Kialo requires cookies to work correctly.
Is it appropriate for the EPA to declare biomass to be carbon neutral?
It is appropriate for the EPA to declare biomass to be carbon neutral.
The EPAs decision is consistent with the current US administration's stance.
As the forest regrows, it will act as a carbon sink.
Carbon trapped underground in coal, oil, and gas is the only mass of carbon not cycling through the birth and decay of flora and fauna.
The EPA's policy position creates clarity and certainty for the industry.
According to a large group of scientists signing a
to the EPA in 2016, the "carbon benefits of sustainable forest biomass energy are well established.".
The European Union maintains a policy that establishes biomass to be carbon neutral.
While biomass itself doesn't net add to the carbon in the atmosphere, burning it does, since the biomass is not put back into circulation.
This would make sense if one could leave a tree in the forest and burn it too. But one cannot.
The forest may not regrow like proponents claim it will.
There's a lot of science which suggests that biomass isn't carbon neutral.
, Scott Pruitt is dismissing science for the benefit of industry.
Do we need nuclear power for sustainable energy production?
Is Media That Openly Declares Bias Better Than Media Claiming To Be Neutral?
Should nuclear energy replace fossil fuels?