Breaking news would be if Pruitt ever did anything constructive rather than destructive, and ethical instead of unethical.
3
Are you really saying that burning a biofuel is worse than burning coal? Please send me your journal paper explaining this, because it is beyond my understanding.
1
Yes, Pruitt may well be wrong on burning forests for energy, but the New York Times is "wrong" in its own way for failing to inform its readers about two major renewable energy technologies, one of which involves the combustion of a mix of renewable energy fuels, one of which is forest products.
The primary technology that heats space in Sweden - from the size of a single home on up - is combustion of a mixture of solid waste and forest left-overs with possibly some fossil fuel. The Swedish name for this system is "Fjärrvärme", literally distance heating, which in the USA goes under the misleading name "district heating"
The Times fails almost totally to inform its readers about this, just as it fails to inform them about heat-pump technology,my comment yesterday @ http://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/opinion/politicians-dont-need-new-idea...
My two cities, Linköping and Göteborg have some of the most advanced incinerator systems in existence, and these systems do use some fraction of bio-materials - what is left over after trees have been converted in building materials.
Fine to castigate Pruitt but far better to inform your readers how the Nordic countries show the way to become fossil-fuel free as concerns space heating.
Pics @
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
3
Umm, fossil fuel free? You just said they burn trees and biomass which also contains plant material. Where does the carbon go after incineration?
1
The writers correctly note that burning wood in large amounts for electricity generation is not a good idea. They ignore, however, another danger of burning wood: soot. Because wood has many non-flammable components and burns at a lower temperature than coal, oil or natural gas, it releases more fine, black particle into the air. Due to prevailing weather patterns, much of that soot accumulates and falls on the (white) ice and snow near the north pole, decreasing its reflectivity and speeding up the melting of that snow and ice. Try it out on your driveway next winter by scattering a small amount of ash on the snow. This is one of the reasons tht the ice melt in nothern regions is much faster than is predicted by temperature rise alone.
4
Okay so vote in November. Get everyone you know to vote in November. Work with an organization of your choice to get strangers to vote in November.
Come January 2019, let the hearings begin. That’s the game plan, that’s the path to recourse. It’s not easy, but it is simple.
6
This is astounding. Burning wood to produce energy is one the polluting activities known to man.
4
"Pruitt Is Wrong on Burning Forests for Energy" reads the Times headline.
Has Pruitt ever been right about anything?
p.
3
We don't need no 'stinkin' science.
2
This man is a menace.
4
Narrowly speaking, every natural process is an irreversible process, so if the world ends tomorrow, in addition to being dead, we couldn’t depend on photosynthesis.
Clear cutting a forest, whether a plantation forest [sic. Remember: A Tree Farm is NOT a Forest] is never beneficial to the environment. The benefit is only monetary and to a few. Unfortunately bio mass electrical generation programs, "thinning' programs and "salvage logging" operations are almost always motivated entirely by economic gain. HOWEVER, RESPONSIBLE THINNING IS NEEDED AND WILL COST MONEY AND IS A GOOD INVESTMENT. Many of our forests have been clearcut or overcut in the 20th century. They have grown back dense with undergrowth. We need thinning programs that will remove trees less than 6" and dead trees in areas of bark beetle or Sudden Oak Death. I own 55 acres of coastal forest in Northern California. Close to Santa Rosa, California we saw first-hand the damage. Our forests are in recovery from earlier logging, dense and vulnerable to extreme wildfire. Responsible thinning is backbreaking work. Carefully controlled biomass electrical generation might defray some of the costs; however, such thinning will never mean immediate profit. Responsible thinning programs are labor-intensive and cost, not earn, money. However, seeing the devastation that has resulted from this past October's wildfires, the cost in human life and suffering, and the resulting environmental damage, such thinning efforts are economically viable and should be subsidized. Remember, AN INTACT ENVIRONMENT IS ALWAYS ECONOMICALLY MORE VIABLE THAN A DEGRADED ONE.
2
Here is something that might have escaped Mr. Pruitt's attention. On a geologic timescale, the burning of fossil fuels can also be considered "carbon neutral" because today's emissions will eventually be mineralized or re-fossilized. All it takes is a few tens of millions of years.
4
Pruitt's illicit expenditures burn cash. Nothing neutral about it.
3
The elephant in the room is that Scott Pruitt is a dishonest agent for the moneyed class and cares not for people, the environment or America
His argument is more interesting. Over the centuries there may be truth to the carbon neutral view of forests morphing into atmospheric gasses and then back into trees and plants. It is an example of myopic "logic" where one factor of a situation is dominate while ignoring all others.
Amusing is that another OK guy, Jim Imhoff did the same with daylight saving time thinking that having light longer in the evening would save electricity while ignoring the earlier morning heating increase. Something about Oklahoma?
5
Putting a religious fundamentalist in charge of a department that relies on science is like making Jack the Ripper the Surgeon General.
Pruitt attempted to attach a warning to high school biology textbooks that “Evolution is only a theory”. Fruit was unaware that in science, a theory is regarded as the current best explanation for why things work the way they do. An untested proposal in science is referred to,as a hypothesis. I wonder if Pruitt would have supported a warning on the Bible that religion is a form of mythology.
6
In short, plant and burn, not burn and plant.
2
There is a solution to Climate Change.........
The solution is Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) like GE-Hitachi's PRISM reactor. It can replace boilers at closed, or soon to be closed, coal-fired power plants. It can utilize all other existing infrastructure, and convert these facilities into emissions-free electricity producers.
PRISM reactors can utilize nuclear waste (spent nuclear fuel) as a fuel source, consuming and destroying 95% of it to produce electricity. The remaining 5% is rendered far safer, easier and cheaper to dispose of than the incoming spent fuel.
The spent fuel that is currently stored (awaiting disposal) at nuclear power plants around the country represents a 500 year supply of electricity for the U.S. if we will just utilize PRISM technology to convert it into safe, affordable, emissions-free electricity.
We DO have a solution to Climate Change. PRISM technology represents the ultimate in recycling. Canada plans to use SMRs---- China plans to use SMRs ------ why don't we? Short answer......the Koch Brothers don't want it and will spend money to keep the public from understanding PRISM's potential.
5
Pruitt is the most ignorant individual when it comes to environment, global warming, and SCIENTIFIC FACTS are foreign to him. When we built our home in Colorado 24 years ago, we could not put in a wood burning fireplace, because they were already banned, now he wants to cut down our beautiful forests and burn them in factories. He is mad.
6
Sorry America, get used to wearing face masks in industrial areas. Mr Xing would approve ;)
2
I want to point out to some of the commenters here that burning biomass in a power plant doesn't produce smoke the same way as a forest fire. Power plants have particulate controls. You can check out Burlington Vermont's biomass plant in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhzVcHrWH4
Burlington claims to be a "100% renewable electricity" town. Besides the reasons given in the article, I personally don't support greatly expanding biomass because it's not a scalable solution to carbon-free energy and I think cutting down our forests is the name of climate change is insane (but apparently makes sense to the "environmentalists" in Burlington).
The author's are wrong to say that wind and solar are cheaper alternatives. They reference Lazard's levelized cost of energy. This metric doesn't account for the cost of storage, which is currently extremely expensive and impractical. Currently wind and solar are paired with fossil fuel plants which can ramp up when the sun is not shining or the wind stops, so overall it ends up being a small reduction in carbon emissions for a lot of money.
Nuclear is statistically by far the safest form of electricity production and the only option that can practically be scaled up to replace fossil fuels. I would encourage anyone who's interested in climate change and energy policy to try to keep an open mind and really take a look at the facts. Our future depends on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
3
That Pruitt effectively now wants to turn our national forests into pellets for wood stoves fits an existing pattern.
Given the existing trend lines, the endgame is bleak. To summarize: Pruitt, along with Zinke, is trying to create a regulatory landscape for the 21st century that while even more irrational would be quite familiar to the buffalo hunters who killed off the great bison herds of the American West in the 19th: Go ahead and kill as many as you want, even if you leave their carcasses, hides and all, by the hundreds of thousands to rot on the ground.
The unregulated buffalo hunters, whether hired guns or amateurs, were a key part of General Sheridan's strategy to destroy the way of life of the native tribes across a vast swath of unsettled land including all of Oklahoma. Pruitt either knows global warming is real and needs to be taken seriously and has been corrupted by the fossil fuel industry he has close ties with, or he is intellectually incapable of carrying out his duties.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-the-buffalo-no-longer-roame...
4
Well, I guess our skies are indeed too clean, as Pruitt claimed a few weeks back. Let’s dirty them up with even better particulate and toxin producing energy by returning to the most ancient technologies, as in pre-Stone Age.
Obviously, Mr. Pruitt has not spent much time in countries where people do still burn wood as a key source of energy for heat and cooking (no I’m not talking about that cozy fireplace in your mountain cabin where you roast marshmallows and somores). I don’t want to mention those countries because I don’t mean to malign them. THEY are doing the best they can.
But, in many communities the sky is enshrouded all day, morning to night, in wood smokie air. Coughing children and adults are simply a normal part of being humans that must breathe. My asthma kicks up when I visit those places; in the USA I don’t suffer from asthma.
Pruitt and Trump together MAGA through bringing back cheap, filthy energy technology.
4
What kind of human breeds such destruction on the one hand and an uncontrolled mania for self gratification- on the other: Avarice to the point of indulging himself at any expense. The list is increasing daily; like forcing his own staff to pay out-of-pocket for their hotel rooms just for his own indulgences to the unique "Oklahoma" way of purchasing property...
Gifting our air, water and forestry to the highest bidder? And. For. What? Is this a philosophical matter about how best to "Protect" the environment? Does he comprehend what the "P" of the E.P.A. stands for? People of Oklahoma (and every one else) please vote with intelligence the next time- because the rest of us now have to live with your decision.
6
Did I read that right? Pruitt taking into account carbon in his decision? Most likely to distract from the most dumbfounding move - to pollute the world.
Only a trump appointment could come up with - lets burn our forests that will change the environment so that new forests cannot possibly grow again. Brilliantly criminal.
It's not their planet to destroy!
4
The U.S. seems to have no problem with charging foreign individuals for various crimes. I'm wondering... can other rational countries charge this man with crimes against Mother Earth?
2
“Pruitt Is Wrong on Burning Forests for Energy”
To be frank, the headline is as silly as the notion that Pruitt is expressing some “view” of his agency regarding carbon neutrality.
If one wants to understand Pruitt’s policy decisions, they need only examine Pruitt’s past/current associations. His personal, political and financial interests are aligned with fossil fuel lobbyists and (not coincidentally) in conflict with environmental protection.
Of course, even this basic observation is almost trivial, when balanced against Pruitt’s brazen corruption. If Pruitt’s has supporters among those conservatives who favor deregulation, fine. But there is no getting around the obvious fact that Pruitt (despite his personal wealth) enjoys having tax payers fund his lavish lifestyle and that he makes little effort to counter the impression that he is absolutely for sale. If the Nature Conservancy could offer him private jets and dirt cheap condos, Pruitt would happily shut down every coal mine in the country.
So never mind the climate change “debate.” Pruitt’s opinions on the matter are offered in bad faith. This corrupt appointee of a corrupt administration is simply doing what all degenerates do when given even a modicum of power... he’s abusing it for his own personal reasons.
5
This is yet one more glaring example of how much damage one individual can make when a president (who has publicly professed not to believe in environmental pollution) appoints someone who, like himself, callously could care less about how much damage his policies do to our ecosystem.
Up until the Trump presidency, the U.S. had made substantial progress in cleaning and restoring our environment. Those of you who grew up in the 60's and 70's know what it was like back then. Well, Trump and Pruitt seem to be on the same moronic page when it comes to environmental policies.
What a horrible nightmare this president's administration has become -- in terms of both political and environmental pollution.
5
if only we had or would commit to building 100 or 1000 new, second generation nuclear power plants, we would not need to use our lovely forests for anything but furniture building the way German forestry experts of the last 4 centuries planned. Nuclear energy is cleaner than (and safer) solar power-that's right! Statistically people are more likely to be killed from a fall or a accident at a wind or solar power station than anyone is of getting injured or irraciated at a nuclear power plant!
Nuclear power works in sun, at night, in the winter or even if the sun went out like a cheap lightbulb.
Nuclear power is the present of the creators-and, we can, if we are too thich to finally capture all the sunlight and make it into power-we can make more fuel-until the end of time-until ragnarok-the final trump-all that sort of thing. We can turn them off when we don't need 'em, anymore.
Nuclear is what we ought to have done 40 years ago but too many weenies p-d their pants over the idea of "radiation"-you know-like what we get from the sun every day.. .
2
"Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition announced on May 30, 2011, that Germany's 17 nuclear power stations will be shut down by 2022..."
"Chancellor Angela Merkel said the nuclear power phase-out, previously scheduled to go offline as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable energy era, stating, "As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs". Merkel also pointed to Japan's "helplessness" – despite being an industrialized, technologically advanced nation – in the face of its nuclear disaster"
You mean THAT Germany?
1
"It’s basic science."
And therein lies the problem. Pruittism is based on ignorance and corruption, not factual reason and integrity.
Unfortunately, that's a perfect match with Trumpism, so the scourge of Scott Pruitt will not end until this administration does. And an incredible amount of environmental damage will be done in the meantime.
2
It is time for people like Pruitt and others with disdain for science to be shown the door and if possible put behind another one behind which he will languish while we attempt to undo the damage he has done to our country and our future.
Period
1
can we file a class action lawsuit against Scott Pruitt?
I am.outraged . I am beyond upset. Why are we not hearing about this from cable news? it's our future??
I live in the Southeast , on a barrier island and have seen.the mass cutting of lots, where mature 100/400 year old oaks flourished, and provided retention and permeability for storms.
I am appalled ,when the technology exists to create carbon free energy , yet with this False Presidency , were going in the opposite direction.
This is going to have the longest lasting impact on us and our children's lives.
4
Our EPA Head hears "global warming" and says basically "We don't know". He knows that rising seawater alone IS CATACLYSMIC!
An invention of fact-contrary policy to supersede ESTABLISHED PROTECTIONS - is more than "We don't care." It's more than corruption of the duties of his office, more than the breaking of his oath to protect Americans.
Scott Pruitt is KNOWINGLY ELIMINATING regulations that contribute to the mitigation of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. That callous act will cause HIGHER LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE which will be attributable to the official in charge, Scott Pruitt.
The regulations were based upon established science to lessen consequences, including human suffering and death.
Any specific failings of the EPA which led to any fabrications causing reversals in CO mitigation must be documented.
Any use of data and analysis that was not adequately vetted, including its contrasts with established science and its chain-of-scientific-advocacy, must be documented.
The rise of the Scott Pruitt's is the real brand of "activist" to be concerned with - an "activist political appointee" who believes that a lawyer with a domestic agenda gets to choose science that eliminates environmental protections. SHAME on the elected leaders who foisted the darkness from Scott Pruitt upon us.
2
Here in Florida, Miami Dade County is currently on a mission to plant one million trees by 2020. The reason for this is that trees not only sequester CO2 but also cool the planet. Urban areas that are shaded are several degrees cooler than areas that are pure asphalt. (Needless to say, the project is privately funded. No federal or state money is used for such scientific nonsense. It might give people ideas that Governor Scott "believes" in climate change.)
My point is, it's common knowledge that we need more trees, not less. On top of that, it is common knowledge as well that burning anything, including wood, increases small particle pollution in the air. (COPD anyone? Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease is now the number 3 killer in this country.) Of course that doesn't bother Pruitt who never goes outside and avoids mixing with the common air as much as he avoids the common people who fly coach.)
Scott Pruitt is on a mission: to create as much havoc and destruction as he possibly can to fire up the stupid base and then run for Senator Inhofe's seat.
Pruitt, just like Trump, has no soul.
3
I wish you would have made a distinction in this article between different ways to go about biomass electricity production. Not all of it is bad, some of it, a lot of it, is good. You make it sound all bad. Of course harvesting trees solely for electricity production is a bad idea. But what about using the waste from fire prevention forest management to make electricity? What about extracting methane from animal manure and using that to create electricity instead of releasing it into atmosphere.
I know you want to make a persuasive case and win your argument, but don't do it at the expense of a worthy cause. In our case her in the Sierras we are killing two birds with one stone in an efficient and clean manner. We are reducing the fuel for devastating fires in our forests and using the waste to cleanly make electricity in an incredibly efficient manner. The alternative would be to let devastating fires run rampant and burn fossil fuels for the electricity we need beyond what we produce with wind, solar and hydro.
Scott Pruitt is a terrible EPA leader. He has been bought and sold by polluters many times over. But, please be careful, when you take up a battle with him on a topic that is nuanced and needs clear distinctions. The American people need to know and understand how these green technologies work, and how they don't. They will never get it from Scott Pruitt. You(the science community) are their only hope.
2
It would be really nice, even if only for one day, if we as a country (congress included!)could forget about Stormy Daniels, Trumps endless lies, Russian collusion etc., and concentrate on removing this man from office!
Would that be so hard? Would that be so wrong? Don't we deserve better? Doesn't Mother Nature deserve better?
The time is now!
2
I’ve enjoyed wood heat for a large portion of my life. It is also one of the worst emitters of toxic pollutants that there is.
Bad idea!
2
I don't even think this guy believes this stuff anymore. However, anything to stay in the good graces of our fearless leader.
Truly, truly awful, this guy is the worst of the bunch. And that says a lot.
2
Forests, where they exist, are the anchors of functional ecosystems. Pruitt uttering nonsense about burning forests for fuel makes Trump's statements about the future of coal, by comparison, look positively reasonable.
3
Like Trump, Pruitt only does something if it involves profit for him or payback to a crony. Has anyone investigated -forensically- his finances. He's getting paid by somebody.
2
The scientific studies on these issues are all over the place depending on the sponsor or the mindset of the authors. One could argue that they are mostly opinion pieces.
There are good and bad ways of doing most things and by analyzing the "right" scenario, burning wood can range from carbon neutral to being worse then coal (at least from a CO2 perspective). What is typically left out of the anti-wood studies is an understanding of what happens in a real forest absent proper management. It reaches steady state with most of the sequestered carbon being released back into the atmosphere by fire and decomposition. Only a small portion ends up in the soil.
Forest management, especially when the prime product is lumber and the remainder is chipped and burned in power plants, is a sound and nearly carbon-neutral practice. Also, forest thinning where the hard-wood proceeds are burned locally for home heating is also nearly carbon-neutral and an excellent way to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
1
I hate the modern form of debates today. The first step is to take the most extreme position possible and argue from there. The truth is almost always in the messy in between.
First off, no matter how you feel about Scott Pruitt, according to the scientific paper cited, the EU (not known as environmental rapists) declared biofuels carbon neutral (which the paper then, in fairness, goes on to raise concerns with that assessment because of the front loading of CO2 into the atmosphere) and I agree with the authors that clear cutting large sections of land for fuel is expensive and unwise but, at least here in the Northeast that is rarely, if ever done. In a well managed forest, the primary product is wood (veneers, lumber, strand/particle board, etc.) which stays sequestered for the life of the resulting home/furniture, the secondary product is pulp for paper and tissue, and finally, where transportation costs are low enough on the waste, fuel. The key is being a well managed forest. Regulations supporting such management is sound economics and environmentally. Over zealous regulation just encourages forest land to be cleared for housing developments etc. and backlash of the kind personified by the likes of Pruitt. Let's be balanced and reasonable here.
1
Two thoughts on this: first, it is a pity the same assessment of the total carbon impact is not applied to determine the net effect of manufacturing products like electric vehicles; second, wonder what Angus King, liberal senator from Maine thinks of this. He got rich pushing and building biomass-burning power plants, and represents a state where they are still popular.
2
Forests for fuel can and are grown on relatively short rotations here , however, the biodiversity values of these forests are pathetic.
Avoiding deforestation and managing forests on longer rotations that simulate natural old growth forests is where forest science is heading.
Here in Western North Carolina scraggly 25 yr old hardwood forests are clearcut mainly for pellet stoves, which are largely located in Western Europe. These forests should be left to grow, even if managed for high quality hardwood logs. Older forests build stable soil carbon banks and are high in biodiversity and aesthetic value as well.
10
If a 25 year old stand is being clear-cut and utilized for pellet production it is most likely because the species composition does not meet the objectives of the land manager. Biomass production is generally a by product of habitat restoration and or the production of more valuable forest products which we all use and which store carbon for the life of the product.
Rarely is biomass production the driving force behind the decision to harvest timber in a managed forest. The whole premise of this article is based on the ( false ) assumption that biomass production is causing deforestation.
The title of this piece is misleading and contributes to numerous reactionary comments which condem a viable energy source without considering the details and circumstances of the situation which have been pointed out by a minority of commenters. Disdain for Pruitt and Trump has likely prevented a more thoughtful assessment of this issue.
1
Carbon neutrality exists when the net amount of carbon in the biosphere remains constant. The biosphere includes trees, soil, dissolved CO2 in the oceans, carbonate minerals, and carbon within organisms. Fossil fuels are not part of the biosphere. Disequilibrium arises from new carbon added to the biosphere from burning fossil fuels. Trees and soil are part of the biosphere so burning them is carbon neutral. It will take time for the released carbon to be sequestered but Pruitt is right - it will eventually be sequestered. The fact is, the real problem we have is burning fossil fuels; the amount of new carbon in the atmosphere is dominated by fossil fuels, not by burning trees. That being said, I am not at all advocating burning trees, just trying to be accurate with the details.
1
The red thread that runs through the cabal of saboteurs that passes for Trump's Cabinet is their mission to turn government into a tool for corporate greed instead of the public interest.
Not just figuratively: in every federal department industry hacks ushered in by Trump's minions are laying the groundwork for privatization of federal functions across all agencies. They're replacing the "Deep State" with an even deeper and darker Corporate State that will facilitate toxic pollution instead of regulate.
Pruitt is blazing the trail as the ultimate corporate lobbyist who becomes the federal agency he was paid to bend to his client's will.
EPA is the shield between corporate malefactors and clean air, water, public health and safety, and nature. Pruitt has shifted EPA from a defense department to a war department. Count on millions of casualties and trillions in health costs.
Pruitt acts like he's a temporary hire, eager to make as many friends as he can with corporations at war with the earth. He's invited them to rewrite regulations to their liking. He'll impress his future employer or client and wreak as much havoc before he bails and returns to first class and all the fancy homes polluters have bought for him.
Sabotaging EPA is just Pruitt's marketing and promotional campaign for his future services to companies that destroy the earth for profit and use it as their toxic waste bin.
The problem isn't that Pruitt is wrong. It's that he doesn't care.
16
Pruitt is badly misguided. Scientists who say all burning of wood is bad conflate geographies and conditions and misinform. For those of us that live in the West where fire risk is high, removing wood helps prevent increasingly common catastrophic wildfire. Catastrophic wildfire we count in the tens of thousands of acres. Climate change is only making things worse (yes, it is very real). One of these mega wildfires, totaling 65,000 acres—100 square miles, burned just up valley from my home ten and a half years ago. Forty-four percent of the burned landscape was older forest. That forest was lost to the fire but, worse, no forest is coming back. The land is now chaparral, a mix of mostly shrubs.
In the fire-prone West, we must remove fuels that turn forests into tinderboxes. It’s not just about protecting homes. There’s also a difference between managing forests for energy production and removing forest waste material and making energy with it, while reducing the likelihood of the forest burning up. Making electricity helps to pay for needed forest management. Better still, we pair bioenergy facilities with businesses that need heat. This improves economics, improves plant efficiencies, improves the carbon balance, and can lead to more resilient forests. Scientists arguing it’s all bad are little different from Pruitt arguing it’s all good.
3
Fuel from thinning out west can’t support an electric generation industry. The supply is too erratic. The bulk of would would come from clear cuts in the East.
3
Who is going to work in, or next to, these factories, refineries, boilers, and power plants? Who is going to inhale the smoke? As it is getting colder in Auckland, New Zealand, people are starting to use their fireplaces at home. During "still" winters the woodsmoke hover over villages and lead to serious health problems, especially in the case of babies and older people. There will always be wildfires and there will always be people who die from smoke inhalation. Where do we draw the line?
3
To the comment, my point is that we need places to burn wood waste that predisposes our forests to catastrophic burns that release many tons of carbon, black carbon and other pollutants. Let's manage this waste stream in the most efficient and ecologically sound manner.
To the second comment, emissions from a fireplace or an open burn are far, far worse--two orders of magnitude for some pollutants--than burning in a confined boiler with current, well-operated emissions control equipment. I have lived in a small mountain community with many older wood stoves non-compliant with important EPA standards. Winter air inversions made breathing hazardous.
"Burning wood for fuel discharges more carbon dioxide emissions than burning coal and is more expensive than utility-scale wind or solar energy. "
We don't use expensive fuel sources when cheaper sources are out there because nobody would pay the market premium. According to the authors, burning wood is pretty much the most expensive way to produce energy. So wood fuel is noncompetitive and is going nowhere. And it would seem that, however it is classified by the EPA, it's a non-starter.
2
While this idea brought about by Pruitt is fraught with issues, there could be some validity for treating forest products from fire prone Western states more favorably.
If timber in high risk area is most likely going to burn in the next few decades anyways, then it could be beneficial to have some of the forest thinned and the fuel used to create energy as opposed to it burning in massive forest fires in the future.
If incentives were put in place to bring more timber to market in the West for the purpose of fire prevention and energy generation there would be positive spill over effects for jobs, summer air quality, and protection of property.
3
From a European point of view this Scott Pruitt is a more than funny appearance. Sorry to say that.
3
Hehehe. Reminds one of Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit. Poor soul...
Merkel too, don't you think?
Scott Pruitt has exposed the real reasons for his pro-polluter/anti-environmentalism extremism:
He believes industries that pollute the environment by exploiting resources for human gain are doing God's work.
I've proposed this prior, now it's on record:
Pruitt's polluting agenda is driven by his Southern Baptist Christian doctrine, it's finally been published:
NPR 'On Fire For God's Work': How Scott Pruitt's Faith Drives His Politics:
NPR reports that Pruitt recently told the Christian Broadcasting Network that he believes God blessed people with natural resources like coal and oil so that we can use them:
“The biblical worldview with respect to these issues is that we have a responsibility to manage and cultivate, harvest the natural resources that we've been blessed with to truly bless our fellow mankind”.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=607181437
This is the problem with letting Scott Pruitt hijack EPA.
Pruitt is directing a government agency upon which we all depend for the very air we breath, to mandate a religious basis for polluting.
Whatever other convenient scandals might be employed to see that he's made to cease & desist this activity, it's not the main reason to rid of Scott EPA of Pruitt.
The fact remains that there is a religious war in this country. Fundamentalist Christians like Scott Pruitt believe that God put Trees here to burn.
Pruitt's faith dictates that nature exists for humans to use up.
This is the issue.
22
Calvinism will kill us all.
1
Time to call the lawyers and sue Pruitt and his minions.
I meant to throw away that ad from the Environmental Defense Fund I got in the mail yesterday; now, I think I’ll send them a check.
4
Good grief. We should be planting trees, not burning them!
12
Can some Trump supporter PLEASE explain to the rest of us why you voted for this??? How will this make America great?? Pretend we're your grandchildren and explain to us how you will explain it to them.
10
Poor Pruitt's had a rough go lately. I say let's give the boy chance.
Let's start with all the trees in Oklahoma. If that goes well, we can move on from there.
2
The "administrator of the EPA", suggesting in a time of world-critical carbon management that burning trees from managed forests is 'carbon neutral.' I never thought I'd see the day. Caveman. Pillager. Ransacker. Brute.
12
Mr. Pruitt has rendered moot the principle that chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology will direct policy making and execution at EPA. His administration is based on religious zealotry and no reasoning, education, or scientific knowledge will change his behavior.
That does not mean we should take no action. Pruitt has hardly been reticent about his fervent relationship with all manner of scripture and religious doctrine. If some unknown brave individual from the Department of Justice would initiate an Establishment Clause legal action against the religion-based actions of this primitive shaman, it may generate some creative way to use the 1st amendment in areas of governance where faith is elevated over knowledge.
9
If he is so religious why is he STEALING from the
US Treasury?
I am with the authors up to the point where they declare that burning coal releases less CO2 than burning wood. I suppose a tree will capture CO2 as long as it grows. If I cut down a tree and replace it with another one, it will capture CO2. Sure a new seedling will not capture as much CO2 as a mature tree, but so will a dying mature tree release as much CO2 as one burnt for energy production (unless it becomes coal, gas, or oil under certain extreme circumstances).
As the seedling grows it will eventually be carbon neutral. Will it not?
Are the authors arguing that the time difference between harvesting and regrowth is the issue?
I have a piece of land and I burn the wood of old trees in my fireplace thinking that it gives me warmth (replacing natural gas) and that the CO2 would be released anyway as the old branches decay on the ground.
1
Time difference is on large issue. You could think of it this way: You and tree live in a contained environment, the tree is your source of oxygen. You can consume the tree and plant however many new trees you want. But if you consume too much of your mature tree, you will not have enough oxygen and too much carbon dioxide and perish.
I'm being a bit simplistic, but the timing aspect is right. Sure, you'll eventually be neutral, but perhaps long after you don't care any longer.
6
As I see the plan, it's carbon neutral if all goes well. But what if an unexpected series of forest fire destroys the replacement saplings? Then we'd have twice the burn and little capture. Or what if a prolonged drought due to climate change wipes out the new trees? It seems planning on nature to be kind has a long history to the contrary. I have to think the carbon capture numbers projected are based on decades of photosynthesis/respiration per tree. Trees don't become large overnight, and don't forget, trees aren't all that active during winter dormancy. Climate scientists are saying the time window for carbon reduction is already upon us, so it's simply not prudent to immediately increase the problem via burning, especially if the expected future repair won't be realized for decades. This bargained for quasi carbon neutrality is clearly a gamble not worth the risk.
4
Here's a link to EPA's policy statement Pruitt was talking about.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-04/documents/biomass_pol...
From reading through, it appears that they've decided that giving the green light to the industry was preferred over completing the complex scientific assessment which, according to this summary, began in 2011 and reached some kind of impasse in the Science Advisory Board in 2014. Gee, and since then Pruitt fired the non-industry scientists from the Science Advisory Board.
I think Pruitt's reversed from suing EPA to creating reasons for it to be sued more. Not sure he's even allowed to issue the green light if the science findings aren't complete and done with the public comment period.
5
I agree but we are running out of government referees. My fear is that there will be no one to stop him. We need to turn both houses of Congress Blue in November. Veto-proof majorities would be nice, but not likely. But, with Dem. majorities in each house, control and chairs of all committees become Democratic. If that scenario can raise the blood pressure of a 70+ overweight rage-a-holic, well, maybe nature will take its course and save everyone a lot of trouble.
3
If there are economic problems in rural red state America, this is not the way to solve them.
Instead, a Civilian Conservation Corps emerging out of Bernie Sanders' plans for public service jobs and full employment should be guided by our best forest scientists on where planting new forests would do the most good, and which species to plant. The new forests can - and should - have more than one purpose. Improving water quality is one, especially stream side forest corridors, but also flanking agriculture lands to prevent soil erosion.
I've heard testimony from Baltimore area legislators in this year's session in Annapolis that there are many trees to be planted in and around that city, gaps in the urban forest canopy, but the local government does not have the staff to do it - and to maintain the trees once started.
It seems to me, that on this, as on most other issues, Mr. Pruitt is an environmental antagonist, if not a looming disaster.
Someday forests will have the same regulatory protection that wetlands do in many states. Maryland has very weak protections for forests, and the replacement ratios required when they are bulldozed for development don't begin to compensate for the losses, the global warming "budgets" presented here.
A whole new perspective is needed and the hour is growing very late for us all, forests and the humans which depend on them, often in unacknowledged ways.
9
Jared Diamond in his book Collapse accurately points out that using tress for heat, light and construction material led to the collapse in societies as diverse as Greenland and Scotland. Using wood for these purposes is a very bad idea.
5
This was possibly an issue in the disappearance of various people in the Southwest as well.
There are other environmental issues to consider besides carbon: cutting trees can lead to erosion if not outright landslides. Topsoil and generations upon generations of forest floor are lost. Animal and other plant life, entire complex systems, are destroyed.
I can't believe we are even discussing this.
4
and what civilizations, extinct or otherwise, have NOT used wood as fuel and building material
I don't see anything in the article or in the readers' comments about the incentive for landowners to plant forests. I live in New Zealand where the quest is to get private landowners to plant trees to sequester carbon.
Maybe in the US you have spare land that will just go back into forest because there is no other use for it, but in most of the world forestry is a choice that has to be justified.
If giving more economic incentive to land owners to plant forests by allowing the waste wood from trees to be made into pellets is not acceptable, what other incentive do you propose?
Carbon credits? Payments to coppice fast growing species and bury the wood underground? Payments to chip wood and plough it into the soil? All these things require govts to make payments to stakeholders or otherwise force forest owners to carry the burden of carbon sequestration. The latter generally doesn't work very well. We have the experience here in New Zealand that when the govt changed the carbon credit regime many landowners returned their land to farmland.
Using Solar energy and Wind energy will avoid using fossil fuels but that is not the same as sequestering carbon.
10
Heaven and Hell are Hogwash.
However, I wish Pruitt could live forever...so he would watch all the destruction he wreaking on humankind.
I'm certainly glad I'll be dead when the cows really come home to roost from man's war on the environment.
7
Reply to comment from Jay David: "so he would watch all the destruction he's wreaking on humankind." There are certain people that would never believe the truth if it's right in front of their eyes. Unfortunately, Mr. Pruitt, who has been placed in charge of one of the most important agencies in our government as the EPA Administrator, is one of those people. He'll deny that climate change is caused by any policy implemented during his term and go right on as a poster boy for the less regulation movement. Hard to believe that a human being, if you consider Mr. Pruitt as part of the human race, who has no value what-so-ever to society, could recommend and implement policies that can do so much damage to the environment.
12
To Pruitt's (and the rest of this swamp-like cabinet) grandchildren, great and great great children, this is the legacy this person has left behind. Please don't pay it forward.
Nice to see Pruitt joining the war on coal.
1
I have no words...
2
Mr. Kelly, who just resigned, has been banned FOR LIFE from being involved in the banking system. Something to think about, huh?
6
I mean, what are friends for? Can't get a job in your own industry, ask your buddy if any employment positions are available under his purview that offer a good job plus terrific benefits.
Seemingly always left out of the energy equation, human health, go to PubMed and search "particulate matter health." Mr. Pruitt when you're finished reviewing the 24000 articles get back to us with a more inclusive argument.
8
I believe on of the requirements for selection as a possible appointee in the Trump administration is the candidates pledge that they will not read any material(s) that may alter or question their belief in their Olympian leader's pronouncements or policies.
5
The foxes won't run the hen house for long as they'll burn it down soon.
2
We should be planting forests not burning them. Greed has a way of inducing people to ignore the obvious. The planet will heal in time but there will be a lot of human suffering that doesn't have to happen.
2
Pruitt can't be wrong! He is right because he says so! Isn't that enough?
1
The ignorance of this man is beyond belief.
9
It's not ignorance. It's evil.
3
Actually, the ignorance of this man is BECAUSE of belief. And 40% of this country would vote for his boss again. At least I hope it's still that low. That $78 tax cut worth a Sam's Club membership might be too sweet to give up in the interest of saving the country.
15
Why is this an in charge of MY ENVIRONMENT? This is not his planet. How is he unilaterally able to make decision that will pollute and rape our lands? Does he have grandchildren? Children? Friends? Do people like Scott Pruitt have friends or spouses? Does anyone like them?
5
A pathological liar, knows you know he is lying, but continues the lie anyway. Scott Pruitt qualifies! Is it any wonder Trump gets along with him so well?
1984 is here!
3
Behold ... more contempt for science.
2
So Pruiit wants to take us back to 18th Century energy practices. We've learned since then why burning our forests for energy is a bad idea. Just ask Alexander Von Humboldt
5
Don't forget that under 18th Century energy practices we can have our Navy fit all their ships with computer-guided harpoons and rid the world of those pesky whales so that we can light our lamps with their oil!!!
1
It seems Pruitt lacks both intelligence and the common sense. May be he should read my grandson's 3rd grade science book. Its all their for him to learn about the environment May be like his boss Donald, he cannot read. Please someone tell us how Pruitt got into the law school in the first place?
4
Is he criminally insane or 'just' evil?
1
evil. Unjustly so. Own brother to Trump ...
2
It is no coincidence that the Koch Industries owns Georgia Pacific. What a disaster.
10
Better investigate whether any lobbyist from the Georgia Forestry Association has been allowing Pruitt and his family to use his/her oceanside beach house, on Georgia's beautiful coast, for summer vacations away from Oklahoma. Of course, at the advantageous rate of $50 per night.
4
No, the lobbyists are supporting him through gifts of wood pellets through which he can heat his rented condo room and his main residence.
While this is a very well-researched and written piece, rebutting Pruitt's absurd claims with fact after fact may be missing the point. If someone told you the best way to develop sculpted abdominal muscles was to duct tape yourself to a La-Z-Boy and eat nothing but tartar sauce and cheddar cheese for at least 60 days, how much time would you spend arguing the merits of diet and exercise with that person? This is all nonsense, and either Pruitt is well aware that it's nonsense--which is likely the case--or he's an idiot and, therefore, unlikely to be swayed by a reasoned contradiction.
While I applaud Schlesinger, et al. for taking the time to pen this Op-Ed, allowing a profligate, serial science denier like Pruitt to wind us up may be giving his ludicrous pronouncements more ink than they deserve.
3
Pruitt is hands down the dumbest EPA administrator we’ve ever had.
3
Oh he's worse than that. He's blatantly corrupt; he hates science apparently; he's in the tank for the energy business and clearly, he relishes being destructive. The fact that he's leading EPA is beyond absurd.
1
You are telling Pruitt burning forests is wrong in some ironic way? Because he doesn’t care. Probably spewed coffee laughing at that headline.
3
What drives a man of this sort? and what do his close family members say about it?
2
Sauruman the White, aka Scott Pruitt, is demonically determined to destroy the sacred forests of Middle Earth while he devises schemes to succeed his evil master, Sauron Trump, and take for himself the One Ring of Mordor D.C. to rule us all.
But me thinks he hath forgotten he is less than a Hobbit.
2
Can we ban together as citizens and sue the Trump administration for negligence? Clearly the prime directive of the EPA, to protect the environment for the people, is being ignored and/or violated systematically.
4
This is deviously clever of Pruitt; making the abnormal seem normal, making the insane look sane - by taking micro-steps that can be explained away. Sure, why not. Let's burn wood for energy. Because forest fires are burning wood already. Let's throw some benzene in the water now, because it already has PCP and mercury. If Flint can drink brown water, why can't all black-majority cities? Let's put a fracking well in every back yard, and release some radioactive clouds in deserted areas, because we cannot change the pollution created by Asia.
Madness happens. This way.
If America's center left thinks that this nihilism is a temporary chapter, I suspect we are mistaken. This looks like chapter one in a longish saga; it is a bell that cannot be un-rung. Once the air is rich with carbon dioxide, all the fish are dead, and our children are ingesting mercury, the American right will declare victory, not feel remorse. Or did you miss the jubilation on Fox, which termed legislation that legalized dumping of mercury in the air as a 'victory' over liberals.
No, I am not moving to Canada. I am moving to city center. Is all. We can't stop GA from burning what it wants. But, I think we can - definitely - prevent that from happening in NY. All politics being local - and all that.
6
Trump Inc. promised to drain the swamp, but a swamp is a vital, thriving ecosystem. Swamps are home to thousands of species of plants and animals, and serve as reservoirs, sponges, and filters to all kinds of silt and pollution. They are Earth’s purifiers, and are found on every continent- our Everglades are a magnificent example of our environment at its most glorious and functional.
Drain it, nothing. Trump, Pruitt, and the rest should be forced to live in one. That would teach them about the nature of power, and the power of nature.
6
When (not if) Phone-Booth Planet-Killer Pruitt and his bosses are removed from power, we the Sane need to press on those who we rolled in with the Sane-ami to enact tough anticovfefe measures—preferably constitutional amendments—to ensure no member of an executive department is deliberately chosen for their desire to sabotage it!
For example, require such nominees to have had substantial, long, commendable prior work in an organization that has demonstrably improved the department's charge, and not have worked (simultaneously or otherwise) in an organization that has worsened it. Congress ought to give an independent nonpartisan body the power to verify that prior work, and Congress must not be allowed to approve a nominee the body rejects until the body does another check after six months.
The standard is similar to what I think presidential candidates' health should meet: verification from an independent doctor they have not previously known.
Yes, that would prevent some good nominees from getting their post, if they did work with some megacorp they now regret; but we can't take chances. The "covfefe" cutpurse cupboard reminds us that "good" is nowhere near enough when the Cabinet holds the power to harm climate, steal sacred lands, and end lives.
8
I agree that burning forests for energy is foolish. But it isn't any different than burning corn (ethanol) or biodiesel. In all cases we are growing a carbon based plant and burning it or its products for energy.
Even wood waste is better recycled as mulch than burned as a fuel.
2
Mr.Pruitt is dangerous.We can be angry that he is using his office like a royal fiefdom with perks and bodyguards, expensive trips and favors from lobbyists.We need to be furious that he disregards the dangers in the environment and is insistent on adding to greenhouse gases and to the already alarming amount to C02.We cannot repair in our lifetime the damage he is prepared to do.
8
Pruitt is one of the most dangerous people on the planet, not to mention one of the most obnoxious and corrupt.
Millions more Americans voted for a Presidential candidate who would have protected our environment to the best of her ability; yet we are saddled with this catastrophe?
It's wrong, it's anti-democratic; and We, the People, should be outraged. We should also be demanding simple justice - there's no way we should be disenfranchised like this, especially when the stakes are so incredibly high.
9
President Obama helped put us on a course to begin dealing with climate change, and in come Pruitt and Trump. Hello to "Undo-it Pruitt."
Never in the history of the world has there been so much information available, or potentially available, to help us do good (scientifically speaking), and has someone done so much to undo good efforts and replace them with corruption, greed, and stupidity.
And this in the context of an ultimately existential issue. Shameful.
9
You state that Mr. Pruitt’s decision to consider forest bioenergy as carbon neutral is not economically efficient. But it is. Just like every other Pruitt decision, this one will very efficiently boost the economy of Republican climate change deniers in Congress and the White House. And it will boost his personal economy as soon as this gig is over and he joins the private sector that he has deregulated. He'll never again need government help to fly first class!
7
Part of the blame for this dumb idea should be shared by the forest products industry.
It might be good to get big money out of politics. I suggest a government of the People, by the People, for the People, NOT the corporations.
6
Obviously some forest land should be managed for productive uses, but combustion for energy seems pretty dumb given the alternatives.
Even if clear cutting and replanting a forest was carbon neutral in the long run (like 150 years out), it would still be a terrible idea as we need to harness forests as a carbon store as much as possible today. We should plant more trees and protect more forest and other natural biomes with the goal of refraining from increasing carbon emissions even further.
3
In farm areas, marginal land was put into CRP. Farmers benefited from this financially. What did they plant? Broam. It is a WEED. They were not supposed to cut it and is highly invasive. When I asked why softwood trees weren't planted instead, I got that "we don't change for nobody and this is how pa did it" look.
The "Best & the Brightest" has turned into "Dumb and Dumber." And a man who was banned for life from the financial industry runs the Superfund.
6
How about EPA only give “carbon neutral” certification to wood from brand new forests, which would have to be planted on brownfields and degraded lands? That way, you could be sure that the carbon emitted through burning had already been taken up by trees in the first place.
Maybe that would force biomass power plants to actually plant rapid-rotation coppices and new forest plantations, rather than burning forests first and then hoping that they grow back...
1
“Administrator Pruitt’s announcement today reflects the clear scientific consensus on forest biomass,”
Ah the boldness of that statement. Don't prevaricate or shade the truth; look right in the other fella's eye... and LIE. That is the new morality of the age of Trump.
5
Every attorney general in each blue state must sue this man, this Administration and their cronies to try to protect the planet from them while they remain in office. They are mere common-law criminals. We cannot vote out the Republicans quickly enough. Every last one of them. No exceptions. We need a vibrant center-right party to oppose the center-left Democrats. We cannot afford or bear a party of common-law criminals determined to ruin not only the Republic, but our world (literally).
9
Burning wood for energy: a program for Americans who don't trust new fangled technologies like burning coal for energy.
Maybe if someone told Pruitt that solar and wind energy is actually burning something, like baby harp seals, he'd back it. Slip a tenspot in his briefing book and he'll give it his attention.
6
I'm really tired of layperson commenters critiquing science. Do you have a degree in forestry or land management? No??
Then let the experts who have spent time their time becoming experts enlighten us all so that we may conduct policy-making objectively and in a truly informed way—by basing such policy-making on their sound expertise.
Do you seriously think Pruitt is using expertise rather than corrupt money to influence his decisions?
9
Dear "stopit",
The authors of the op-ed piece ARE experts. Most of the commenters are simply agreeing with the authors. Pruitt is not, and based on decisions like this, will never be an expert on the protection of the environment.
5
You mean the same experts who have been saying for years that the earth is warming?
The experts trying find a way to keep Miami just dry?
The experts who suggest that burning coal, let alone mining it, is a fool's errand? (Actually, that last one is me talking. The experts say its just stupid).
Is that who you mean?
1
Making America great again by turning it from a first world country to a third world country.
4
"If a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear the forest fall" - Bruce Cockburn. I do.
5
Maybe he took the EPA post because he thought it meant Environmental Plundering Agency. He'd be its finest head ever.
6
Pruitt is the most egregious example of what this administration is trying to make our government: Heads of departments that are 1) stupendously ignorant of science and technology; 2) weak, ineffectual, and/or arrogant leaders toward career employees (=the experts); 3) blatant crooks either too stupid or emboldened to hide their malfeasance. I cant fathom why the lot of them have not been brought up on corruption charges. But lordy, surely Pruitt has crossed the line. Bring on the perp walk!
7
Harkens back to the Teddy Roosevelt administration's policies ...
As Republicans have said over and over and over, "I'm not a scientist...."
8
I thought Trump's technological marvel—one that would put other industrialized nations to shame— would be his coal-fired car, but now I see it will be Pruitt's wood-fired car.
3
It is not only that Europeans use US wood pellets for power, but also for home heating. I remember the sulfurous brown coal smell in East Germany in the winters of the early 90s from coal burning ovens in homes, to be replaced by clean burning natural gas furnaces in the following years. 20 years later, and many Germans have installed pellet burning furnaces, even for individual apartments in apartment buildings, with ugly exhaust chimneys coming out of the walls. Again, an acrid burnt smell is wafting through German cities in winter together with high level toxic particulate pollution, making a great mix with the diesel pollution. The EU regulators allowing this are irresponsible.
9
Forests burn, period, especially in drier climes like the Western US. Massive amounts of carbon dioxide are released every year in wildfires, along with hundreds other more or less toxic chemical compounds due to incomplete combustion. Some 140 million dead trees just in CA from drought and beetle kill. Do the authors have suggestions what to do with those trees before they literally go up in smoke? Post wildfire regeneration, usually takes much longer than post harvest.
Does it really? Doesn't the ash left by wildfires fertilize the soil and promote vigorous growth?
2
Most industrial scale biomass production in the SE takes place on privately owned pine forest growing short rotation loblolly pine. Forest products utilized include utility poles, veneer grade logs for plywood and paneling, dimension lumber, pulp sticks for paper and logging residue for biomass.
Many of these intensively managed forest are certified sustainable by third parties which requires regeneration after harvests and prevents conversion to a non forested condition.
Old growth virgin forests are not being cut down to generate electricity. Biomass is usually the lowest value product produced from these lands most of which have already produced multiple harvests of the products we all use.
Allowing power plants to burn biomass could be viewed as subsidising the preservation of forest land by enhancing the economic return on forest products. Conversion to agg land and development are much larger threats to our forests.
In other parts of the country beetle killed trees and crowded trees either are or could be used for biomass production. In these cases, forest health and fire reduction are the main objectives.
It is also possible to thin a fully stocked forest, produce the fore mentioned forest products and return to and even surpass the previous growth rate within a few years. Carbon sequestration is closely tied to growth.
Trees are the original solar panel, no assembly required, manufactured by Big Mama.
3
It is indeed possible to thin a forest, but hauling logs out through standing timber is cumbersome. What logging company will actually do that rather than just promising to do it and then clearcutting?
2
Probably not best to let the logging Co. decide what to cut and remove. Any harvest on Managed land will have the harvest trees clearly defined in a written contract and or individually marked. It's common to thin a pine forest approximately 3 times before a final harvest, regeneration harvest or clear cut.
Selective harvests are common in the NE and in the northern lake states. They can be a challenge on steep terrain.
1
What is not clear in the article and is apparently missed by many commenters is that the proposal does not suggest generating electricity by throwing logs in a furnace. Instead, wood pellets would be mixed with coal at a fairly small fraction.
I am not suggesting this makes the idea carbon neutral. But hopefully it gives a better picture of the concept.
Also, a great deal depends on whether the wood is harvested from live, standing forests or salvaged from dead wood. And the potential for stable biochar byproducts needs to be considered in the equation.
Again, I am not saying Pruitt is right. But the proposed energy production scenario is more complex than what a reader might glean from this opinion piece.
2
Trouble is, they built infrastructure and now forests are being purpose grown and pelleted and shipped across the Atlantic to feed the beast. The story is complex, but moreso on the dark dangerous side than otherwise.
5
Sadly, the whole business of pelleting wood was gamed and has become yet another source of forest pillage and inefficient energy exploitation. It started with waste, but purpose-grown forests are pelleted and shipped overseas: "The European Accounting Error That's Warming the Planet" http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/
"Pulp Fiction, a three-part Climate Central series — described in the New York Times as “a compelling and infuriating package” — chronicles the fast-growing practice of wood burning for electricity, and its impact on the climate."
"The series reveals that wood — the renewable energy of choice in Europe — is fueling a global trade in pellets made from trees, many of which are coming from the U.S. And that burning trees as fuel in power plants is heating the atmosphere more quickly than coal.
"Because of a perversity in the European Union's climate rules, European nations are subsidizing the burning of wood in power plants that were built to burn coal. Nearly half of the renewable electricity in the EU is now being generated by burning "biomass" — mostly wood and much of it imported from forests of the U.S. Southeast, which is already one of the world’s most heavily logged regions."
This is what we humans have come to, that there are greedy exploitative people everywhere willing to jump in to any new idea and "disrupt" it for profit.
Speaking of greed and exploitation, Pruitt and his enablers are king of the hill on that. Dirty deeds indeed.
20
Pruitt has all of the real scientists remaining at EPA locked in the basement, figuratively speaking, silenced so they can't contradict his anti-science agenda.
But there are plenty more willing and able to testify at what will eventually be hundreds of lawsuits against Pruitt's hostile takeover of the EPA.
Pruitt is a corrupt small state official who has apparently made the mistake of figuring that DC was just a bigger version of Oklahoma.
22
It has always seemed a shame to me that the consequences of climate change aren't narrowly specific--that what happens in Georgia forests (or West Virginia coal mines) causes not global but local warming, bizarre weather patterns in Savannah or Wheeling. Just a fantasy, alas.
5
What an idiotic idea! No large power plant would want to burn wood. It is low density fuel, creates and tremendous amount of ash, releases creosote, contains sap, and doesn't burn as hot as coal. Forget the environmental problems it will generate. It's a lousy fuel to make electricity with.
Now here is a bit of jujitsu. Pruitt is saying that we should burn trees because that would be carbon neutral. That is an admission that carbon neutrality is a desired goal. This is an admission that carbon emissions are a problem and should be minimized. Take that you lying hypocrite.
55
I did a quick Google search. West Virginia has a state-wide program to convert coal-fires power plants to biomass.
Right now it seems a lot of the waste material from timber production gets pressed into pellets and sent to Europe to be burned in biomass plants.
Seems like the industry claims it is carbon neutral because you plant a tree for every one you cut down. It is widely disputed and doesn’t account for energy that is expended during the harvesting/production process or the time it takes for a tree to mature.
6
Just quoted this elsewhere; please go to the link for some history. I saw on my search that there has been some progress on this travesty, but here's the original work:
"The European Accounting Error That's Warming the Planet" http://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/1/
Besides, ClimateCentral is a great resource!
5
@ Bruce Rozenblitz,
Thank you for your SUPERB commentary!
5
Yes, when forests are cut, the forest ecosystems take a century or more to regenerate. And during this time, we lose their carbon-absorbing benefit and their ability to protect the carbon of forest-floor detritus. We also lose their effect on the earth's infrared albedo (plants reflect most infrared light and turn the energy of much of the shorter-wavelengths into carbohydrate energy). And while these forests are regenerating (if they are even allowed to), the methane will bubble out of warmed permafrost, wildfires will increase (emitting more CO2), the Antarctic cap will continue to melt, and the earth will cross the tipping point into full-blown climate catastrophe. We should be generating new jobs by planting more forests, not burning them up.
49
There is the other small detail that like coal, burning wood is not without its waste products. In the old days wood ash was used to make soap. But on an industrial scale that is an entirely different problem. Also, the energy density of wood is far less than coal, why railroads switched to coal as soon as it became commercially viable. So much higher transportation costs -- and transportation is one of the largest emitters of GHG.
And so, like adding ethanol to gasoline, something that is being sold as green and good for the planet is in reality much worse. But select groups get to make money regardless of the harm -- and in the end is that not the primary driver of his policy?
18
The time between tree harvests on managed land in the US southeast is 15-40 years. I guess that it averages about 25 years. This is hardly the century that the authors claim. Furthermore, US southeastern pinelands are remarkably flat; soil erosion associated with logging would be minimal. Regulations also exist to minimize erosion.
There are an abundant number of bad decisions Mr. Pruitt has made. This is not one of them. To contest it is to weaken the case against his atrocious decisions.
1
I beg to differ with the blanket statement that all pine plantations are flat. I was born and raised in Northwest Georgia, which is far from flat. The largest employer in our area? Temple Indland paper. This company has since been bought out by International Paper, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that thousands and thousands of acres are stripped every year. You are correct in the aspect of flat pine plantations, but this is located in southern Georgia and Alabama. Interestingly, many of the pines grown in that particular area are long leaf pine, which is a species that grows particularly tall and straight, which is why it is often times used for power line poles. Many of these plantations are allowed to mature much longer than the 25 year average due to the high profit. Most of the pine land that is being stripped in northern areas is comprised of yellow and loblolly pine, which grows very fast, but isn't suited for much more than paper, with exception of very mature yellow pine.
10
Disregarding the whole question of global warming how can harvesting trees to produce energy be less labor intensive then mining coal. Therefore it appears that this will be more expensive than energy from coal. Since it is currently cheaper to produce energy from natural gas, and wind power, it doesn't look like this proposal makes economic sense.
Regarding the claim that it takes a hundred years to regrow a forest I think that this is true if you cut down a hardwood forest and replant it with the same type of forest. However if ones goal is to maximize the growth of wood for energy I doubt that one would replant with the same mix of trees as one cut down and therefore by the proper selection of trees I expect that one could regrow the same amount of bio mass in a significantly smaller period of time. Of course this has types of ecological consequences that I personally would not want to face.
2
I understand the authors' argument with respect to cutting trees for energy generation. What about salvaging downed or dead trees, from beetle kill areas, for example? And how does the carbon balance change if biochar byproducts are included in the calculations?
That Pruitt makes a scientific determination is not credible. Old saying, give them an inch and they'll take a yard. There's no inspection program that would ensure compliance by logging companies.
1
I have pictured in my mind the scene from the Lord of the Rings: Two Towers where all the trees around Saruman's tower are being ripped from the earth and burned......
On another note, I have just completed a course in environmental sustainability of which Mr. Pruitt might benefit. I am in my fifties and just learned something new. We can't continue to pass the buck forward to our offspring. It is our responsibilty to act now to protect the environment for future generations.
39
Pruitt would NOT benefit from a course in environmental sustainability, MG, because his ideology would not permit him to absorb the science behind it.
4
Pruitt's logic is parallel to that of a self-declared vegan wolfing down a Double Mac 'n' Cheese, and justifying it by pointing out that the cow (and the cow's mother and so on) lived only on grass and grain --vegetation, in other words-- and had merely rearranged the molecules and atoms of those foodstuffs. Meat and cheese are derived entirely from vegetation. Since you are what you eat, then a vegetarian can eat them and remain, if you accept Mr. Pruitt's thinking, a vegetarian.
15
This is the Nixon's Republican "southern strategy" writ large. Use hatred, fear and ignorance to turn our country against itself. Stir confusion by adopting official government policy that benefits only our enemies and creates pointless dissent, as a distraction while they take even more. If you are getting outraged over the price of his desk or his lavish travel, then they have distracted you, too.
21
This is another gem of an idea that cannot withstand a two page analysis. The administration seems to like saving nuclear plants, so hopefully Trump will wind up Pruitt, set him on the ground and point him towards that actually useful goal.
8
Pruitt may well be the very most damaging appointment of the disastrous Trump presidency. If he succeeds in weakening auto emissions standards nation-wide, it will be an enormous disaster. We have got to get rid of this guy.
79
It is hard to know whether Mr. Pruitt really believes the misguided horrors he is trying to perpetuate, or whether he he is merely pandering to his backers. I will give him credit for some intelligence and therefore lean to the latter explanation.
12
The authors could have stopped right after "Pruitt is wrong." He has turned the EPA into the Emoluments and Pollution Agency.
35
Scott Pruitt is an embarrassment and an affront to science and human intelligence. Moreover, he is a danger to not only Americans but humanity worldwide because the natural environment does not recognize political and national borders. With repugnant "leaders" like him running vital US agencies, we are at risk of dooming ourselves and our progeny.
44
Please share ONE thing, exactly, that Pruitt has been right about ???
I'll wait.
54
Don't hold your breath.
1
How is it possible that a'criminal' of sorts, arrogant and willfully ignorant of the environmental harm in destroying forests, can get away with it (along with unscrupulous ignoramus Trump)? Scott Pruitt is a monster who, single-handedly, is abusing the power and mission of his office (the E.P.A.) to do irreparable harm, all in the name of avarice? And with the tacit approval of the republican party, whose silence is 'deafeningly loud'? If we were living in normal times, where ethics and the rule of law, and the need for climate control, are present, Pruitt would have been kicked out of an office he holds so undeservedly...a long time ago.
32
The headline to this piece could have just stopped at "Pruitt is Wrong".
7
There is no science in Trumpville
Where Profit's concerned is no ill.
They'll pillage and burn
More plunder to earn
And never never have their fill!
61
Living out here, in the west, where forest fires are a fact of life; what Pruitt is proposing is pure insanity. Before the rains came this week, we were getting smoke from fires on Arizona and California. Hundreds of miles away. this making the air murky, full of particulate matter, and of course CO2.
During the height of fire season, you cannot go outside, unless you can tolerate the smoke and its other affects. Because, most of Denver is in a valley, on non-windy days, smoke, auto emissions, and other chemicals are trapped causing a "brown cloud" affect.
Of course, many cities plant trees, and we have forests (that are left), because they help remove CO2 from the air. My city requires developers to replace trees, that are cut down, and to add more trees when a project is complete.
What is being proposed would return the Us back to the Pre-EPA days, as far as bad air. I remember what it was like growing up on Long island, with the gunk coming from New York City. When it rained, soot would cover everything. This was 50 miles east of Manhattan.
Another example of the incompetence of Trump and who he has appointed to lead various agencies in the federal government. He is undoing everything from FDR, onward. And, in this case, recreating the mess the EPA started cleaning up in 1970, and was cleaning up, until Trump took office.
106
Exactly!
I grew up in Denver in the 1950's, with crystalline air. By 1971, it was hard sometimes to see down the street and my eyes stung.
Better cars helped; of course the Trump Administration wants to reject that progress too.
I've seen the moon on fire nights. The sky was black, the stars were gone and the moon was a dark, bloody orange.
8
Now, you get smoky skies and an orange sun, during the day. Most of last summer, it smelled of smoke, in Longmont, even though the fires were hundreds of miles away. It was miserable. On a clear day, you can easily see Long's Peak and Mount Meeker (two 14,000+ foot mountains), from Longmont. There were times, last summer, you could not see anything west of Boulder (13 miles away).
You use your AC, in addition to keep cool, but so you do not have to open the windows to the smoke.
Finally, as more people move here, it is getting more and more like Los Angeles. Especially, trapping of stale air.
Nick- I want to point out that burning biomass in a power plant doesn't produce smoke the same way as a forest fire. Power plants have strict particulate controls. You can check out Burlington Vermont's biomass plant in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhzVcHrWH4
Burlington claims to be a "100% renewable electricity" town. Besides the reasons given in the article, I personally don't support biomass because it's not a scalable solution to carbon-free energy and I think cutting down our forests is the name of climate change is insane (but apparently makes sense to the "environmentalists" in Burlington).
The author's are wrong to say that wind and solar are cheaper alternatives. They reference Lazard's levelized cost of energy. This metric doesn't account for the cost of storage, which is currently extremely expensive and impractical. Currently wind and solar is coupled with fossil fuel plants to take up the slack when the sun is not shining or the wind stops, so overall it ends up being a small reduction in carbon emissions for a lot of money.
Nuclear is statistically by far the safest form of electricity production and the only option that can practically be scaled to replace fossil fuels. I would encourage anyone who's interested in climate change and energy policy to try to keep an open mind and really take a look at the facts. Our future depends on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
2
Pruitt should be in jail.
90
Pruitt needs to go. Not only is he using the treasury as his personal piggy bank, he is destroying our planet. Is there not anything we can do in addition to voting the republicans out in November? Time is running out for the earth.
109
Mr. Pruitt is an abomination, corresponding precisely to the man at whose pleasure he "serves".
73
the problem is these politicians can not see the long picture.
8
Oh they see the long picture.
It starts at one end of a dollar bill and ends at the other.
34
They can see, but they just don’t care. All that matters to them is their personal wealth and power, which their deluded minds think can be maintained even if our nation and our planet are destroyed by their indifference. As Spinoza said, “Evil is inadequate ideas.”
41
No, the problem is these politicians can't see the long picture. The problem is that they only see what is in it for themselves. Mr. Pruitt seems to be gaming the system to his great benefit and the detriment of the rest of us Americans. The sooner he (and the rest of the grifters) is gone the better.
1
Some of the research and simulation modeling that supports this important Op-Ed is available here:
https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/other-research/research-usin...
33
This man is evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.
56
Is it legal for a high (or low) U.S. employee to deliberately falsify facts in order to enact a policy that favors a certain interest group?
100
If nobody will prosecute you, then it truly doesn't matter whether your actions are legal or illegal. A Republican Congress will not go after Pruitt. The Trump administration definitely won't allow the Justice Dept. to go after him. EPA inspector general's office? Not if they want to keep their jobs. He currently has carte blanche. If people find their way to voting booths in 6 months, we might be able to hold him and others responsible for their crimes.
80
It is legal, in the sense that the law doesn't recognize scientific knowledge as sovereign. To make the truth strong, we rely on an informed and interested citizenry. There's the problem.
29
Our checks and balances have proven to be woefully inadequate. We are paying a steep price for this now. Sad.
14