Having problems with message search?
(US Markey Waxman climate legislation
currently in progress. THis was delivered earlier in
week)
Chairman Henry Waxman
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Edward Markey
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
April 23, 2009
Dear Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey,
We are writing to encourage you to prohibit the inclusion of any sort of biomass as a renewable energy source in the American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 (ACESA)'s Renewable Energy Standard (RES). While we are thankful that biomass sourcing safeguards were included, and that the use of municipal solid waste was explicitly prohibited, the proposed biomass safeguards in the RES are nowhere near strong enough to protect our forests, ecosystems and communities. We do not support the inclusion of any biomass derived energy, including burning or refining of wood, agricultural products, wastes, manures or landfill gases for electricity, biofuels, or other purposes in definitions of renewable energy.
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessments 60% of the world's ecosystems are in decline and the IUCN reports 2 out of every 5 species known to science may face extinction. Soil degradation and diminishing freshwater resources threaten the future of agriculture. This unfortunate state of affairs sets the context for determining our future energy course. Increasing evidence points to the fact that forests and other ecosystems, including soils, store far more carbon than previously assumed. For example, a recent study of old growth temperate forest carbon flux showed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figures had underestimated this measure by 75 percent. Additionally, new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) illustrates the historical contribution of deforestation to carbon emissions and points out the potential for regeneration to re-sequester large amounts of carbon.
Given the above, protecting and regenerating forests, ecosystems and soils is the most important step we must take if we are to stabilize the global climate, not to mention other ecosystem benefits this would provide, including protecting future freshwater supplies and biodiversity conservation. Providing policy and financial incentives to use plant biomass for energy runs counter to the goal of protecting and regenerating ecosystems and thus threatens to greatly exacerbate global warming rather than mitigate it.
Biomass should not be considered renewable because the removal of biomass, even "residues and wastes" from forests, grasslands or soils, depletes nutrients and results in declining fertility and biodiversity. While it is possible to re-grow trees and other plant matter, it is not possible to recreate healthy ecosystems, and the demand for electricity from biomass facilities requires more biomass materials than can be sustainably harvested.
We cannot produce biomass energy on a large scale without serious environmental consequences. The oft quoted "billion ton" study, by Dr. Robert Perlack of Oak Ridge National Laboratory is unrealistic. A recent analysis from Cornell University shows that total biomass production in the U.S., including all forests, grasslands and agricultural crops combined, amounts to just two billion tons. Producing 36 billion gallons of agrofuel annually would therefore require the monopolization of 80% of all biomass grown in the US every year (crops, grasses and forest). Industrial tree plantations, such as those now covering much of the previously forested southeastern U.S. are ecologically compromised, supporting only a fraction of their former diversity, and depend on large inputs of fertilizers and agrichemicals.
Industrial monoculture of trees (including genetically engineered trees) or other crops grown for energy are not "clean, renewable or sustainable." Sustained harvesting of any biomass will require large inputs of nitrogen and other fertilizers; nitrogen fertilizer is a major cause of biodiversity decline and increasingly N2O emissions are recognized as a major contributor to climate change. Nearly half of the nitrogen fertilizers used in the U.S. are imported, hence undermining the goal of energy security. In addition, burning biomass results in toxic air emissions and the production of toxic ash, which threatens to worsen air and water quality. Additional emissions result from massive transportation requirements to provide adequate quantities of biomass to operating facilities.
2204 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Edward Markey
2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
April 23, 2009
Dear Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey,
We are writing to encourage you to prohibit the inclusion of any sort of biomass as a renewable energy source in the American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 (ACESA)'s Renewable Energy Standard (RES). While we are thankful that biomass sourcing safeguards were included, and that the use of municipal solid waste was explicitly prohibited, the proposed biomass safeguards in the RES are nowhere near strong enough to protect our forests, ecosystems and communities. We do not support the inclusion of any biomass derived energy, including burning or refining of wood, agricultural products, wastes, manures or landfill gases for electricity, biofuels, or other purposes in definitions of renewable energy.
According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessments 60% of the world's ecosystems are in decline and the IUCN reports 2 out of every 5 species known to science may face extinction. Soil degradation and diminishing freshwater resources threaten the future of agriculture. This unfortunate state of affairs sets the context for determining our future energy course. Increasing evidence points to the fact that forests and other ecosystems, including soils, store far more carbon than previously assumed. For example, a recent study of old growth temperate forest carbon flux showed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figures had underestimated this measure by 75 percent. Additionally, new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) illustrates the historical contribution of deforestation to carbon emissions and points out the potential for regeneration to re-sequester large amounts of carbon.
Given the above, protecting and regenerating forests, ecosystems and soils is the most important step we must take if we are to stabilize the global climate, not to mention other ecosystem benefits this would provide, including protecting future freshwater supplies and biodiversity conservation. Providing policy and financial incentives to use plant biomass for energy runs counter to the goal of protecting and regenerating ecosystems and thus threatens to greatly exacerbate global warming rather than mitigate it.
Biomass should not be considered renewable because the removal of biomass, even "residues and wastes" from forests, grasslands or soils, depletes nutrients and results in declining fertility and biodiversity. While it is possible to re-grow trees and other plant matter, it is not possible to recreate healthy ecosystems, and the demand for electricity from biomass facilities requires more biomass materials than can be sustainably harvested.
We cannot produce biomass energy on a large scale without serious environmental consequences. The oft quoted "billion ton" study, by Dr. Robert Perlack of Oak Ridge National Laboratory is unrealistic. A recent analysis from Cornell University shows that total biomass production in the U.S., including all forests, grasslands and agricultural crops combined, amounts to just two billion tons. Producing 36 billion gallons of agrofuel annually would therefore require the monopolization of 80% of all biomass grown in the US every year (crops, grasses and forest). Industrial tree plantations, such as those now covering much of the previously forested southeastern U.S. are ecologically compromised, supporting only a fraction of their former diversity, and depend on large inputs of fertilizers and agrichemicals.
Industrial monoculture of trees (including genetically engineered trees) or other crops grown for energy are not "clean, renewable or sustainable." Sustained harvesting of any biomass will require large inputs of nitrogen and other fertilizers; nitrogen fertilizer is a major cause of biodiversity decline and increasingly N2O emissions are recognized as a major contributor to climate change. Nearly half of the nitrogen fertilizers used in the U.S. are imported, hence undermining the goal of energy security. In addition, burning biomass results in toxic air emissions and the production of toxic ash, which threatens to worsen air and water quality. Additional emissions result from massive transportation requirements to provide adequate quantities of biomass to operating facilities.
While we have focused here on biomass derived from forests and farmlands, we extend our concerns to all the numerous other biomass-derived energy technologies, including incineration of wastes, poultry manure and landfill gases as well as refining of biomass for liquid "cellulosic" transportation fuels. All of these "burn and refine" technologies deplete resources, rely on the perpetuation of unsustainable practices, and therefore cannot be considered "renewable".
We do support the RES' exclusion of toxin-containing municipal solid waste or construction and demolition debris within the definition of biomass (although there are incentives still remaining that should be addressed ). We do support ACESA's focus on efficiency measures for which there is broad latitude to massively decrease energy consumption. We do support investment in truly clean energy technologies such as wind, solar and ocean-based energy that do not involve any form of combustion. We must pursue truly clean, renewable and "zero waste" technologies immediately. Given the above considerations we ask that you remove eligibility of biomass from definitions of "renewable".
We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you in person to further discuss this matter and will be contacting your office to set up a time.
Sincerely,
Organizations
Action Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania), Mike Ewall
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, David Mickey
Caney Fork Headwaters Association, (Tennessee) Rev. Charles Lord
Concerned Citizens of Russell, (Massachussetts) John Chicoine
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, (Tennessee), Rev. Walter Stark
Dogwood Alliance, (North Carolina) Scott Quaranda
Ecological Internet (USA), Dr Glen Barry
Energy Justice Network (Pennsylvania) Mike Ewall
Environmental Alliance of North Florida, (Florida) Rick Causey
Family Farm Defenders, (Wisconsin) John Peck
Florida League of Conservation Voters, (Florida) Joy Towles Ezell
Floridians Against Incinerators in Disguise,(Florida) Susie Caplowe
Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Global) Ananda Tan
Global Justice Ecology Project (Vermont), Anne Petermann
Grassroots International (Global), Maria Aguiar
Green Delaware (Delaware), Alan Mueller
Heartwood Forest Council (Illinois), Ernie Reed
HOPE (Florida), Rebecca Edwards
Kentucky Environmental Foundation (Kentucky), Elizabeth Crowe
Massachussetts Forest Watch (Massachussetts), Chris Matera
Native Forest Council (U.S.) Tim Hermach
Neighbors Against the Burner (Minnesota), Nancy Hohn
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility (Tennessee) Donald B. Clark
Sound Resource Management (Washington), Jeffrey Morris, Ph.D.
Wild Watershed (New Mexico) Sam Hitt
Individuals
William J. Blackley, MD.
Ficalora, R.A., Montauk, N.Y.
Ging, Kathy, Eugene, OR.
Silberman, Jerry, Philadelphia, PA.
Tome, Karin, Brunswick, MD.
Wund, John C., Crossville, TN.
--
Rachel Smolker
Research Biologist
Hinesburg, Vermont, U.S.A.
office: (802) 482 2848
mobile: (802) 735-7794
skype: rachel smolker
Send Email