Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday April 26 2018, @05:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the cut-a-tree,-plant-a-tree dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday April 26 2018, @06:34PM (1 child)

    by NewNic (6420) on Thursday April 26 2018, @06:34PM (#672254) Journal

    So does producing, shipping, and installing solar panels and wind turbines.

    If you stop getting your ideas from the fossil fuel lobby for a moment, you will find that the amount of energy (and hence CO2) used in the manufacture and installation of renewable sources is much less than that produced by those renewable sources. Solar panels are now CO2 negative.

    https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf [nrel.gov]

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/the-solar-industry-has-paid-off-its-carbon-debts/510308/ [theatlantic.com]

    https://phys.org/news/2016-12-solar-panels-repay-energy-debt.html [phys.org]

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Virindi on Friday April 27 2018, @01:14AM

    by Virindi (3484) on Friday April 27 2018, @01:14AM (#672413)

    Did you read my comment at all?

    Unless the panel factory, cargo ship, and delivery truck all run on solar power, it produces emissions to deliver you the panel. Calling it "carbon negative" can only be based on subtracting some other fuel you would have presumably burned later otherwise. That type of logic is disingenuous; but regardless, I was talking about what is ACTUALLY USED and not some hypothetical value based on assuming the status quo and measuring deviation from it.