>> BIOMASS -- ORGANIC MATERIAL FROM PLANTS AND TREES -- IS
CONSIDERED A SOURCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY, BUT ENVIRONMENTALISTS
ARE ASKING THE GOVERNOR TO STOP FUNDING BIOMASS WOOD HEAT IN HIS
RENEWABLE ENERGY LAW, STATING THAT THIS ACTUALLY HURTS THE
ENVIRONMENT.
I SAT DOWN WITH BILL MOOMAW, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AT TUFTS UNIVERSITY AND
MICHAELANN BEWSEE, WHO IS INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE WORK, TO LEARN MORE.
>> THE PROBLEM FROM A CLINIC POINT OF VIEW IS THAT THE MAJOR
HEAT TRAPPING GAS IN THE AIR IS CARBON DIOXIDE.
THAT COMES FROM BURNING COAL, OIL, NATURAL GAS AND WOOD, AND
THE CARBON DIOXIDE COMING FROM WOOD DOES EXACTLY WHAT THE
CARBON DIOXIDE DOES IN BURNING COAL DOES AND IT'S ASSUMED THAT
BECAUSE ANOTHER TREE MAY GROW AND ABSORB THE CARBON DIOXIDE
THAT WAS EMITTED WHEN THE -- WHEN THE WOOD WAS BURNED IS THAT
IT'S CARBON NEUTRAL BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE.
IT IS -- IT TAKES MANY, MANY YEARS FOR TREES TO REGROW AND
THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THAT THEY WILL REGROW.
SO THE -- WE'RE ADDING CARBON DIOXIDE TO THE ATMOSPHERE SO
RAPIDLY THAT LAST OCTOBER, THE WORLD'S SCIENTISTS THROUGH THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE SAID WE HAVE TO
NOT ONLY STOP PUTTING CARBON DIOXIDE IN, WE HAVE TO INCREASE
THE RATE AT WHICH IT'S TAKING IT OUT.
THE ONLY THING ON THE PLANET THAT IS DOING THAT AT SCALE ARE
OUR FORESTS THEY ARE REMOVING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ABOUT A THIRD TO
WHAT WE PUT IN AS FOSSIL FUEL CARBON EVERY YEAR.
IF WE CUT THEM DOWN AND BURN THEM, WE ADD CARBON DIOXIDE ON
ONE SIDE AND WE REDUCE THE CAPACITY FOR DECADES TO A
CENTURY TO TAKE IT OUT.
SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM AND THAT'S A NEW PROBLEM FOR THINKING ABOUT
THE ROLE OF FORESTS.
IT HAS NOT BEEN ON THE AGENDA UNTIL RECENTLY.
>> AND WHAT STEPS HAVE YOU TAKEN, YOU KNOW, TO ADDRESS YOUR
CONCERNS AND EXPRESS THEM?
>> I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WITH A LOT OF COLLEAGUES ON DOING THE
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO SAY -- TO GET IT RIGHT.
YOU KNOW, TO REALLY QUANTITATIVELY DETERMINE HOW BAD
IT IS.
SO ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES JOHN STERNMAN FROM MIT AND GOES
COLLEAGUES PRODUCED A PAPER -- TWO PAPERS LAST JANUARY -- OR A
YEAR AGO JANUARY SHOWING THAT IT'S WORSE THAN COAL.
THE AMOUNT OF THE HEAT-TRAPPING YOU GET FROM BURNING WOOD IS
WORSE IF YOU HAD BURNED COAL.
>> AND DO YOU THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE --
>> NO.
>> YOU THINK BIOMASS, WELL, GEE, IT IS RENEWABLE AND IT SOUNDS
LIKE IT WOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.
>> RIGHT, RIGHT.
NO AND IT'S AMAZING.
EUROPE IS DOING THIS.
THEY ARE DECIMATING THE COAL WITH WOOD, AND THE
LEGISLATIVE -- AND CARBON WHEN THE SCIENCE SAYS IT'S FAR FROM
CARBON NEUTRAL IN FACT, IT'S NOT ONLY CARBON NEUTRAL FOR THE
ATMOSPHERE.
IT'S NOT CLIMATE NEUTRAL IN THE SENSE THAT THE CLIMATE -- WE'RE
ACCELERATING THE RATE OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO
URGENT WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN AND THE SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT
THAT WAS MADE LAST OCTOBER IS THAT THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO
INCREASE THE REMOVAL RATES IS TO INCREASE THE REMOVAL RATES BY
FORESTS NOT TO CUT THEM DOWN AND BURN THEM.
>> MICHAELANN WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT AND HOW DID YOU GET
INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE?
>> WELL, I WORKED WITH A GROUP CALLED ARISE, THEY'RE A LOW
INCOME RIGHTS ORGANIZATION AND WHEN WE FIRST -- WE WERE INVITED
TO A FORUM IN WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY ON
BIOMASS.
IT CERTAINLY LIKE GREEN.
THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAD HEARD ABOUT IT BUT AFTER LEAVING THE
FORUM, I HAD VERY MANY CONCERNS -- NOT SO MANY AT THAT
TIME ABOUT THE RENEWABLE ASPECT BUT ABOUT BURNING WOOD'S IMPACT
ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WE HAVE EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH ASTHMA
RATES IN THE PIONEER VALLEY AND IN HAMDAN COUNTY AND 2.5
PARTICULATE MATTER DOESN'T JUST AFFECT BREATHING.
IT CREATES ALL SORTS OF INFLAMMATORY CONNECTIONS, HEART
DISEASE SO REALLY WE LEFT VERY CONCERNED AND THERE WAS A
SPRINGFIELD PROJECT -- ACTUALLY, THERE WERE 3 BIOMASS PLANTS
BEING PROPOSED IN WESTERN MASS ALL AT THE SAME TIME IN RUSSELL,
GREENFIELD AND SPRINGFIELD, AND RUSSELL AND GREENFIELD BACKED
THEIR PLANTS THROUGH COMMUNITY ORGANIZING AND OUR PLANTS,
UNFORTUNATELY, WAS MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN THE PERMITTING PROCESS
BUT WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND WE TOOK IT ON AND 8
YEARS LATER THE PLANT STILL HAS NOT BEEN BUILT ALTHOUGH IT DOES
SEEM TO BE HAVING A LIFE OF ITS OWN AND REEMERGING AS AN ISSUE
SO WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS
PLANT IN A COMMUNITY THAT REALLY CAN'T HANDLE ANY MORE AIR
POLLUTION.
>> AND WHAT STEPS HAVE YOU TAKEN TO LET ACTUALLY GOVERNOR -- TO
LET ACTUALLY GOVERNOR KNOW?
>> A LETTER WAS ORGANIZED BY THE PARTNERSHIP OF PUBLIC ACTIVITY
30 ORGANIZATIONS IN THE COMMONWEALTH SIGNED IT AND A
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SIGNED IT, AND THE
CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AREN'T REALLY IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVOCACY,
BUT, YOU KNOW, IF I WERE A CANCER RESEARCHER AND I
DISCOVERED THAT THE TOOTHPASTE WE WERE USING WAS CAUSING
ESOPHAGEAL CANCER AND DIDN'T TELL THE WORLD ABOUT IT, I WOULD
BE DARE ELECTRIC IN MY DUTY AND THAT'S WHY A LOT OF US FEEL AND
IT'S BASICALLY, IN FACT, THAT'S BASICALLY A SAD ANALYSIS BECAUSE
A QUARTER OF THE PARTICULATE MATTER, THE SMALL P2.5 IN THE
COMMONWEALTH IS COMING FROM BURNING WOOD AND THE
COMMONWEALTH IS SUBSIDIZING THIS SO WE AS TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING TO
ADD MORE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, REDUCE THE CAPACITY
OF OUR FORESTS TO REMOVE IT AND ADDING TO THE AIR POLLUTION AND
WORCESTER COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF
PARTICULATE 2.5 IN THE COUNTRY AND HAMDAN COUNTY IS -- IS ALSO
A MAJOR -- HAS MAJOR CONCENTRATIONS OF THESE
POLLUTANTS.
>> WHAT IS A LESS COSTLY ZERO EMITTING ALTERNATIVE TO THIS?
>> IF IT'S BEING USED FOR ELECTRICITY, SOLAR PLANTS ARE
THE CHEAPER SOURCE OF ENERGY EVEN SOME WIND PROJECTS ARE
CHEAPER THAN GAS.
IT'S CERTAINLY COMPARABLE TO NATURAL GAS AND THEY ARE BOTH
CHEAPER THAN BURNING WOOD, IN FACT, THE ONLY THINGS THAT ARE
MORE EXPENSIVE THAN BURNING WOOD ARE NUCLEAR POWER WHICH WE'VE
ALSO HAD TO SUBSIDIZE TO GET IT UP AND THE MOST -- THE COAL
PLANTS THAT HAVE THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF POLLUTION IN THEM THAT
ADDS A LOT OF COST BUT MANY OF THE WOOD PLANTS ARE MORE
EXPENSIVE THAN COAL PLANTS AND SO WHY ARE WE SUBS DIAGRAMS
THESE?
>> AND SO WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP, MICHAELANN?
>> MOST CLIMATE SCIENTISTS NOW SAY WE HAVE ABOUT A DOZEN YEARS
TO MAKE MASSIVE REDUCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE C02 WE'RE
PUTTING IN THE ATMOSPHERE SO FOR EVERY SIMILAR THAT THE GOVERNOR
MIGHT ASSUME WE SAVE ON BIOMASS WHICH ACTUALLY IS NOT THE CASE,
WE'RE GOING TO BE INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE MONEY WE SPEND IN
PUBLIC HEALTH AND CHANGES THAT WE'LL NEED TO MAKE TO KEEP
WEATHER HALFWAY CONTROLLABLE AND THE PLANET HALFWAY LIVABLE IN
THE FUTURE.
BIOMASS IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES THAT STARTS OUT SIMPLE, GETS
VERY COMPLICATED AS YOU GET INTO THE TECHNICALITIES BUT THEN IT
GETS SIMPLE AGAIN, WHAT KIND OF ENERGY DO WE NEED IN ORDER NOT
TO HURT OURSELVES TO PRODUCE IT AND BIOMASS IS NOT IT.
♪