One could argue that the process has the potential to be carbon neutral over very long time scales but not in the short term. “We call it ‘slow in,’ as in it takes a long time for the carbon to accumulate in the forest, and ‘fast out’-you’re burning it so it goes into the atmosphere rapidly,” said Beverly Law, an expert in forest science and management from Oregon State University. But depending on the type of tree, forests may take decades or even a century to draw the same amount of carbon back out of the air. One of the biggest issues is the matter of timing.īurning biomass for energy releases large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere all at once. And some lawmakers have argued that because trees store carbon as they grow, replacement forests will gradually remove the carbon dioxide emitted when the previous trees were burned for energy, making the whole process carbon neutral-that is, putting no net emissions into the atmosphere.īut there are some serious flaws in that argument, many scientists suggest. He said that “recent evidence shows that the use of wood as fuel is likely to result in net CO2 emissions.”īiomass is technically a “renewable” energy source, in that trees can be replanted after they’re harvested. William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist and former president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, was among the latest to weigh in with commentary published in Science yesterday. Many experts suggest that declaring wood burning a carbon-neutral form of energy is not only inaccurate, but a potential step backward for global climate change mitigation efforts. 14).īut scientists have been expressing concern for years about the emissions produced by burning biomass. Chris Sununu (R) last month, Pruitt stated the agency’s decision was partly in response to concerns articulated by the forest and forest products industry ( Climatewire, Feb. He has billed the change as part of the administration’s broader efforts at “energy dominance.” This latest version follows recent comments by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declaring biomass a carbon-neutral energy source. The language has appeared in similar forms in previous spending bills the last few years, due to pressure from lawmakers in forest-heavy states. But scientists say that could be a bad move for the climate.Ī massive fiscal 2018 federal spending bill unveiled by congressional leaders Wednesday night includes a provision urging the heads of EPA, the Energy Department and the Agriculture Department to adopt policies that “reflect the carbon-neutrality of forest bioenergy and recognize biomass as a renewable energy source.” EPA and other federal agencies to recognize the burning of biomass as a carbon-neutral energy source.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |