problem worse.”
It becomes easier all the time to discern the lack of motivation in fully understanding the positive societal trade-offs inherent to biomass energy. . .
Mr. Bundy, ‘senior’ attorney for the “Center for Biological Diversity” need only look to the current state of our forests (especially in the 10 western states) in purporting his role to be about ‘biologic diversity’, to realize that the current bark beetle (and others) situation needs to be addressed in terms of translating another energy source as that empowered by forest thinning, particularly since “prescribed fires” are almost always not productive vis-a-vis forest health.
Would we rather have full-blown forest fires instead ?
All biomass inherently has embedded energy that can be used for more productive uses other than simply letting it go “up in smoke”. In fact, any decent practitioner of public health knows that too much “up in smoke” is a direct and colossal public health problem, due as well to the amount of toxicity from the building products that are consumed in today’s ‘urban interface’ fires. . . he should also know that the amount of research & development in the biomass generation business does not put product lines “on the street’ without accounting for every speck of smoke it emits – which mostly is NONE.
Energy generated through usage of biomass is usually accounted for (in gasification, for example) at temperatures upwards of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit, meaning that there is no smoke, no ’emission’, no toxicity . . . and in return we reduce catastrophic fire danger at the same time we increase the health of our forests, and the chance of more biodiversity, not less.
Upon review, I believe that to be a most positive trade-off with very significant societal benefits – any competent ecologist will tell you that the healthier the forest, the more they can withstand ‘infestation’ or fire of any type, therefore are not subject to the legalities inherent in man’s policy directions and manipulations.