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: 2) by meustrus on Thursday April 26 2018, @02:13PM (2 children)
Actually, there is an easy answer. You need to raise their standard of living and economic output enough to support a basic level of universal medical coverage that includes access to safe, effective birth control. When that becomes available, unplanned pregnancies drop off and cultures gradually move towards a neutral or even negative population growth.
But maybe by "easy" you mean "easy to implement". It's true that this approach has its difficulties, including:
Regardless of these difficulties and whether I personally advocate for this, I find it interesting to view the actions of global organizations in light of this strategy. Do the WTO's actions to boost global economies work toward curbing overpopulation? Is that what the WTO wants, or is it a side effect? Is this a common effect of globalization? Also, how many NGOs are working towards exactly this goal, as advertised or surreptitiously?
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 26 2018, @05:01PM (1 child)
Birth control is also a hard sell in some parts of the world. The US government subsidized forced sterilization of women who sought any kind of medical treatment in much of Africa. She comes to the clinic to have an infected cut on her arm treated, and she goes home sterile. Even the least educated people can figure that out after awhile. Maybe if the US hadn't been so sneaky and underhanded in decades past, we could convince people that two kids are enough. Instead, we shot ourselves in the foot.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday April 26 2018, @06:22PM
It's a hard sell because those people have an economic interest in having many children. That's the primary factor that needs to change.
Yes, the USA has f*cked this up mightily. Not just the forced sterilizations, but also the CIA using vaccinations as cover for spying and probably other examples.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory