Biomass Energy: Another Kind of Climate Change Denial

(Graph­ic: Indi­ana Joel)

We’re all famil­iar with cli­mate change deniers, cheer­ful­ly and/or will­ful­ly igno­rant folk who refuse to accept that human-caused car­bon emis­sions are respon­si­ble for the cli­mate cri­sis — or that there even is a cli­mate cri­sis. Those of us who val­ue sci­ence and com­mon sense typ­i­cal­ly have as much patience for these twen­ty-three per­cent of Amer­i­cans as we do for any­one who believes that mag­gots arise spon­ta­neous­ly from rot­ting meat, witch­es cause dis­ease, or the Earth is the cen­ter of the universe. 

Recent­ly, a sub­tler breed of cli­mate change denier has emerged, spread­ing their pro­pa­gan­da and even infil­trat­ing aspects of the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment: bio­mass boost­ers. These advo­cates for the bio­mass ener­gy indus­try often avoid detec­tion by pro­fess­ing con­cern with car­bon emis­sions. Yet, while curs­ing fos­sil fuels out of one side of their mouths, out of the oth­er they bless the burn­ing of one of the world’s great­est buffers against run­away cli­mate chaos — our forests — for energy.

If the cli­mate move­ment wants to win over the Amer­i­can peo­ple and influ­ence pol­i­cy, it needs to have cred­i­bil­i­ty, which only comes through con­sis­ten­cy, and that means dis­tanc­ing itself from the cli­mate change deniers in our midst.

Forests = Carbon

Forests store and sequester mind-bog­gling amounts of car­bon and are one of our last best hopes in fight­ing cli­mate change. Cut­ting forests and burn­ing them for ener­gy in pol­lut­ing bio­mass incin­er­a­tors is per­haps the worst thing we can do when it comes to the cli­mate threat.

Bio­mass incin­er­a­tors emit high­er lev­els of car­bon diox­ide per unit of ener­gy than most coal-fired plants, the dirt­i­est fos­sil fuel, with some stud­ies demon­strat­ing up to a cen­turies-long time frame for the reab­sorp­tion of this car­bon by future forests, and oth­ers show­ing a per­ma­nent increase in atmos­pher­ic CO2. Some of the more opti­mistic (and flawed) stud­ies show it will still take decades for the car­bon to be reab­sorbed by forests cut for bio­mass ener­gy. Yet, this assumes a for­est cut for bio­mass will be pro­tect­ed and not logged again (a high­ly unlike­ly sce­nario), and will main­tain the same rate of growth despite soil com­paction, nutri­ent deple­tion, and ero­sion from past log­ging and impacts from cli­mate change, includ­ing drought.

Even if that best case sce­nario were true, it’s irrel­e­vant. Cli­mate sci­en­tists insist the only way to reverse run­away cli­mate change is to dras­ti­cal­ly cut our emis­sions now, not at some unde­ter­mined point in the future after emit­ting a mas­sive pulse of car­bon out the smoke­stacks of bio­mass incinerators.

Only when you bring up this point to bio­mass boost­ers do they reveal their true col­ors, prov­ing that, despite pre­ten­sions, they real­ly aren’t tak­ing cli­mate change that seri­ous­ly at all.

Mag­ic Tree Carbon

When pressed on the real­i­ty of curb­ing emis­sions today rather than in the year 2114, bio­mass advo­cates typ­i­cal­ly admit that car­bon emis­sions from bio­mass incin­er­a­tion don’t count because they don’t come from the bad kind of fos­sil fuel car­bon, but the good kind of “bio­genic” car­bon. In oth­er words, you can cut and burn all the trees you want for ener­gy, because the car­bon they emit is harm­less, basi­cal­ly a kind of mag­ic tree carbon.

Of course, an eighth grade grasp of Earth sci­ence proves that the atmos­phere doesn’t give a fig whether the car­bon comes from trees, fos­sil fuels, or uni­corn poop, because car­bon is car­bon is carbon. 

The US Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency (EPA) has been spend­ing the last few years decid­ing how to mea­sure car­bon emis­sions from bio­mass ener­gy (even though the only hon­est way to account for it is to tab­u­late what comes out of the smoke­stack), with vague plans to come out with its account­ing frame­work for “bio­genic” car­bon by the end of 2014. The agency’s will­ing­ness to even enter­tain industry’s notion of mag­ic tree car­bon expos­es the EPA for what it tru­ly is: a polit­i­cal, rather than sci­en­tif­ic body. The Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion has come out in sup­port of bio­mass ener­gy, chop­ping down the low-hang­ing fruit of “green” ener­gy to make it seem like it’s actu­al­ly doing some­thing about the cli­mate crisis.

One final point to bring up if you’re ever in a con­ver­sa­tion with a bio­mass boost­er and real­ly want to watch them squirm. Remind them that the sup­pos­ed­ly “bio­genic” car­bon stored in any giv­en tree actu­al­ly includes some car­bon sequestered from hun­dreds of years of burn­ing fos­sil fuels, and when that tree is burned for ener­gy, that car­bon too is released back into the atmos­phere. If they have a response to this, please con­tact me and let me know what it is, because I’ve yet to hear one.

Of course, chances are, no mat­ter how much you ques­tion bio­mass boost­ers on car­bon emis­sions, you won’t get any good answers out of them. Maybe that’s because most of them secret­ly believe — though they’ll nev­er admit it, per­haps not even to them­selves — that cli­mate change sim­ply isn’t that big of a deal. 


Posted

in

by


EJ Communities Map

Map of Coal and Gas Facilities

We are mapping all of the existing, proposed, closed and defeated dirty energy and waste facilities in the US. We are building a network of community groups to fight the facilities and the corporations behind them.

Our Network

Watch Us on YouTube