Biomass incineration, the burning of woody and agricultural materials, is often promoted as a significant component of the effort to shift Americans away from our addiction to fossil fuels. It has often been touted as both “renewable” and “carbon-neutral”. But burning any organic material releases carbon dioxide. Scientists, in fact, have pointed out that a shift away from coal to burning trees, shrubs and grasses, in the absence of significant conservation measures, could actually increase the rate of increasing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  On May 17, 2010, 90 scientists sent a letter to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, urging caution in the use of biomass as a “renewable” source of energy.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently created rules that require monitoring and regulating of CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in Clean Air Act permits for large stationary sources of emissions. The “tailoring rule” establishes the agency’s framework for evaluating and limiting these emissions.

The “tailoring rule” is being challenged by industry interests and several members of Congress in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. v. US EPA), arguing that burning biomass for energy is “carbon-neutral” and requires no evaluation.  On July 6, 2010, Wild Virginia, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, along with Georgia ForestWatch, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resources Council of Maine, “intervened” in support of the EPA regulations, by filing declarations with the court explaining how overturning this rule could significantly threaten Virginia’s forests.  The press release is viewable here.

The EPA decision to analyze emissions from burning biomass as it regulates greenhouse gases from large power plants and other large industrial facilities is an extremely important decision.  The rule insightfully includes a commitment to continue a scientific evaluation of the true carbon impact of all methods of creating energy, including the many forms of biomass energy.

Large-scale biomass incineration poses a double threat to Virginia’s forests. Already the George Washington National Forest is considering an increase in the yearly acreage and amount of logging, which would allow for potential increases in demand for “whole trees.” But if biomass incineration also increases the rate of increase in CO2 emissions, given climate change already in evidence, it could have negative domino-type effects for the forest plants, animals, air and water quality. The EPA rule will let the public know upfront how proposed incinerators will affect Virginia’s air, water, climate and forests.

Wild Virginia’s President, Nathan Van Hooser, and Wild Virginia member Peyton Coyner, who is a Nelson County resident, each filed affidavits in the motion to intervene. Peyton notes that “I’ve hiked and camped in the national forests of Virginia for over a half century, and I’ve seen the changes – fewer brook trout, hazier views, more invasive plants and insects – which I think are at least partly due to a warming climate. But if we move too hastily on using biomass as a major source of energy, we might end up destroying our forests altogether, so it’s important that when it’s done, it’s done right.”

The May 17, 2010 letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi supports the EPA action. “Replacement of fossil fuels with bioenergy does not directly stop carbon dioxide emissions from tailpipes or smokestacks. Although fossil fuel emissions are reduced or eliminated, the combustion of biomass replaces fossil emissions with its own emissions (which may even be higher per unit of energy because of the lower energy to carbon ratio of biomass)… clearing or cutting forests for energy, either to burn trees directly in power plants or to replace forests with bioenergy crops, has the net effect of releasing otherwise sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, just like the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. That creates a carbon debt, may reduce ongoing carbon uptake by the forest, and as a result may increase net greenhouse gas emissions for an extended time period and thereby undercut greenhouse gas reductions needed over the next several decades.”

What happens next? In the absence of a comprehensive energy bill that “clears the air,” the DC Circuit Court, or eventually the Supreme Court, may have to be the ones to “do the right thing” when it comes to the EPA’s effort to accurately assess CO2 emissions.