Renewable energy sources, reduction of CO2 emissions, and generally improving the condition of our environment are issues that have been front and center in the public eye for quite some time now. That is probably because people like me are still driving their gas-guzzling 4×4′s and drinking bottled water. But what a lot of you probably wouldn’t guess about me is that I am a tree hugger. I love trees. I see a good growth of tall, straight oak and I start looking for a sign that says “timber for sale”. You see, my dad is a logger. He also owns a sawmill. The first time I wanted something as a kid and my mom told me money didn’t grow on trees, I was really confused. The timber industry and my family’s income have always been directly related – and I like to shop. That’s part of the reason I’m a tree-hugger.
The other part comes from a knowledge of and appreciation for what trees can do for us. Trees provide the earth with a large amount of the oxygen you and I need to breathe. That in itself is a pretty big deal. Trees also play a key role in the construction industry. There are also thousands of paper mills and charcoal plants in the U.S. alone, all of which require wood byproducts. It is amazing how much trees – a natural and renewable resource – can do for us compared to how little we are actually using them. Like biomass: a source of green energy made of material from living and/or recently living organisms. Examples of usable material would be hydrogen gas, alcohol fuel, and best of all, wood waste. I have been around sawmills my whole life; I know how much and which parts of a tree yield the most profit. Even with a market for sawdust, bark, and other wood fibers, a lot of tree is still left in the wood. Biomass makes all parts of a tree usable and profitable. If biomass as a renewable energy source can gain momentum on a large commercial scale, both the timber industry and the planet will benefit.
When looking at biomass, there are many pros and very few cons. The biggest argument you will find against biomass is its use in correlation with its emission of CO2. The most conventional way in which biomass is used relies on direct incineration – and according to a recent report done by The Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, biomass burning releases more CO2 than the fossil fuels oil, coal, and natural gas. This information has caused the other kind of tree huggers – you know, the ones in the little tiny hybrid cars – to get downright huffy. “It’s worse than coal!” they shout, but what they need to do is go back and read the rest of the MCCS’s report. Biomass may result in an initial carbon debt, but over time, as replanted forests continue to grow, a “carbon dividend” is actually created and greenhouses gases are reduced. In other words, as long as biomass is utilized and more trees are grown, those trees will be recapturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Essentially, biomass cleans up after itself. This is a feat that fossil fuels will never be able to accomplish.
Aside from its obvious green benefits, the rise of an active wood-to-energy market has the potential to bring about many other positive changes nationwide. In a dismal timber industry, biomass may be just the boost needed to keep more mills open. Harvesting biomass could also play a key role in reducing wildfires. Small trees and shrubbery growing amidst older forests create a huge fire hazard. To decrease this risk, public land managers have been mechanically removing fuels from millions of acres of forest nationwide. The cost to do this is staggering. However, utilizing biomass to produce an energy product could drastically offset the cost of forest cleanup. If only the budding biomass industry could gain the cooperation of the EPA.
It would seem that timber harvesters can’t do anything without the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency slapping their hands and putting them in the corner for time-out. Biomass could have been big timber’s peace offering, but now not even a clean, renewable energy option can satisfy Lisa Jackson. In its most recent ruling on greenhouse gases, the EPA reclassified “wood used in energy generation” the same way it classifies coal. Originally, EPA’s proposed tailoring rule recommended that emissions from the combustion of biomass should not be counted, stating that the burning of biomass is indeed “carbon neutral”. But according to the new Rule, the EPA will count biomass CO2 emissions the same as fossil fuel emissions. This could kill a new clean energy industry before it even takes off. But this tree hugger knows it is not yet time to bury the hatchet on biomass.
Sources:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:81dr-lHDfsoJ:monewshorizonblog.org/2010/08/bond-timber-industry-fight-new-epa-woody-biomass-rules/+epa+against+timber+industry&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Trapper Creek Daughter said:
*hasn’t been here in forever* Oh!! Is this the speech?