DOER's biomass regulations will unnecessarily increase greenhouse gas emission and air pollution.
If the UK is serious about addressing climate change, it must help restore and expand forests - not burn them for energy.
First Responders, Health Professionals, Scientists Ask EPA to Disclose Secret Drilling and Fracking Chemicals
EPA Regulators Identified Health Risks ranging from Lung Irritation to Neurotoxicity, but Approved Chemicals for Use
The regulations allow unprecedented double-dipping of renewable energy subsidies by polluting bioenergy
Thinning forests to reduce fire risk makes sense around structures, but is counterproductive in the backcountry
Because Clean Energy Doesn't Come Out of a Smokestack
Citizens should be able to find out if EPA has health concerns about fracking chemicals.
Why is the State of Massachusetts offering incentives for wood heating when wood burners are already a major source of air pollution in Massachusetts?
Climate and waste-reduction groups ask US Conference of Mayors to reject incineration as "clean energy"
As they take action on climate change, the nation's Mayors must commit to zero-emissions energy goals.
Regulatory reform at EPA is a stalking horse for gutting environmental protections. Citizens must watch EPA's process carefully to ensure it doesn't give away the store on a clean and safe environment.
People pay extra on their electricity bill to support clean energy, but with biomass they’re actually paying to pollute.
A big victory for drinking water in the DC area and throughout the Free State.
To prevent dangerous climate warming, we need to plant trees, not burn them for energy.
Fracking has contaminated water supplies though spills, poorly sealed wells, seepage, and well blowouts.
The Piedmont biomass plant burns hundreds of thousands of tons of wood, but doesn't ensure fuels are uncontaminated and doesn't test for hazardous air pollutants
How the UK Can Save Forests, the Climate, and Piles of Money
RGGI should assess whether millions of tons of uncounted carbon pollution from wood-burning power plants undercut efforts on climate.
The Energy Information Administration found biomass will displace solar energy, not coal, if classified as "carbon neutral" in the Clean Power Plan.
The White House strongly objects to language in the House Appropriations Bill that would compel EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as if they emit zero carbon pollution.
Despite requiring clearcutting of millions of forest acres per year, the Department of Energy declines to assess carbon pollution impacts from a biofueled economy.
False claims that wood pellets are climate-friendly misrepresent Forest Service science and are an ominous sign for US forests.
Legislating that bioenergy produces no carbon pollution makes as little sense as legislating that climate change does not exist.
Status of amendments that would force EPA to treat bioenergy as carbon neutral, and the urgent need for legislative opposition
Legislating that biomass energy has no carbon pollution is legislating a lie.
Policy riders forcing EPA to treat wood-burning power plants as emitting zero carbon pollution defy climate science and the demonstrable fact that burning trees for power emits more carbon than coal or gas.
Watch this space for comments for upcoming meetings on Massachusetts subsidies for thermal bioenergy, including wood pellets
Senate Legislation Cedes the US Forest Carbon Sink to the Biomass Industry – Even as Forests Are Already Declining
We all know burning trees drives climate change, but Senate legislation now being considered would dictate that burning more trees does not increase carbon pollution.
"Threatened Forests": Incredible film documents forest destruction by Enviva, other bioenergy producers
Irrefutable evidence of the forest destruction by the wood pellet industry.
The biomass industry's Carbon Ponzi Scheme may fool lawmakers, but it won't fool the atmosphere
It really is that simple. Claims that biomass "reduces" emissions rely on not counting the CO2 emitted when the biomass is burned.
Slides from PFPI's portion of April 6 briefing on biomass energy, hosted by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey's office.
Our analysis of RGGI’s own projections for CO2 emissions shows that if biomass CO2 were counted, actual emissions could be more than 40% higher than are currently projected.
The Biomass Power Association wants Massachusetts to rescind regulations on biomass power plants and go back to a system of paying them to pollute because these highly carbon-intensive facilities can't meet the state's standards.
Wood-burning power plants and waste incinerators emit more CO2 than coal plants, so why is EPA allowing bioenergy and waste incineration in the Clean Power Plan?
A significant discrepancy between the executive summary and the body of report makes it look as if EPA is intentionally misrepresenting its research.
Burning shredded tires and pesticide-treated railroad ties, the L'Anse Warden plant is allowed by its permit to emit more pollution than Michigan's coal plants.
Emission reductions should be "quantifiable, verifiable, non-duplicative, permanent and enforceable." Is this even possible with biomass?
Municipal Waste Burning: More Polluting Than Coal, But Treated as Zero-Emissions in the Clean Power Plan
A new analysis finds that the Clean Power Plan treats burning even fossil-fuel derived wastes like plastics as having zero emissions.
White House threatens veto of EPA appropriations bill due to riders, including bioenergy carbon neutrality provision
Legislating biomass as carbon neutral is dumb and dangerous. Apparently the White House agrees.
Coalition calls on White House to take wood-burning power plants out of plan for reducing greenhouse emissions
There’s really no better way to sabotage the Clean Power Plan than by burning up the forest carbon sink in power plants and then treating the electricity generated as if it has zero emissions.
EPA's fracking study found proven harm, serious risk and inadequate science - so what's the problem?
The report found that fracking can -- and has -- contaminated drinking water through several pathways, refuting drilling industry protests that such contamination is impossible.
Representative Beyer (VA) to EPA: Treating biomass as carbon neutral allows Virginia's forests to be harvested for fuel
"I share the concern that Virginia will become known as a state that harvests forests to reduce its dependence on coal, rather than one that develops renewable technologies that clearly reduce emissions, such as solar and wind"
If you're someone who's been suckered by biomass industry claims that burning trees doesn't emit carbon, this post's for you.
Clearcutting forests for biomass to keep aging coal plants operating – the biomass industry’s “Clean Power” plan
It’s time to stop referring to this dirty, environmentally destructive industry as “clean” energy, and start calling it what it is - an obscenity.
The facility, which received millions in federal clean energy funding, has a “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy for fuel contamination
Letter from Rep. Connolly (VA) to EPA: Treating bioenergy as carbon neutral may undermine the Clean Power Plan
Treating biomass as carbon-neutral may have unintended consequences that could actually undermine and inhibit our ability to reduce carbon emissions.
We can’t reduce emissions under the Clean Power Plan by replacing coal with the only thing that emits more carbon pollution: biomass
Since this resolution was offered last year, Washington, DC has eliminated renewable energy subsidies for low efficiency biomass power, meaning that Dominion will not be able to benefit from this market.
DC and MD Health and Environmental Advocates to EPA: Highly Polluting Bioenergy Doesn't Belong In The Clean Power Plan
You can’t meet carbon and air pollution reduction goals by replacing coal with something that’s dirtier than coal
Dominion Power and other big utilities want to replace coal with wood, threatening forests and the climate.