"The state's environmental affairs secretary is calling for an in-depth study of weightier issues -- like global warming and forestry practices -- that lie behind concerns about wood-burning power plants like a 47-megawatt generator proposed for Greenfield.

Citing public concerns raised about the environmental impact of those projects on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and forests, Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Ian Bowles is calling for public comments on what the scope should be for such a sweeping review.

The state plans to use the ''white paper'' to develop a ''sustainability requirement'' for electricity generated from woody crops and forest products under the its Renewable Portfolio Standard."

http://www.recorder.com/story.cfm?id_no=20080526351

Erik, Orion Grassroots Network

It says these lands, that already give us trails to hike and clean water to drink, can provide renewable power for our toasters while helping to replace long-gone lumbering jobs.

"We fought very vigorously to get this in," said Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., of the provision on energy from biomass -- those branches and small trees that loggers once left behind. "It's essential to help save thousands of jobs in our area."

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/06/power_lurks_in_oregon_forests.html

The air quality in Western Mass is already poor.  The developer's own Environmental Notification Form indicates that his (soggy) woodchip burner will emit more CO2, more particulates and more volatile organic compounds per Megawatt Hour than the Mt. Tom coal plant in Holyoke. 

Investors will cash in on carbon credits and other "green energy" incentives, and my kids will grow up breathing dirty air.  And those ENF numbers are the best case scenario, where the burner will continue to burn only trees and used pallets...

Did you know that a biomass plant planned for Rhode Island states, from in front, that it will burn tires and municipal waste; that several biomass burners originally put forward as "clean wood" burners now burn construction and demolition debris in the heavily forested state of Maine?

You bet there's local opposition.  And scientific opposition to the idea that burning trees helps the planet.  Up-to-date science recognizes that mature forests sequester more carbon than cut-over areas and that a tree rotting slowly over decades emits carbon slower than the mad pulse of a biomass burner.

It burns me up that some con men are inches away from making a killing by exploiting some 90's-era science in Massachusett's fledgling efforts to limit carbon emissions that says burning a ton a minute of green woodchips is cool. 

Franklin County where my family lives, produces twice as much power as it uses by harnessing the rainwater falling as I write, as it flows down the Deerfield and the Connecticut.  It's beautiful country that doesn't have to have a major plume of CO2 and other pollution added to its environmental profile.

The first recording is from a nationally-syndicated radio show. SeaChange Radio broadcast a debate between Chris Matera, founder of Massachusetts Forest Watch and Bob Saul, head of domestic land acquisition with GMO Natural Resources. The second recording features EcoLaw's Margaret Sheehan, former Assistant Attorney General for the Environmental Protection Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, delivering a briefing to members of the US House of Representatives on the issue of biomass combustion and federal climate legislation.

Both recordings together provide a good overview of the concerns that are being expressed nationwide about the wisdom of granting incineration technologies RECs and other subsidies within state and federal clean energy legislation.

http://biomassbuzz.blogspot.com/2009/07/big-questions.html

Erik, Orion Grassroots Network

The second point has to do with the destructive impact upon forest resources. See http://www.maforests.org.

The third has to do with a proposed national RES--and a host of state renewable portfolio standards--that grant renewable energy production credits to facilities that burn municipal solid waste, construction and demolition debris, and other highly toxic materials. The control of hazardous pollutants, particulate matter, and the like is inadequate to protect public health--the "Best Available Control Technology" standard for pollution control is based upion what's feasible for industry, not upon what will be safe for human and animal life. There are serious environmental justice concerns that come with the siting of many of these plants, which tend to be placed in poor neighborhoods, helped along by fast-track permitting.