The 'Green' Biomass Industry Pruitt Called 'Carbon Neutral' Uses Typical Fossil Fuel Industry Tricks to Pollute More

mikulka color
on

This past week, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt declared that the EPA would now consider burning wood and other forest products for energy as โ€œcarbon neutral,โ€ despite his previous commentsย expressing doubtย that carbon dioxide from human activity (and therefore carbon neutrality)ย is even a cause forย concern. In his announcement about the carbon footprint of the biomass industry, Pruittย even went as far asย to claim:ย โ€œThis is environmental stewardship inย action.โ€ย 

Not surprisingly, scientists featured in severalย media outlets immediately pointed out the error of his statement,ย and a report, released within days of Pruitt’s announcement,ย highlights the environmental and public health impacts of the biomassย industry.

William Moomaw, aย Professor of International Environmental Policy at Tufts University whoย holds a PhD in chemistry,ย wasย blunt in assessing what this change in policy means for theย climate.

โ€œBetween this and the Europeans it means no chance of staying within the 2 degree [Celsius] limit. It’s just not possible,โ€ Moomaw told Mashable, referencing the Paris Climate Agreementย goal of limiting global warming to 1.5ยฐC (2.7ยฐF) orย well below 2ยฐC (3.6ยฐF) above preindustrial levels byย 2100.

Moomawโ€™s reference to โ€œthe Europeansโ€ highlights the fact that Pruitt is following in the footsteps of the European Union, which has also placedย bioenergy,ย which includes the burning of trees converted to wood pellets, in the same โ€œrenewable and carbon neutralโ€ category as wind and solar energy. This issue has been covered in detail in โ€œPulp Fiction,โ€ a 2015 Climate Central exposรฉ of the biomass-for-energyย industry.

Pruitt’s decision was welcomed by the forestry industry, which hasย been pushing for this โ€œcarbon neutralโ€ classification for years and recently hired new lobbyists with old ties to Pruitt.ย As Inside Climate News put it:ย โ€œPruitt’s Friends Became Lobbyists, Then Handed Their Clients an EPA Biomass Win.โ€

Converting American forests into wood pellets that areย shipped to Europe and burned in biomass power plants doesn’t seem to bode well for the climate, but that’s not the industry’s only impact.ย A new report by the watchdog nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) documents the biomass industry’s effects on the local American communities where the wood pellet processing plants areย located.

Business as Usual: Lax Regulations, No Public Input, Industryย Self-Reporting

Environmental Integrity Project’s report, โ€œDirty Deception: How the Wood Biomass Industry Skirts the Clean Air Act,โ€ย details how wood pellet production facilities in America are harming the communities where they are located and skirting environmentalย regulations.

The U.S. South has rapidly grown into the worldโ€™s largest wood pellet supplier. In an effort to meetย renewable energy targets, European Union power companies annually import over 4.7 million metric tons of U.S. wood pellets,ย up from just 500,000 tons in 2009, pellets which are burned in converted coal-fired power plants. Remember that the EU classifies cutting down trees, shipping them across the Atlantic Ocean, and burning them as โ€œcarbonย neutral.โ€

The fast-paced growth of the biomass-for-energy industry and its ability to establish itself with little government oversightย or public input is reminiscent of the recent growth of fossil fuel activities such asย fracking shale oil and gas and shipping volatile oil by trainย (dubbed โ€œbomb trainsโ€ by rail workers).

Thisย new report notes that โ€œmany of the air permits EIP surveyed were issued without any public notice or the ability to comment, including permits for the initial construction of facilities, in contravention of the Clean Air Act.โ€ This approach of keeping the public in the dark is a tried-and-true approach of the fossil fuel industry. When the public is aware of the risks such projects pose to their communities, they are better prepared to voiceย opposition, a trend easily observed with recent oil-by-railย projects.

Terry Wechsler, an environmental attorney, explained to Reuters in 2014 why there was no opposition to recently constructed oil-by-rail facilities in Washington state.ย โ€œThere was no opposition to the other three proposals only because we werenโ€™t aware they were in formal permitting,โ€ said Wechsler. Since then, local communities along the West Coast have blocked multiple new oil-by-railย facilities.ย 

When it comes to manufacturing wood pellets, state regulators are complicit in allowing such facilities to bypass environmental and public health rules. In North Carolina, despite the Clean Air Act requirementย to use the โ€œbest available technologyโ€ to reduce emissions, EIP‘s report says the state โ€œillegally allows all three Enviva plants to operate without any [volatile organic compound] VOC or hazardous air pollutant controls whatsoever.โ€ The state approved these measures, allowing the plants to emit higher levels of VOCs, a variety of chemicals with negative health impacts, whichย existing technology could reduceย โ€œby 90 to 95ย percent.โ€

The kicker? Such technology is โ€œin widespread use at similar wood pellet manufacturingย plants.โ€

This trend is not all that different fromย a recent oil-by-rail case in California in which local regulators worked with oil companies to โ€œmake the math workโ€ to help the companies avoid in-depth environmental review atย oil storageย facilities.

In addition to regulators lettingย the wood pellet industryย off the hook from usingย the best available pollution control technology, they also often leave emissions monitoring and reporting to the manufacturers themselves,ย resulting in situations where, according to EIP‘s report, โ€œin-house testing is not subject to the rigorous regulations and review procedures meant to ensure testing is an accurate reflection of trueย emissions.โ€

Furthermore, the report details that when wood pellet facilities in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama underwent outside emissions monitoring, their actual emissions were many times the maximum amount permitted for the facility. And yet the report finds that โ€œmost states have yet to take meaningful action to address theย problem.โ€

EIP found one wood pellet production facility in Texas that was emitting 10 times the allowed amount of VOCs.ย โ€œRather than require the facility to comply with legal limits,โ€ the report says,ย โ€œTexas officials are proposing to simply raise the limits to let the facility continue to emit dangerous levels ofย pollution.โ€

Environmentalย Injustice

The health and environmental risks of these facilities are not equally absorbed across race and income in the communities where they are locatedย either.

In the U.S., wood pellet production facilities were โ€œ50 percentย more likely to be placed in environmental justice communities,โ€ย Sami Yassa, Senior Scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Councilโ€™s Climate and Clean Energy Program, noted during aย conference call with reporters about EIP‘sย report.

โ€œGeorgians have first-hand experience with the dangers posed by this industry,โ€ Vicki Weeks, Georgia State Coordinator for the Dogwood Alliance, stated in a press release. โ€œTheir plants are typically sited in poor rural areas where communities with little access to effective health care are being hard hit by their unchecked airย pollution.โ€

Lower income and minority communities have fewer resources to fight for their rights to clean air, water, and land, and are often the location for polluting facilities โ€” an approach the fossil fuel industry hasย employed with coal plants,ย petrochemical plants,ย oil-by-rail, and fracking.

One recent example of this approach occurred when a mostly white community in Greeley, Colorado, opposed the development of 24 oil and gas wellsย near its school. In the face of this opposition, the company instead chose to frack the wells near a low-income school with a high minority population, which was even closer to the proposed drilling site than the first school. At least one industry executive has admitted this โ€œdonโ€™t frack the richโ€ approach is a strategy for theย industry.

And while the wood pellet facilities are certainly polluting the air in these communities, that is not the end of the risk. Large piles of wood pellets are prone to spontaneousย combustion.

EIP notes: โ€œOf the 15 largest operating wood pellet facilities, at least eight have had fires or explosions since 2014, including at factories in North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, and Texas that released large amounts of air pollution or injured employees.โ€ Due to the nature of the fires, they are difficult to put out. One fire at the German Pellets storage silo in Port Arthur, Texas, burned for two months in 2017,ย resulting in a lawsuit by localย residents.

The Carbon Neutralย Catch-22

One of the main assumptions made by Pruitt, the EU, and the forestย products industry is that burning trees is carbon neutral because newly planted trees will replace them and pull the equivalentย carbon back out of the atmosphere. The blatant flaw in this argument is that when a power plant burns an oak tree today, all of its carbon is released โ€ฆ today. Meanwhile, a new oak wonโ€™t even produce its first acorn for 20 to 30ย years.

โ€œCutting down forests to burn to generate electricity is not in any way โ€˜greenโ€™ or carbon neutral โ€” and in fact, creates a large amount of air pollution,โ€ said Patrick Anderson, co-author of the EIP report.ย โ€œEven if the trees are replanted, not all survive โ€” and those that do will take decades or centuries to grow to the same size, and therefore the same carbon dioxide absorbing potential of the trees that wereย eliminated.โ€

Putting carbon into the atmosphere today and making a plan to remove it over the next 50 to 100 years is bad news for an already overloadedย climate and international ambitions to limit human impacts toย it.

As Moomaw told Mashable:ย โ€œIt’s a bad idea because anything that has carbon in it produces carbon dioxide when you burn it. This isย horrific.โ€

And as the Environmental Integrity Project’s report highlights, it’sย also a bad idea because of the health risksย to communities near wood pellet production facilities in the U.S., not to mentionย theย communities near the power stations where the pellets are burnedย in the EU.

Main image:ย Enviva wood-pellet plant in Ahoskie, North Carolina. Credit: Photo provided by Environmental Integrityย Project

mikulka color
Justin Mikulka is a research fellow at New Consensus. Prior to joining New Consensus in October 2021, Justin reported for DeSmog, where he began in 2014. Justin has a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from Cornell University.

Related Posts

on

The worldโ€™s largest advertising and public relations firms continue to get the majority of their work from major polluters, a new report has found. Known as the โ€œBig Six,โ€ WPP, Omnicom, Interpu...
on

Unique collaboration convenes leaders from the global climate and trauma healing movements to explore the neglected inner dimensions of the crisis.

Unique collaboration convenes leaders from the global climate and trauma healing movements to explore the neglected inner dimensions of the crisis.
Analysis
on

The new Labour government is pledging billions to support projects based on climate-heating natural gas.

The new Labour government is pledging billions to support projects based on climate-heating natural gas.
Analysis
on

Alongside other European powers, the UK is helping to supercharge Saudi Arabiaโ€™s attempt to hijack the global sustainability agenda.

Alongside other European powers, the UK is helping to supercharge Saudi Arabiaโ€™s attempt to hijack the global sustainability agenda.