Takes time to grow: Biomass ban would be big blunder

Worcester Telegram

June 13, 2010

Much has been made of a study released last week by the Manomet Center for Conservation Studies which purports to show that power generated by the burning of biomass is worse for the climate than producing power from coal.

The study was cited by opponents of biomass energy plants proposed for Western Massachusetts as proof those projects should not proceed. And state Environmental Secretary Ian Bowles stated that it was time to reevaluate the role of biomass, given that biomass is not “carbon neutral in a timeframe that makes sense.”

We’re not energy scientists, but we’re not convinced that one six-month study should overturn years of state policy, particularly when a substantial scientific argument has been mounted by the other side, which maintains that a longer view can show biomass is indeed carbon neutral.

Biomass advocates argue that the Manomet study assumed the use of new wood from forest clearing and logging operations, rather than the more likely practice of the industry, which would be to fuel any plants through a combination of selective cutting and clearing, including stumps, and other vegetative waste products. Left untouched, they say, such products will produce both carbon dioxide and methane, a very potent greenhouse gas.

The central issue is a scientific one. Both sides acknowledge that cutting and burning trees for fuel creates a carbon “debt” in the form of CO₂ released to the atmosphere. Both sides agree that planting new trees acts, in time, to absorb CO₂, thus “repaying” the debt. The questions to be answered include: What balance of biomass fuels is economically and ecologically feasible to obtain? How much fuel will be needed? How long a growth cycle for reforestation should be included in any calculations of biomass’s viability?

Those are difficult questions that will require additional years of study, and should be decided on the basis of science and economics, not politics. And, in any scenario, consumers need to understand that it will be a long time before biomass makes a serious contribution to reducing our region’s reliance on fossil fuels.

It is important that the state chart a middle course on biomass while the scientists do their work.

These questions cannot be properly decided by citizen petitions and ballot questions, nor should environmental officials make snap decisions that could cut off promising lines of inquiry. For their part, scientists studying biomass ought to isolate themselves from the influences of any groups — whether they be conservationists or those in the power industry — whose primary motivations are political, or who are intent on pushing some other form of energy that meets with their favor, or for which they happen to hold a subsidy or tax credit.

New England will always need energy. Biomass may have a role to play in that. But the technological breakthroughs and insights that could come in the future won’t happen if the state simply cuts it down on the basis of a single study.