News
Along the road to the future, ideologies collided. The first casualty was the truth, the second a healthy US Timber Industry.
Recently the University of Washington published a new study that addressed Biomass and the carbon emissions resulting from it, hoping to answer questions as to whether Biomass is truly renewable. A Couple of years ago the Manomet Center in Massachusetts, released a study that greatly undermined the public perception of Biomass. The problem with the Manomet Center and its ‘Study’ commissioned by the State of Massachusetts, is the simple fact that the Manomet Center is guided by an ideology that is thoroughly committed to conservation regardless of the human consequences. Conservation is their primary concern and if industry suffers or factories close or jobs are lost then so be it. So long as no woodpeckers or rare weeds or flowers are harmed they have accomplished their mission. We have seen this kind of ideology based research before and it always results in bizarre and indefensible conclusions masquerading as science.
The very interesting conclusion they reached regarding Biomass being, “as bad and potentially worse than coal” drew heavy criticism as it should have. Worse than this it put the forest industry back years if not decades. The reason is many simply accept information they receive as true so long as it supports what they already believe. Many in the Northeast, upon hearing that Biomass is ‘worse than coal’ applauded, lifted their glasses and toasted the arrival of such good news. Imagine coal execs breaking out the Cubans. Others were simply shocked that anyone could suggest something so patently stupid. There is no scientific justification whatsoever for the conclusion that Manomet reached. Further, it should have been retracted and an official apology offered, but I digress. To suggest that their conclusion was the result of scientific analysis is a disgrace to actual scientists everywhere. Thankfully, real scientists are weighing in, such as the University of Washingtion, refuting Manomet’s claims and doing so with hard science, evidence that suggests Manomet’s conclusions are wrong if not altogether deceitful.
There is perhaps an ideological justification for Manomet’s conclusions based on several flawed assumptions. These assumptions are heard continuously from a loud and largely ignorant group of environmentalists who have no clue how the forest economy functions. The first assumption is that loggers will simply lay waste to the forests if power companies begin using biomass and in so doing the forests will no longer be able to absorb carbon and the result will be worse than if we simply had used coal from the start. This ignores the simple fact that trees are valuable and will of course be replanted either mechanically with fast-growing, disease resistant hybrids or naturally. Forests do grow naturally, some of you may be shocked to know. As they grow they will continue to absorb carbon. Not only that but young trees absorb nearly twice the levels of Co2 that mature trees absorb. By creating new markets for Biomass we are promoting good forest management, adding value to forests and increasing the likelihood they will be properly managed.
The idea that Biomass is ‘as bad or worse than coal’ is astounding. It gives no credit whatsoever to the simple fact that the trees absorbed tons of carbon from the atmosphere and replaced that carbon with oxygen. Therefore the net result is not 100% additive as Manomet describes it to be. Coal absorbs no Co2 and when it is used for fuel its carbon emissions are entirely, 100% additive to global Co2 levels. Trees on the other hand must absorb carbon in order to grow and naturally release oxygen as they grow, providing numerous environmental, social and economic benefits. Why would you not support a model that promotes the growth and management of forests? Lets see here, Coal or Forests, Coal or forests? Strip mining with massive smoke belching bulldozers, Cranes and Excavators, blasting apart mountains or planting and managing millions of acres of forests. That is a really tough decision. Let’s think on that for a bit.
They say 90% of all timber harvested is used to manufacture products, wherein carbon is stored indefinitely. The 10 to 20% waste wood that remains (limbs and tops) is often left to rot, because of opposition to Biomass.
What is rarely stated is the simple fact that trees are far more valuable for their lumber or for making paper and other products then they ever could be for fuel. A logger would never simply cut down an entire forest tract and chip it for fuel. If this were to happen it would be because that land is to be cleared for development and the timber residing there was not mature enough to be sold as saw timber or pulpwood or it was diseased and worthless. In the vast majority of timber harvests, the saw logs will be selected and go to the lumber mill as will the pulp logs go to the pulp mill and so on. What is left is the trees that were marked for preservation and the logging residue, limbs and tops that would be chipped for fuel. This might represent 10 to 20% of the total volume of wood harvested (I stress might). So given this fact it is clear that the vast majority of harvested wood is not going to be burned and will not release its carbon into the atmosphere. It is going to be used to produce products such as furniture, homes, flooring, paper, tiddly winks, pencils, etc. Therefore its carbon is still neatly stored and is not released into the atmosphere, hence a massive environmental benefit.
Given the fact that the vast majority of timber harvested is not burned for fuel and never will be, how can Manomet or anyone for that matter claim that biomass “is potentially as bad or worse than coal”. It can only do this if it has no understanding of forest markets, logging practices and how the industry functions. The carbon emission cycle is decisively positive with at least 75% of carbon remaining in a stored state. To suggest that biomass is purely additive is not simply wrong it is inexcusably deceptive. In years of visiting forest harvesting operations I have seen only a few logging operations in the US that were entirely devoted to harvesting biomass. Meaning that 100% of its harvested wood was being chipped for fuel. These harvests are commonly referred to thinnings and the trees are removed so the remaining stand can mature and grow more rapidly. Not only is biomass the best option for sustainable energy development but it is tapping into an industry that has abundant resources. US Forests are growing, not declining in volume and maturity and this has been the case for more than fifty years.
American Hardwood Forests have been growing in size and maturity for over 50 years. Biomass will not change that fact, only enhance and improve the value of American Forests.
The real victim in all of this psuedo-science peddling and misinformation is the people who make a living in the woods and the forest itself. Biomass is a golden opportunity to create local jobs, support local industries that are vital and promote sustainable forestry. In order to ensure that forests are managed properly, harvested sustainably and that timber inventories grow we need a strong timber and forest products industry that attracts young professionals. By undermining Biomass the Manomet Center and its conservationist allies are doing their own cause a great disservice. It is reducing the likelihood that the forest industry can provide excellent jobs and train tomorrow’s generation of foresters. Biomass is critical to sustaining a vibrant and healthy timber industry in the United States. Otherwise the US timber industry suffers further decline and professional loggers will leave the industry in search of better pay and benefits for their families.
Currently forest utilization is not highly efficient and opposition to biomass only prevents loggers from operating more efficiently and utilizing all of the timber they cut. I see this every week when I visit harvest operations here in the southern US. Some loggers have the ability to market their waste wood but many do not because of falsehoods being spread about Biomass. They lack the markets precisely because of the wrong-headed opposition that prevents Biomass projects from gaining local support. The result is what you see below, hundreds of tons of wood waste left to rot on the ground, releasing its carbon into the atmosphere rather than being chipped or ground for fuel. Now multiply that by five thousand or even ten thousand. That is the number of logging jobs across the US where limbs and tops are simply left to rot because of opposition to Biomass. The merchantable timber has been removed and carried to the mills, but the wood waste is simply left to rot, serving no beneficial purpose.
I am not a scientist and I do not have years of experience in a research institution nor do I have a team of grad student interns helping me analyze and interpret data. I approach this topic from a common sense perspective and cannot understand why some insist on making this issue so complicated. It is as plain as the nose on your face in my opinion. Not only is the timber industry vital to the US in terms of protecting our quality of life, air and water, but it creates millions of jobs, supports our rural communities and thousands of manufacturing operations producing hundreds of products that we all use and enjoy every day. Not only does the Timber industry accomplish all of these things it does so more efficiently than its rivals.
Opposition to Biomass is not only wrong-headed and scientifically unjustifiable, it undermines a vital US industry. I cannot stress enough how important it is to the future of our country that the US Timber industry grow and attract a new generation of bright, energetic, professional young men and women to its ranks. For decades the industry has been shedding jobs, losing earnings power and in the process, its ability to perform responsibly and silence its critics. Those who oppose logging are often the very people responsible for putting the best logging companies out of business. Opposition to Biomass is simply another battle in which the long suffering Timber Industry is taking a public beating without the benefit of a vigorous defense. I for one am tired of conservationists masquerading as scientists, spreading falsehoods and blatant lies about the Timber industry.
The numerous misguided attacks on Biomass represent lost productivity, lost efficiency, lost jobs & lost opportunities. I want to give a special thank you to the University of Washington for its recent study on the Carbon Cycle impact of Biomass. I hope more real scientists will weigh in on the subject and perhaps we can better understand as a nation, the importance of our forests and the men and women who work in them every day.