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This discussion has been archived.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 Nuke on Thursday April 26 2018, @07:35PM (1 child)

    by Nuke (3162) on Thursday April 26 2018, @07:35PM (#672283)

    AC wrote :

    wood is only carbon neutral if you burn as much as you grow (let's say on average over a year .... and I don't think this is happening

    qzm replied :

    You admit you have no clue and as are just guessing?

    AC's statement that it is only carbon neutral if you only burn as much as you grow, ie at the same rate, stands by itself. You don't need evidence, it is basic logic, equivalent to saying that the number of coins in your pocket will not increase if you spend them as fast as you receive them. If you do want evidence, I suggest comparing some old maps with modern ones here in the UK, or take a look at the Doomsday Book. Any very recent increases would be a temporary blip if there were to be a major move to wood fuel. That's in Europe anyway, otherwise visit Brazil or Malasia.

    Trees dying naturally is irrelevent in this scenario because we are talking about harvesting them for fuel. No commercial forester is going to wait until a tree dies of old age before selling it for fuel.

    qzm went on :

    For what it is worth, in Western countries certainly total areas planted in forestry trees is actually increasing, often due to carbon credit plantings

    That is only while they are not widely used as fuel, but this new move is encouraging exactly that. I am in the UK where there are only small areas of forest remaining. Those areas would soon vanish entirely if they were harvested for fuel - the growth rate would fall far short of the potential burn rate. BTW, you said "areas planted" : but planted is a long way from being mature, 20-100 years in fact.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday April 26 2018, @10:26PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 26 2018, @10:26PM (#672359) Journal

    You don't need evidence

    There is a large group of people who believe this, but I am not a member.

    Equaling the "burning" and "growing" might release more carbon, might not, depends on many factors that that "evidence" would provide. There is not a magic rate number or ratio.

    Reasons why not (result):

    • Trees might provide environmental conditions for other life that holds carbon, but not if you cut-burn-and-replant (+ net carbon output).
    • Pollution from burning might reduce other carbon-storing growth elsewhere (+ net carbon output)
    • Trees might grow better overall if culled (- net carbon output).

    There is no "logical truism" involved in the maintenance and measurements of a complex, chaotic system and it's probably not helpful to suggest that there is. Assuming certain results without checking is already an enormous problem in this area, and I submit that more of it isn't a great thing.

    I will say that if you plant trees to replace the ones you're setting on fire, then that makes equaling the "carbon storage" more likely, but only given that it takes it from "overwhelmingly unlikely" to "extremely unlikely, but probably not as far off as before".