SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
U.S. EPA says it will define wood as a 'carbon-neutral' fuel, reigniting debate
Weighing in on a fierce, long-standing climate debate, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., said yesterday the agency will now define wood as a "carbon-neutral" fuel for many regulatory purposes.
The "announcement grants America's foresters much-needed certainty and clarity with respect to the carbon neutrality of forest biomass," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said at an event in Cochran, Georgia, The Washington Post reports. But many environmental groups and energy experts decried the move, arguing the science is far from settled on whether wood is a climate-friendly fuel.
As Science contributing correspondent Warren Cornwall reported last year, the forest products industry has long been pushing for the carbon neutral definition in a bid to make wood an attractive fuel for generating electricity in nations trying to move away from fossil fuels. The idea is "attractively simple," Cornwall reported:
The carbon released when trees are cut down and burned is taken up again when new trees grow in their place, limiting its impact on climate. ...
Yet moves by governments around the world to designate wood as a carbon-neutral fuel—making it eligible for beneficial treatment under tax, trade, and environmental regulations—have spurred fierce debate. Critics argue that accounting for carbon recycling is far more complex than it seems. They say favoring wood could actually boost carbon emissions, not curb them, for many decades, and that wind and solar energy—emissions-free from the start—are a better bet for the climate. Some scientists also worry that policies promoting wood fuels could unleash a global logging boom that trashes forest biodiversity in the name of climate protection.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 26 2018, @02:12PM (2 children)
Pine plantations are a big thing around Arkansas. Many of them belong to Weyerhauser. Generally, the first cut is around 8 to 12 years. All the stunted trees are selectively cut, and chipped for paper, to make more room for their healthier siblings. Around 16 years, second cut to make more room for the healthiest specimens. Sometime around 20 to 22 years, the land is clearcut, and started all over again. These hybrid pines make really crappy wood, and they won't live anywhere near 100 years, even if they weren't cut down.
And, I'm pretty sure that these pine plantations account for a huge portion of our claim to be planting trees for the ecology.
IMO, they should be planting fruit trees, and nut trees, more than anything else. Not only does a walnut tree sequester carbon for many years, but it produces healthy food while doing so. Apple trees, depending on variety, are as good as a nut tree. Many other fruit trees have much shorter lifespans, but even so, free food!
Imagine city avenues lined with trees, dropping free food for the kids and/or the homeless for much of the summer and autumn. Why aren't we doing that?
(Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Thursday April 26 2018, @02:40PM (1 child)
FTFY
Some other reasons against it: https://land8.com/5-reasons-why-planting-fruit-trees-along-sidewalks-is-a-terrible-idea/ [land8.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 26 2018, @03:17PM
That link is nothing more than 'food for thought'. Basically, they are saying that they are unwilling to make the effort, because they can only see down sides.