RECENTLY ON TOL:
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
I don't understand how anyone can say CO2 from biomass isn't biogenic, but that's really beside the point. What matters is whether it's non-accumulative/carbon neutral. If it's from trees that are to be replanted, the answer is probably yes, since the emissions can be balanced (even if the rate of uptake is slower/varies regionally/isn't as good for near-term reductions). It may add to the short-term CO2 loading of the atmosphere, but if it's fire-control biomass or slash, then it will burn anyway. And as the US News article suggests, fossil fuel is at this point the likely alternative in most cases. If we were deploying solar baseload etc. fast enough to keep up with demand, we probably wouldn't need biomass. I can understand concerns about it becoming a slippery slope leading to increased forest activity unrelated to fire control, but perhaps policy can address that.
posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context