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 requerdanos on Thursday April 26 2018, @02:57PM (1 child)
There are a couple problems here, as you point out, hiding behind huge and unfounded assumptions.
First, the assumption that fire is a fine control on climate. It isn't. Sure, many things affect climate, presumably including fire, but we don't know how to set up those chaos equations in order to predict that farmer bob burning wood to power his equipment will do a certain thing (good or bad) for overall climate. That's science fiction: it's just nuts, and we have no shortage of nuts weighing in on "climate", most not even able to define the word.
Second, the implied assumption that an overall net balance in carbon storage is all the same to the environment of any given area whether the trees are cut, burned, and replanted, or left alone. In terms of habitat, pollution, shade, many factors, those aren't the same at all.
Although you present an article on the topic of "Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions?", there are some fundamentals affecting that as well. Compare the geologic times involved:
Coal: Biomatter -> long, long, long time -> eventually becomes coal -> burned in a short, short, short time -> only regrow after everyone is long dead and forgotten -> large net increase in CO2 released
Wood: Seeds -> immediately -> become wood -> burned immediately -> regrow immediately -> approximate net balance in CO2 released
If our concern were simply "carbon is bad@!! for Climate!!!
Cooling!Al Gore says Boiling seas and oblivion! Nobel Prize!!!Unspecified Climate 'Change'!" then "carbon neutral" would be a good thing, or at least a not-bad thing.But the responsible concern is taking care of our environment and not polluting it, and not destroying its ecosystems. And that, unfortunately, has precious little overlap with the eco-nuts and carbon-obsessed. Carbon-neutrality or lack thereof doesn't affect it much.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 26 2018, @07:17PM
That's it in a nutshell.
Burning Fossil fuels, at the rate we have been doing, essentially dumps eons of carbon sequestration into the environment in a geologic nano-second.
Burning wood simply doesn't have a lasting effect.
Provided of course that you re-grow the wood, whether you need it or not.
(Britain has never done this. They are all chuffed about restoring 11% of the land [telegraph.co.uk] to forests. You look at UK scenery today and you just want to scream: Plant some Trees People! Way too much pasture land for the size of the population.)
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.