This commentary is by Cheryl Joy Lipton, an ecologist who lives in Chester.
Vermont is to address climate change through the Global Warming Solutions Act, the Vermont Climate Council, and appropriate legislation. Grave problems have occurred in this process, resulting in the suppression of conclusions by the climate council, subcommittee and task group members.
The climate council did not include recommendations regarding biomass from its Subcommittee on Agriculture and Ecosystems in the Climate Action Plan, seen here. Instead, a biomass task group was formed to investigate those tabled recommendations, and it concluded essentially the same recommendations, almost a year later, here.
Both recommend phasing biomass out of use.
Deliberations focused on biomass burning for electricity at the McNeil and Ryegate power plants, but emissions from burning biomass for heat are not significantly different. Dr. Jonathan Buonocore (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health) reported to the biomass task group that biomass burning for heat results in significant public health and environmental justice consequences.
Both the Subcommittee on Agriculture and Ecosystems and the biomass task group concluded biomass and biofuels should be investigated for heat generation.
Two entities came up with the same result independently: Biomass burning is not a solution to climate change. The Vermont Clean Energy Development Board requested that the biomass task group expand its scope to assess biomass burning for heat. Vermont produces 22 pounds of particulate matter emissions per person from wood-burning yearly, about double the next highest state in the nation.
Wood burning isn’t leaving Vermont soon, but to increase burning wood by endorsing it in legislation is a serious mistake.
The 2022 legislative session went forth without the recommendations regarding biomass from the Vermont Climate Council Agriculture and Ecosystems Subcommittee and now the legislative session of 2023 is moving forward with legislation without recommendations from the climate council’s biomass task group.
S.5, the Affordable Heat Act, is written with woody biomass and biofuels (incorrectly) considered acceptable renewables. S.5 doesn’t require biogenic carbon dioxide emissions in the greenhouse gas accounting, so it will not include most of the CO2 emissions and the bill will exacerbate climate change, impair human health, and add to the biodiversity crisis.
If emissions are assessed fairly, biomass and biofuels will be disqualified due to emissions, inequity and environmental destruction, but limited time and money will be wasted rather than spent on truly renewable solutions like weatherization, geothermal and cold-climate heat pumps running on energy from wisely placed solar, and letting forests and other ecosystems grow naturally, store carbon, and support biodiversity.
Studies already done and replicated prove biomass used for heat or electricity is a bigger contributor to climate change than any of the fossil fuels, including coal, yet Vermont wants to put this bill forth anyway and do more life cycle analysis studies.
The request-for-proposal for a Vermont life cycle analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, by Jane Lazorchak, Office of Climate Action director, specifies that reporting CO2 emissions from burning wood is not required, but is only an option.
ERG, the company chosen to complete the life cycle analysis, requested: “Provide an overview of the initial approach you would use for analysis of life cycle emissions for use of biomass for energy.” Her response: “For combustion of the biomass (e.g., stationary combustion of wood), there will be GHG emissions from methane and nitrous 2 oxide that will be included. We will include the option to track biogenic carbon dioxide from combustion.”
Ms. Lazorchak’s directive: Greenhouse gas emissions from wood are to be treated like solar.
It is a travesty that biomass burning is being considered “carbon neutral” in Vermont. At the very least, all legislation should require inclusion of all data, including biogenic, in counting emissions of every fuel type.
Numerous scientists are against this bill while it includes biofuels and biomass. Dr. Jon Ericson (UVM) has said including them is a mistake. Biofuels exacerbate climate change, increase greenhouse gases and contribute to equally existential biodiversity loss. Renewable natural gas increases concentrated animal feeding operation, methane leaking, and intense pollution, causing disastrous health impacts in surrounding communities.
Biofuel use has accelerated habitat destruction in forests around the world. Biomass use is causing intense deforestation in the southern U.S. for export and in European old-growth forests. Tropical forests are cleared at about 200 square kilometers per day, mostly for palm and soybean oil, about 50% and 30% respectively used for biofuels.
Food production and wildlife habitat is displaced by biofuel production with food prices increased by as much as 30% (corn.) Fertilizer and pesticide use has increased, water quality degraded, and emissions increased so that ethanol, for example, is at least 24% higher than gasoline (PNAS Feb. 14, 2022.)
Now for the common sense: Why burn something that is actively pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere? That carbon storage won’t be replaced until a new tree gets to the same age as the one that was cut.
If you had a choice between eliminating something that isn’t doing any job and eliminating something that is doing a job, why would you choose to eliminate the one doing valuable work?