Comments on: Danish Ambassador Discusses Copenhagen, Biomass Burning & Buildings http://www.earthbeatradio.org/home/danish-ambassador-discusses-copenhagen-biomass-burning-buildings/ Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:40:10 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Meg Sheehan http://www.earthbeatradio.org/home/danish-ambassador-discusses-copenhagen-biomass-burning-buildings/comment-page-1/#comment-675 Meg Sheehan Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:46:15 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/home/?p=1423#comment-675 McCarthy, You are wrong. The science is clear: biomass burning is not carbon neutral within any meaningful time frame, and recent data shows that newly planted trees actually emit carbon dioxide for up to ten years. U.S. EPA classifies all "biomass burning" (tires, trash, waste to energy) as carbon neutral. This is on E Grid, should you care to do your research. According to DOE's Energy Information Administration, this "biomass burning" will emit 700 million tons of CO2 per year up through 2020. All of this CO2 is "invisible" to cap and trade and EPA's air pollution control regulations under the Clean Air Act. I am not a NIMBY, as you allege, and in fact live over 50 miles from the nearest forest incinerator that it calling itself clean and green. Respectfully, you are the one who needs to do her homework. Start here: www.nobiomassburning.org www.massenvironmentalenergy.org www.stopspewingcarbon.org McCarthy,
You are wrong. The science is clear: biomass burning is not carbon neutral within any meaningful time frame, and recent data shows that newly planted trees actually emit carbon dioxide for up to ten years.

U.S. EPA classifies all “biomass burning” (tires, trash, waste to energy) as carbon neutral. This is on E Grid, should you care to do your research. According to
DOE’s Energy Information Administration, this “biomass burning” will emit 700 million tons of CO2 per year up through 2020. All of this CO2 is “invisible” to cap and trade and EPA’s air pollution control regulations under the Clean Air Act.

I am not a NIMBY, as you allege, and in fact live over 50 miles from the nearest forest incinerator that it calling itself clean and green.

Respectfully, you are the one who needs to do her homework. Start here:
http://www.nobiomassburning.org
http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org
http://www.stopspewingcarbon.org

]]> By: Donnachadh McCarthy http://www.earthbeatradio.org/home/danish-ambassador-discusses-copenhagen-biomass-burning-buildings/comment-page-1/#comment-457 Donnachadh McCarthy Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:53:32 +0000 http://www.earthbeatradio.org/home/?p=1423#comment-457 As a regular listener and admirer of Earthbeat Radio I found this interview about burning biomass infuriating and scientifically wrong. The interviewee showed enormous lack of understanding of the difference between burning trash which is carbon emitting and burning biomass which can be carbon neutral. She also appeared to have no understanding of what the difference between carbon neutrality and zero carbon and finally her condeming of the burning of landfill gas for energy production made no reference to this gas (methane) if not burnt being a greenhouse gas 24 times more powerful than CO2. The whole point of burning biomass was ignored ie by burning trees which are pollarded or replanted, the amount of CO2 remains constant. Unlike burnig of coal and fossil fuels which ADD to total in atmosphere. This lady to me sounds like a NIMBY who is using bad misinformed science to oppose real renewable energy, just like all those windturbine NIMBYs. I was saddened that EarthBeat radio was not able to question her knowledgeably. As a regular listener and admirer of Earthbeat Radio I found this interview about burning biomass infuriating and scientifically wrong. The interviewee showed enormous lack of understanding of the difference between burning trash which is carbon emitting and burning biomass which can be carbon neutral. She also appeared to have no understanding of what the difference between carbon neutrality and zero carbon and finally her condeming of the burning of landfill gas for energy production made no reference to this gas (methane) if not burnt being a greenhouse gas 24 times more powerful than CO2.
The whole point of burning biomass was ignored ie by burning trees which are pollarded or replanted, the amount of CO2 remains constant. Unlike burnig of coal and fossil fuels which ADD to total in atmosphere.
This lady to me sounds like a NIMBY who is using bad misinformed science to oppose real renewable energy, just like all those windturbine NIMBYs. I was saddened that EarthBeat radio was not able to question her knowledgeably.

]]>