Tag: critics

Is Wood Biomass Just Blowing Smoke? (Part 1)

  • President of Manomet consulting group John Hagan says the bottom line is that biomass can be carbon neutral ... if subsidies and policies are precise.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)

State governments often mandate power companies to buy alternative energy.
They figure it’s worth having everyone buck up and pay extra since these don’t contribute carbon dioxide emissions that change the climate.But what energy sources should make the cut?
Shawn Allee found one is getting lots of scrutiny.

Transcript

State governments often mandate power companies to buy alternative energy.
They figure it’s worth having everyone buck up and pay extra since these don’t contribute carbon dioxide emissions that change the climate.

But what energy sources should make the cut?

Shawn Allee found one is getting lots of scrutiny.

Bob Cleaves heads up the Biomass Power Association.

He spends a lot of time pitching the idea that electricity made by burning wood is worth government help.
After all, he can’t sell the idea of biomass on price.

Electricity generated from wood had to compete with coal and natural gas and it became very difficult to operate these plants on a profitable basis.

Cleaves says other alternative energy sources are expensive, too, but biomass has extra benefits …
He says try running solar panels at night – biomass power plants run 24-7.

But Cleaves admits he’s got explaining to do when it comes to carbon emissions.

You know, from burning wood.

when you burn something you release CO2 …

For years, Cleaves could follow-up with a simple argument.

He’d just run through the carbon cycle idea you might recall from high school.

You know, you burn trees.
That releases CO2.
Then, as trees re-grow, they absorb that same carbon again …

These are carbons that are recycled into the environment in a closed-loop fashion.

This argument often won out.
Many states give biomass from wood subsidies, since they considered it carbon neutral.

The US House came close to doing the same thing last year.

But lately, biomass’ rep got into trouble.

Well, the carbon issue came up in the fall as a result of an article published in Science magazine.

The title of the article was “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error.”
It challenged the idea that biomass power from wood or anything else is always carbon neutral.

Critics now use the article’s arguments against biomass subsidies.

“This policy is intended to reduce carbon emissions and it’s doing the exact opposite.”

This is Jana Chicoine, an anti-biomass activist from Massachussetts.

She says, sure, trees you cut for power now will grow back and then re-absorb carbon.

But not soon.

“It will create a pulse of carbon emissions that will spike for decades. Policy makers are telling us we are in a carbon crisis and that we have to reduce carbon emissions now.”

So, Chicoine says it makes no sense to subsidize biomass technology.

It’s going to harm public policy on clean energy. Those funds should be going to the truly valuable contributors to the energy problem like wind and solar, conservation and efficiency.

Well, Chicoine and other biomass critics won a temporary victory in Massachusetts.

The state was leaning toward subsidizing biomass power, but it held off a final decision.

It’s waiting for advice from an environmental consulting group called Manomet.

President John Hagan says people expect a simple answer: would a biomass industry in Massachusetts be carbon neutral or not?

“The last thing you want to hear a scientist say is, it’s complicated, but I’m afraid it is in this case.”

The latest research suggests some biomass power operations can be carbon neutral while others won’t be.

The best operations would use tree trimmings or waste wood like sawdust. That keeps more trees in the ground … absorbing carbon.

Biomass power plants prefer to use waste wood anyway, since it’s cheap.
But Hagan says maybe more biomass plants will all chase the same scrap wood.

Prices will rise … and suddenly standing trees start looking cheaper.

It’s like a puzzle, when you push on one piece, eighteen other things move.

Hagan says the bottom line is that biomass can be carbon neutral … if subsidies and policies are precise.
He says policies should work like scalpels.

But often, they’re simple … and work more like big axes.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Energy Future and Jobs

  • Critic's of the President's plans for a green economy say switching from fossil fuels will make energy costs higher and eliminate jobs. (Photo courtesy of whitehouse.gov)

President Obama’s critics say his plan for a green economy is a jobs killer. Lester Graham reports the blogosphere was full of criticism for his plan to reduce greenhouse gases:

Transcript

President Obama’s critics say his plan for a green economy is a jobs killer. Lester Graham reports the blogosphere was full of criticism for his plan to reduce greenhouse gases:

During Tuesday night’s news conference, President Obama talked about moving to a new energy era:

“That means moving away from polluting energy sources toward cleaner energy sources. That is a potential engine for economic growth.”

Conservatives said ‘No, No, No. Switching from cheap fossil fuels, and putting a price on greenhouse gases to reduce global warming will be a jobs killer.’

David Kreutzer is a Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation:

“Cutting that energy is going to cut economic activity. Yes, we may see some windmill jobs, but the higher energy costs are going to destroy so many other jobs that the net impact will be significant job loss.”

The President’s critics argue greenhouse gas emissions can’t be reduced enough to really affect global warming.

Meanwhile, recent reports indicate less ice cover on the Great Lakes each winter, polar ice is melting faster than expected, and oceans are rising to the point that people are starting to notice.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Legislation Dividing Organic, Biotech Farmers

  • Organic farms are concerned about nearby farms that produce genetically modified crops. They fear that the genetically modified crops will cross with and alter the genes of their own crops. (Photo by Rene Cerney)

The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal government’s job to regulate food safety. But critics say federal agencies aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety. They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on
their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal
government’s job to regulate food safety, but critics say federal agencies
aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety.
They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically
engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:


Genetically engineered crops are created when genes from other plants,
animals or bacteria are used to alter their DNA.


Critics call them “Franken-foods,” and two years ago, three California
counties banned farmers from growing genetically altered crops. That
alarmed the agribusiness industry, and now it’s fighting to keep that from
happening elsewhere.


So far, the industry successfully lobbied 14 states to pass laws preventing
their local governments from putting restrictions on engineered crops.
Four other states are considering similar measures.


Jim Byrum is with the Michigan Agri-Business Association.


“Frankly, it’s pretty frustrating for us to look at some of the rumors that
are floating around about what happens with new technology. It’s
reduced pesticide use; it’s reduced producer expense in production. It’s
done all sorts of things.”


Genetically engineered seeds are created in the laboratories of big seed
companies like Monsanto and DuPont. The modified plants can produce
higher-yield crops that make their own insecticides, or tolerate crop-
killing problems such as drought or viruses.


Proponents of the technology say genetically altered crops have the
potential to feed the world more efficiently, and they say it’s better for
the environment. That’s because the crops can be grown with fewer
polluting pesticides, but critics say not enough is known yet about
engineered crops’ long-term ecological impact, or on the health of
people who eat them.


(Sound of farm)


Michelle Lutz is among the skeptics. She and her husband run an 80-
acre organic farm north of Detroit. She’s watching about a dozen head of
the beef cattle she’s raising. They’re feeding on cobs of organic corn
grown several yards away.


“I’m surrounded by conventional farmers. The farmers right over here to
my east – they’re good people, and I don’t think they would intentionally
do anything to jeopardize me, but they are growing genetically modified
corn.”


Lutz worries that pollen from genetically modified corn from those
nearby fields could make its way to her corn plants – and contaminate
her crop by cross-breeding with it. Lutz says people buy produce from
her farm because they trust that it’s free from pesticides, because it’s
locally grown, and because it has not been genetically altered. She says
she shares her customers’ concerns about the safety of engineered foods.


Lutz says letting local governments create zones that don’t allow
genetically engineered crops would protect organic crops from
contamination.


But Jim Byrum of the Michigan Agri-Business Association says no
township or county should be allowed to stop farmers from growing
genetically modified crops. He says every engineered seed variety that’s
on the market is extensively tested by federal agencies.


“Frankly, that evaluation system exists at the federal level. There’s
nothing like that at the state level, and there’s certainly nothing like that
at the local level. We want to have decisions on new technology, new
seed, based on science as opposed to emotion.”


Critics say the federal government’s evaluation of genetically modified
crops is not much more than a rubber stamp. The FDA does not approve
the safety of these crops. That’s just wrong.


Doug Gurian-Sherman is a former advisor on food biotechnology for the
Food and Drug Administration.


“It’s a very cursory process. At the end of it, FDA says we recognize that
you, the company, has assured us that this crop is safe, and remind you
that it’s your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, and the data is
massaged – highly massaged – by the company. They decide what tests
to do, they decide how to do the tests. It’s not a rigorous process.”


Gurian-Sherman says local governments obviously don’t have the
resources to do their own safety testing of engineered foods, but he says
state lawmakers should not allow the future of food to be dictated by
powerful seed companies. He says local governments should be able to
protect their growers and food buyers from the inadequacies of federal
oversight.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Safety Concerns About New Rat Poison Pill

  • The EPA has rescinded some safety constraints on rodenticides. Some fear this may harm children, because they might now be more likely to ingest rat poison. (Photo by Geovani Arruda)

Plaintiffs in a case before a New York Federal Court accuse the
Environmental Protection Agency of being too soft on protecting children
from poisonous rat pellets. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny
Lawton reports:

Transcript

Plaintiffs in a case before a New York Federal Court accuse the Environmental Protection
Agency of being too soft on protecting children from poisonous rat pellets. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny Lawton reports:


The poisonous pellets aren’t just tough on rats. Some environmentalists say they’re
injuring young children as well. The Natural Resources Defense Council says more than
fifty-thousand children in the U.S. below the age of six have been sickened by rat poison
this year. In 1998, the EPA made a rule that required manufactuers to put a bitter taste
and a special dye in the pellets to keep children from eating them.


But three years later, the agency rescinded that mandate.


It said it had come to a “mutual agreement” with the rodenticide industry that those precautions
might be making the pellets less effective. But critics say that has put kids back in harm’s way.
Especially those living in low-income areas where rat infestation is a common problem.


Although the EPA won’t comment directly on the case, an agency report from 2001 argued that
when rodenticides are used correctly, and children are supervised around them, fewer accidental
ingestions happen.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jenny Lawton.

Related Links

New Gmo Grass to Get Federal Approval?

  • The quest for a perfectly manIcured lawn has driven some lawn care companies to create a grass resistant to weed killer. Some worry, however, that they've created an invasive species. (Photo by Philipp Pilz)

An environmental watchdog group is hoping to block federal approval of a new genetically modified type of grass. The group says the grass poses a threat to natural areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

An environmental watchdog group is hoping to block fedral approval of a new genetically
modified type of grass. The group says the grass poses a threat to natural areas. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:


Two companies – Scotts and Monsanto – want the government’s approval to commercialize a type of
creeping bentgrass. The grass would mainly be planted on lawns and golf courses because it’s
resistant to Roundup, a popular weed killer. But critics of the bio-engineered grass say it
needs more testing. For one thing, they say, genes from the grass can spread and strengthen
non-native plants.


Joe Mendelson is with the International Center for Technology Assessment.


“The end result is you’re going to create a grass that is invasive, that will take over natural
areas like our grasslands and or forest areas, and we won’t be able to control it. That’s going
to have a very negative impact on a number of sensitive ecosystems.”


The U.S. Forest Service has also weighed in, saying the grass has the potential to have a
negative effect on all of the country’s grasslands and natural forests. Scotts has said the
bio-engineered grass poses no threat to natural areas.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

White House Pushes for Wilderness Designation

  • When "opportunities for wilderness" knock, will Congress answer? (Photo by Jake Levin)

The Bush Administration is recommending wilderness protection for a group of 21 islands in Lake Superior. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:

Transcript

The Bush Administration is recommending wilderness protection for a group of 21 islands
in Lake Superior. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports from
Superior.


This is the first time Assistant Interior Secretary Craig Manson visited the Apostle Islands
National Lakeshore off the coast of Wisconsin. If Congress goes along with the
Administration’s recommendation, his next visit won’t see much change because much
of the park is already operating as a wilderness area. Manson says critics are wrong
when they say the Bush Administration isn’t protecting wilderness.


“Ultimately, it is up to the Congress to designate wilderness. There are a number of
wilderness proposals pending before the Congress that have been in limbo for a number
of years and Congress has failed to act on them.”


The proposal would keep 80% of the islands a wilderness area… with motorboat access
to the islands, but no motor vehicles allowed on the 21-island group. That’s not enough,
according to Sean Wherley. He’s with the Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness.
He says it’s political grandstanding for a battleground state.


“The fact that now it’s lining up behind a non-controversial piece on the Apostles is
disingenuous and misleading at best. It’s very troubling because they have passed on
opportunities for wilderness across the country.”


So far this Congress hasn’t passed any wilderness designations. If that holds true, it will be
only the second Congress not to do that since the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.

Related Links