Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Josh Schlossberg, the communication coordinator for Biomass Accountability Project and editor/journalist for Biomass Busters newsletter. He encourages you to contact him at biomass.greenwash@gmail.com.
I don’t care whether you’re Republican or Democrat, Independent or Progressive, Libertarian or Secessionist, you’d probably agree that one of our federal and state government’s top priorities is to bring 100 percent accountability and transparency to managing the tax dollars of hard working Americans. While some of us might quibble about certain aspects of taxation, almost all of us would agree that any taxed wages of the American and Vermont public must be invested exclusively in genuine and essential improvements to our nation. The economic downturn has created a political climate where voters of all stripes are united against wasteful and unnecessary government spending.
Each of the ruling parties, be they Democrats or Republicans, has the revival of the economy at the top of its list. The Right appears adamant on its mandate to cut back on spending to reduce the deficit and will block key legislation to prove their point. The Left continues to push for investments in green jobs to put people back to work, stimulate the economy, combat climate change, and reduce our dependence on oil. How will they ever find common ground?
Here’s one way: by stopping the flood of hundreds of millions of dollars of “clean energy” taxpayer subsidies diverted to polluting, greenhouse gas spewing, forest biomass power incinerators. What better way to accommodate the claimed fiscal conservancy of Republicans while advancing the environmental concerns of Democrats than by defunding a woefully inefficient electric power source that emits more CO2 smokestack emissions than coal — yes, coal — pollutes the air with sulfur dioxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter, and threatens our nation’s precious forests? Talk about win-win!
When someone says “clean energy” what images come to mind? Solar panels sparkling in the sun? Windmills spinning in the breeze? Two images I bet you don’t picture are smokestacks spewing toxic air pollutants and despoiled, clearcut forests. Well, you should, since over 50 percent of all so-called “renewable” energy in the nation comes from the burning of biomass for electricity or liquid fuels, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The 1603 program of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, aka stimulus bill, has diverted $104,208,944 in cash grants towards the construction of 10 biomass power incinerators, seven of them forest-burning, from 2009 to December 2010. Section 1603 provides cash grants in lieu of investment tax benefits for up to 30% of the cost of construction of renewable energy facilities — rightfully including solar and wind facilities, yet also heavily funding forest biomass power incineration.
Republicans: Want to cut out some of the deadwood in government spending? Look no further than biomass power incineration. Democrats: Looking to make sure your zero-waste, zero-emission solar and wind projects get adequate funding? Don’t let dirty biomass drag you down.
There are currently 234 biomass power incinerators proposed for the United States — another 255 already operating — which, if all were funded and built (based on 30 percent of $240 million costs to build a typical incinerator) would cost American taxpayers over $16 billion! That’s no typo.
No one can deny that of all the “renewable” energy choices out there: solar, wind, small hydro, wave/tidal, there’s only one — if it can even be considered “renewable” — that spews endless amounts of carbon dioxide, threatens public health with a deadly cocktail of air pollutants, and depends on a never ending supply of forest. Surely, Americans and Vermonters expect more from their clean energy tax dollars than biomass power incineration.
If we’re really going to do more than just talk about addressing climate change, how about exclusively funding the technologies that actually lower carbon emissions over the coming decades, the timeframe climate scientists are telling us we have left to tackle climate change? Massachusetts’ “Manomet” study informs us that “forest biomass generally emits more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.” In their ability to store and sequester carbon dioxide, our living, growing forests are perhaps our greatest allies in the fight against climate change. The more we log, the more we disrupt the climate.
With all this concern about health care, can’t we all agree that the priority renewable energy sources should be ones that don’t threaten the health of Americans by emitting dozens of toxic pollutants, including volatile organic compounds, formaldehyde, and particulate matter, of which there are no safe levels, according to American Cancer Society? Can clean energy ever come out of a smokestack?
Reasonable Americans everywhere agree that we have no choice but to both balance the budget and maintain the planet that makes life (and an economy) possible. Why not kill two birds with one stone and defund forest biomass power incineration?
