By JEFF BARNARD
GRANTS PASS, Ore.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9H26CM81.htm
Oregon and other states with lots of trees have been counting on generating more electricity by burning forest thinnings and logging leftovers as a promising future source of green jobs and renewable energy as well as a way to pay for projects to prevent forest fires.
But a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in May has the biomass industry, and Oregon's congressional delegation, worried that biomass may lose its long-standing green status, and be lumped in with coal as a greenhouse gas polluter.
The rule focuses on big coal-fired plants and oil refineries in counting up just how much greenhouse gas the country releases into the atmosphere.
When the process gets around to considering biomass, the industry fears EPA could decide it is not carbon neutral, and must pay a penalty for the carbon it releases. The extra cost could eliminate profitability for the industry, along with the jobs, renewable energy and forest benefits that come with it.
"The industry would be stopped in its tracks if it is regulated like a coal plant," said Bob Cleaves, president and CEO of the Biomass Power Association, which represents 80 facilities in 20 states that employ 18,000 people.
The EPA said their greenhouse gas accounting has not reversed the position that biomass combustion is carbon neutral, but the agency will gather information on the issue and decide whether it is still justified.
Then the agency will see how that applies to permitting under the Clean Air Act. It has yet to lay out a format or timetable for this work.
Nonetheless, last month U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., and more than 60 other members of Congress from biomass states sent a letter to the EPA demanding that the agency keep the carbon-neutral rating for biomass because of its potential as a renewable energy source, for creating jobs and paying for projects to thin forests.
"Do we or do we not move past the fossil fuel economy?" DeFazio said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Do we or do we not get free of imported fossil fuels and oil?"
Oregon is not alone. Most of the 30 states with renewable energy portfolios include biomass as eligible for development incentives, said Redding, Calif., biomass consultant Bill Carlson.
And California is not counting biomass emissions in its own cap-and-trade system, said Gregg Morris of the Green Power Institute in Berkeley, Calif.
A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling gave the EPA the green light for its first hard look at greenhouse gas emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Meanwhile, Congress has been slow to act and the Obama administration has been handing out millions in grants to biomass projects -- $3 million went to Oregon this month.
"I think this (the regulation issued in May) caught a lot of people by surprise," said Brian Kittler, biomass and bioenergy project director for the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, a forest policy group. "There's a lot of buzz about it. I think it is anyone's guess as to what the next step is."
Burning wood waste for power is a 30-year-old industry that grew out of sawmills in California, which leads the nation with 36 plants, said Phil Reese, chairman of the California Biomass Energy Alliance.
The industry has struggled to expand, said Carlson. Plants operate on tight margins, fuel has been limited, and a key federal tax credit has expired. The recession has made it tough to find financing.
The Biomass Power Association represents 80 facilities in 20 states from Maine to California that employ 18,000 people, said Cleaves. Oregon has eight and Washington six. New England has 18 and Michigan seven.
Nationwide they generate less than 1 percent of the grid, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Counting carbon is very complicated, said Morris. Leaving wood to rot or be burned in the open actually produces more greenhouse gases than burning it in a power plant. But the smokestack emissions are higher than for coal. Biomass gets its green label from the idea that the carbon in coal has long been stored in the Earth, and when that is released, it adds to the problem. The carbon in wood is constantly cycling through the atmosphere as trees grow, die and rot, so does not amount to a net addition.
If the EPA's efforts are "scientifically based, they should support the biomass industry," Morris said. "If they require emissions permits for biogenic CO2, that will definitely not benefit the biomass industry. In fact, it would kill it."
Environmental groups say the industry probably has nothing to worry about.
"The EPA is working to develop a grading system that lets biomass winners and losers emerge on the merits," said Ralph Cavanagh, energy program co-director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
While all biomass was once considered carbon neutral, scientists now see differences, he said. For example, clearcutting a forest to burn for fuel will produce excess carbon, but burning waste wood and forest thinnings will not.
"I don't think forest waste should have anything to fear from an honest grading system," he said.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Wood: The Premier Green Material
In the opinion of some people, using trees for anything other than their standing aesthetic beauty is sinful. Some take it so far as to threaten or commit extreme acts of vandalism. Steve Henson, Executive Director of the Southern Appalachian Multiple-Use Council, warns of potential extremism in western North Carolina in a June 9, 2010 opinion piece in Asheville’s Citizen-Times (see http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20100609/OPINION03/100609020/WNC-should-be-wary-of-potential-upsurge-in-extremism). Mailings by Earth First! are also mentioned, and Mr. Henson points out their philosophy of “Deep Ecology” which holds that all forms of life on Earth have equal value in and of themselves, without regard for their utility to human beings (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_First). This philosophy is wrong-headed and leads to the de-civilization of humanity. Our goal should be to thoughtfully determine the best way to create a sustainable society and world, without retreating to the caves of our ancestors.
The forest and wood products industries have been the target of such groups for many years and it can be disheartening to hear their message repeatedly. Ten years ago I was in such a state of mind when I went to a Forest Products Society meeting in Lake Tahoe and heard the keynote speaker, Dr. Patrick Moore. Going to listen I was skeptical. Moore had been a co-founder of Greenpeace, so I really questioned why he was giving the keynote address. It turns out I was wrong and Dr. Moore had a very positive message which he titles “Trees are the Answer” and provides a very reasoned argument for the utilization of wood from the forest. (Dr. Moore left Greenpeace in the mid-1980’s). I provide a summary of some of Moore’s arguments here in hopes that they will help you speak about the virtues of forest management and wood utilization:
Clearcutting. “Environmental” groups want you to believe that the ugly appearance of a recently harvested forest is the same as the permanent destruction of the forest environment. In reality, the clearcut is totally organic and will soon grow to again be a beautiful new forest. Too often we judge “good” or “bad” based on our perceptions of aesthetics. A meadow is beautiful and therefore judged “good” while a clearcut may be viewed as ugly and judged to be “bad”. Actually the meadow is a small desert capable of supporting only drought resistant grasses and non-woody plants, while within a year or two after harvesting the clearcut is likely to have a higher biodiversity than the meadow, and in a decade be considered a young forest.
Deforestation. Clearcutting is not deforestation. Deforestation occurs when the forest is removed permanently. Dr. Moore points out that deforestation is not an evil plot, it is what humans do to feed and house the 6.8 billion people on planet Earth. My conclusion is that deforestation has given us (and the EarthFirsters!) the beautiful farms that feed us, our neighborhoods where we live, and even shopping malls and acres of affiliated parking lots.
Species Extinction. In 1996 the World Wildlife Fund announced that 50,000 species are going extinct each year due to human activity, mostly due to logging. There are no examples as evidence, however, and no species have become extinct due to forestry. The reported 50,000 species disappearing annually was generated on a computer model developed at Harvard. Now, human activity actually does cause extinction of some species. In the real world, please note that species extinction is primarily due to the introduction of exotic predators and diseases. Additional causes of species extinction are that humans have wiped them out for food or because they were pests, and the clearance of forests for agriculture. So, although we do not know of a single species that has become extinct due to the practice of forestry, the general public has been given the impression through many “mainstream” media outlets that forestry is a major cause of species extinction, although there is no evidence to support that allegation.
Biodiversity. A few years ago the “environmental” community was focused on the clearcut which represented the loss of habitat, the resulting decrease in biodiversity with the implication that it would be that way forever. Of course many of us know that that is not the case. Consider biodiversity on a scale of 0 to 100. From Moore: “You would have to admit that the parking lot is pretty close to 0. There might be a blade of grass poking through in the odd place. A farm field or pasture might rate 5 or 10, compared to the original forest that was cut down, burned and planted to make the farm. Forestry, the way it is practiced today throughout most of North America, is 96, 98, 100, even 102, because in some landscapes forest management results in a wider range of age classes and ecosystem types than would normally occur in the absence of human activity.”
Dr. Moore’s major point is that we need to educate the public so that they do not equate health of the environment with landscape aesthetics. They must get beyond the immediate visual impression of the landscape and understand more about science, ecology, and biodiversity before making judgments about the ecology. You can link to the complete text of Dr. Moore’s Trees are the Answer presentation: http://web.archive.org/web/20051119060817/www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm
Just as the public needs to be educated about forestry so we can continue to harvest logs, we also need to educate the American consumer about the importance and benefits of purchasing wood products grown and manufactured domestically. We really do have a great story to tell about wood products. Wood is the only sustainable material used to build “stuff”. It is converted solar energy. We grow it locally. We use it to build products locally. We need these products locally. In an era when manufacturing is not viewed favorably by some and much of it has moved offshore, when most of our goods seem to be made elsewhere, we may be approaching a time when our logs are shipped offshore rather than taken to the local sawmill (as was done in many third countries before they outlawed it). Preliminary research here at NC State suggests that environmentally friendly, locally sourced, and customized products, rank as low priority characteristics for consumers considering furniture purchases. This represents an opportunity for us to educate the public about the virtues of American made products built using domestically grown wood.
This education effort must be more than a bumper sticker campaign. Do you remember the “Forests are America’s Renewable Resource” from the 1970’s? If that had been an over-the-top success back then we might not need to deliver such a positive and energetic message designed to educate today’s consumers. We all (wood manufacturers, woodworkers, sales and marketing, and especially educators) need to proactively market American wood products with what might be called “The Woodworkers’ Tenets”:
___________________________________________
Excerpted from North Carolina’s Value Added Wood Products Newsletter
North Carolina State University
June 10, 2010
Wood Products Extension
Campus Box 8003
Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone (919) 515-5581
The forest and wood products industries have been the target of such groups for many years and it can be disheartening to hear their message repeatedly. Ten years ago I was in such a state of mind when I went to a Forest Products Society meeting in Lake Tahoe and heard the keynote speaker, Dr. Patrick Moore. Going to listen I was skeptical. Moore had been a co-founder of Greenpeace, so I really questioned why he was giving the keynote address. It turns out I was wrong and Dr. Moore had a very positive message which he titles “Trees are the Answer” and provides a very reasoned argument for the utilization of wood from the forest. (Dr. Moore left Greenpeace in the mid-1980’s). I provide a summary of some of Moore’s arguments here in hopes that they will help you speak about the virtues of forest management and wood utilization:
Clearcutting. “Environmental” groups want you to believe that the ugly appearance of a recently harvested forest is the same as the permanent destruction of the forest environment. In reality, the clearcut is totally organic and will soon grow to again be a beautiful new forest. Too often we judge “good” or “bad” based on our perceptions of aesthetics. A meadow is beautiful and therefore judged “good” while a clearcut may be viewed as ugly and judged to be “bad”. Actually the meadow is a small desert capable of supporting only drought resistant grasses and non-woody plants, while within a year or two after harvesting the clearcut is likely to have a higher biodiversity than the meadow, and in a decade be considered a young forest.
Deforestation. Clearcutting is not deforestation. Deforestation occurs when the forest is removed permanently. Dr. Moore points out that deforestation is not an evil plot, it is what humans do to feed and house the 6.8 billion people on planet Earth. My conclusion is that deforestation has given us (and the EarthFirsters!) the beautiful farms that feed us, our neighborhoods where we live, and even shopping malls and acres of affiliated parking lots.
Species Extinction. In 1996 the World Wildlife Fund announced that 50,000 species are going extinct each year due to human activity, mostly due to logging. There are no examples as evidence, however, and no species have become extinct due to forestry. The reported 50,000 species disappearing annually was generated on a computer model developed at Harvard. Now, human activity actually does cause extinction of some species. In the real world, please note that species extinction is primarily due to the introduction of exotic predators and diseases. Additional causes of species extinction are that humans have wiped them out for food or because they were pests, and the clearance of forests for agriculture. So, although we do not know of a single species that has become extinct due to the practice of forestry, the general public has been given the impression through many “mainstream” media outlets that forestry is a major cause of species extinction, although there is no evidence to support that allegation.
Biodiversity. A few years ago the “environmental” community was focused on the clearcut which represented the loss of habitat, the resulting decrease in biodiversity with the implication that it would be that way forever. Of course many of us know that that is not the case. Consider biodiversity on a scale of 0 to 100. From Moore: “You would have to admit that the parking lot is pretty close to 0. There might be a blade of grass poking through in the odd place. A farm field or pasture might rate 5 or 10, compared to the original forest that was cut down, burned and planted to make the farm. Forestry, the way it is practiced today throughout most of North America, is 96, 98, 100, even 102, because in some landscapes forest management results in a wider range of age classes and ecosystem types than would normally occur in the absence of human activity.”
Dr. Moore’s major point is that we need to educate the public so that they do not equate health of the environment with landscape aesthetics. They must get beyond the immediate visual impression of the landscape and understand more about science, ecology, and biodiversity before making judgments about the ecology. You can link to the complete text of Dr. Moore’s Trees are the Answer presentation: http://web.archive.org/web/20051119060817/www.greenspirit.com/trees_answer.cfm
Just as the public needs to be educated about forestry so we can continue to harvest logs, we also need to educate the American consumer about the importance and benefits of purchasing wood products grown and manufactured domestically. We really do have a great story to tell about wood products. Wood is the only sustainable material used to build “stuff”. It is converted solar energy. We grow it locally. We use it to build products locally. We need these products locally. In an era when manufacturing is not viewed favorably by some and much of it has moved offshore, when most of our goods seem to be made elsewhere, we may be approaching a time when our logs are shipped offshore rather than taken to the local sawmill (as was done in many third countries before they outlawed it). Preliminary research here at NC State suggests that environmentally friendly, locally sourced, and customized products, rank as low priority characteristics for consumers considering furniture purchases. This represents an opportunity for us to educate the public about the virtues of American made products built using domestically grown wood.
This education effort must be more than a bumper sticker campaign. Do you remember the “Forests are America’s Renewable Resource” from the 1970’s? If that had been an over-the-top success back then we might not need to deliver such a positive and energetic message designed to educate today’s consumers. We all (wood manufacturers, woodworkers, sales and marketing, and especially educators) need to proactively market American wood products with what might be called “The Woodworkers’ Tenets”:
- Our domestic woods are sustainable, renewable, and natural.
- Domestic wood products are environmentally manufactured, requiring less energy to make and transport than alternative materials, and function as a warehouse to store carbon and mitigate global warming.
- American manufacturers offer quality wood products manufactured locally from locally sourced woods.
- Wood is workable, versatile, customizable, durable, abundant and affordable.
___________________________________________
Excerpted from North Carolina’s Value Added Wood Products Newsletter
North Carolina State University
June 10, 2010
Wood Products Extension
Campus Box 8003
Raleigh, NC 27695
Phone (919) 515-5581
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
