This Action Alert has expired and can no longer be sent. Many thanks to those who participated.

Action Alert: Forest and Crop Biomass Can Never Ecologically Sustainably Power Industrial Society

No Biomass/No Burning! Truly renewable energy must be defined as including no energy production or climate mitigation claims from food based agrofuels, live plants and ecosystems, or burning/pyrolysis of biomass of any type.

By Rainforest Rescue (Rettet den Regenwald) - April 28, 2009

In partnership with Climate Ark a project of Ecological Internet

Share on Facebook

1.) Inform Yourself

  QUICK JUMP: ENTER INFO (2) | SEND (3)


NOTE: This is a protest, not a petition, sending emails to many real decision makers on matters vital to the Earth.

No Biomass/No Burning
Caption: Meeting the current U.S. government mandate for liquid biofuels alone would require 80% of ALL annual biomass growth on the continental U.S. including forests, agricultural crops and grasses! (link)

As the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is belatedly gaining recognition within the United States, a suite of policy initiatives, including the Markey-Waxman "American Climate and Energy Security Act 2009" (ACESA), are being considered that promote biomass such as tree plantations, and forest and agricultural 'waste', as renewable energy. Given well known issues of sustainability regarding industrial agriculture and land mismanagement, the need to more clearly define just what "renewable" means is clearly shown. It is vitally important that renewable energy be defined, within the context of federal energy and climate policy, in strictly ecological sustainability terms, including renewable energy and low carbon fuel standards.

In an alarming trend, burning, pyrolysis and other refining of plant biomass and also toxic municipal waste (or for that matter anything that burns) is being falsely promoted as renewable and of benefit to reducing emissions that cause climate change. Humans already consume a large amount of the energy represented in annual biological growth. To try to consume more of Earth's primary productivity is clearly unsustainable land use. Even partial replacement of fossil fuels with fresh plant biomass energy is absolutely impossible for more than a few years. Trying will denude Earth and make a very different planet, that is hostile and uninhabitable to human life.

Burning biomass is being falsely hailed as one of the "cheapest and most versatile" ways to produce non fossil-fuel energy for electricity, heat and manufacturing processes. Generating electricity and transportation fuels including cellulosic ethanol from wood is gaining tremendous support, though it is a commercially untested and highly inefficient process, and would have devastating consequences for already overburdened terrestrial ecosystems, climate and the biosphere..

The world‘s land and forests are already past their carrying capacity, and terrestrial ecosystems, upon which all life depends, are crashing. Biomass based climate and energy plans dependent upon further intensification of industrial agriculture -- either through using 'waste' which is really non-renewable nutrients for new plants, or expanding industrial tree plantations -- are premature.

As eight millennia of experience and the unfolding disaster of agrofuels from corn, soy beans and oil palm clearly demonstrates, expansion of land-conversion by industrial agriculture strongly threatens biodiversity and ecosystems that play an essential role in stabilizing and regulating the climate, and are necessary to ensure food and water security Further large-scale industrial pursuit of energy from biomass will almost certainly be ecologically devastating, and no one knows if they will work.

It is clearly impossible for industrial agriculture and already depleted terrestrial ecosystems to meet the wood and crops needed to significantly reduce atmospheric carbon, or provide for continued industrial energy use. After losing 80% of the world‘s natural and intact forest habitats, mostly to agriculture, how can Earth accommodate these additional demands upon plant's primary productivity and still produce food, preserve wild places and maintain ecosystems required to sustain a habitable Earth? It is more likely that even trying will continue the processes leading to global ecosystem collapse.

While turning live plants into liquid fuels has shown to be highly energy inefficient, massive subsidies are being directed towards this goal. Massive demand for all forms of "biomass" -- from wood, to corn stover, grasses, garbage, chicken manure, municipal solid wastes and landfill gases -- are coalescing into a looming disaster for forests and ecosystems, for communities living near “burn” facilities and for efforts to reduce wasteful consumption and pull human society into global ecological sustainability.

Burning wood or other plant material for electricity will assuredly build markets beyond what can be met by 'waste' biomass, and will require unsustainable, massive quantities of industrial grown tree plantations, while increasing cutting and harvesting from both public and private forested lands. In Massachusetts, for example, increasing electricity generation by only 0.1% will demand 2.4 million tons of wood. The scale of demands for wood, grasses and other plant biomass for 'cellulosic fuels', particularly when indirect land use changes are properly accounted for, are similarly unsustainable and entirely unrealistic.

Meeting the current U.S. government mandate for liquid biofuels alone would require 80% of ALL annual biomass growth on the continental U.S. including forests, agricultural crops and grasses! At a time when the protection and regeneration of forests, soils, freshwater resources and biodiversity is urgent, creating massive new demands for any plant material is misguided and will further degrade ecosystems. Burning garbage "biomass", including construction and demolition debris treated with paints and preservatives, results in toxic air emissions including dioxins that are extremely harmful to health as well as creating incentives to perpetuate waste production when it is clear that "zero waste" practices must be adopted.

As policy makers seek to expand mandates for renewable energy through a federal "renewable energy standard" it is essential that the focus remain upon true renewables such as wind, solar and ocean-derived technologies. Burning or refining plant biomass, garbage or landfill gases is not "renewable". Support us in demanding “no biomass/no burning” in definitions of renewable energy within the Markey Waxman climate bill and beyond!

  •   | Discuss Alert



Sample Email Sent


Renewable energy must be ecologically sustainable


Dear Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey,

We are writing to encourage you to prohibit the inclusion
of any sort of biomass as a renewable energy source in the
American Climate and Energy Security Act of 2009 (ACESA)
and Renewable Energy Standard (RES). The proposed biomass
safeguards in the RES are nowhere near strong enough to
protect our forests, ecosystems and communities. We do not
support the inclusion of any biomass derived energy,
including burning, pyrolysis or other refining of wood,
agricultural products, wastes, manures or landfill gases
for electricity, biofuels, or other purposes in definitions
of renewable energy.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessments 60% of
the world's ecosystems are in decline and the IUCN reports
2 out of every 5 species known to science may face
extinction. Soil degradation and diminishing freshwater
resources threaten the future of agriculture and humankind.
This unfortunate state of affairs sets the context for
determining our future energy and climate change policy
courses.

Forests and other ecosystems, including soils, store far
more carbon than previously assumed. A recent study of old
growth temperate forest carbon flux showed that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) figures
had underestimated this measure by 75 percent.
Additionally, new research published in the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) illustrates the
historical contribution of deforestation to carbon
emissions and points out the potential for natural
ecosystem regeneration to re-sequester large amounts of
carbon.

Given the above, protecting and regenerating forests,
ecosystems and soils is the most important step we must
take if we are to stabilize the global climate, not to
mention other ecosystem benefits this would provide,
including protecting future freshwater supplies and
biodiversity conservation. Providing policy and financial
incentives to use plant biomass for energy runs counter to
the goal of protecting and regenerating ecosystems and thus
threatens to greatly exacerbate global warming rather than
mitigate it.

Biomass should not be considered renewable because the
removal of biomass, even "residues and wastes" from
forests, grasslands or soils, depletes nutrients and
results in declining fertility and biodiversity. While it
is possible to re-grow trees and other plant matter, it is
not possible to recreate healthy ecosystems, and the demand
for electricity from biomass facilities requires more
biomass materials than can be sustainably harvested.

We cannot produce biomass energy on a large scale without
serious environmental consequences. A recent analysis from
Cornell University shows that total biomass production in
the U.S., including all forests, grasslands and
agricultural crops combined, amounts to just two billion
tons. Producing 36 billion gallons of agrofuel annually as
required under current law would therefore require the
monopolization of 80% of all biomass grown in the US every
year (crops, grasses and forest). Industrial tree
plantations, such as those now covering much of the
previously forested southeastern U.S. are ecologically
compromised, supporting only a fraction of their former
diversity, and depend on large inputs of fertilizers and
agrichemicals.

Industrial monoculture of trees (including genetically
engineered trees) or other crops grown for energy are not
"clean, renewable or sustainable." Sustained harvesting of
any biomass will require large inputs of nitrogen and other
fertilizers; nitrogen fertilizer is a major cause of
biodiversity decline and increasingly N2O emissions are
recognized as a major contributor to climate change. Nearly
half of the nitrogen fertilizers used in the U.S. are
imported, hence undermining the goal of energy security. In
addition, burning biomass results in toxic air emissions
and the production of toxic ash, which threatens to worsen
air and water quality. Additional emissions result from
massive transportation requirements to provide adequate
quantities of biomass to operating facilities.

While we have focused here on biomass derived from forests
and farmlands, we extend our concerns to all the numerous
other biomass-derived energy technologies, including
incineration of wastes, poultry manure and landfill gases
as well as refining of biomass for liquid "cellulosic"
transportation fuels. All of these "burn and refine"
technologies deplete resources, rely on the perpetuation of
unsustainable practices, have considerable negative
indirect land uses impacting biodiversity, climate and
ecosystems; and therefore cannot be considered "renewable".

We do support the RES's exclusion of toxin-containing
municipal solid waste or construction and demolition debris
within the definition of biomass (although there are
incentives still remaining that should be addressed). We do
support ACESA's focus on efficiency measures for which
there is broad latitude to massively decrease energy
consumption. We do support investment in truly clean energy
technologies such as wind, solar and ocean-based energy
that do not involve any form of combustion. We must pursue
truly clean, renewable and "zero waste" technologies
immediately.

Given the above considerations we ask that you remove
eligibility of biomass from definitions of "renewable".
These technologies are not clean, sustainable or renewable
and must not be considered “renewable energy”. Instead we
must direct resources towards efficiency, reduced
consumption, increased recycling, zero waste measures, true
renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and
ocean-derived energy and the full protection and
regeneration of carbon sequestering ecosystems.

It is imperative that the U.S. lead in pursuing climate and
energy policy that reduces emissions of greenhouse gases
and permits regeneration of carbon-sequestering ecosystems.
To achieve these, we must make choices for future energy
production that indisputably support these goals.

Sincerely,


   Earth Action Network Protest Participants

    People from 61 countries have sent 17,346 protest emails

J Green - United States
E Moyer - United States
A Wittbecker - United States
M P Anderson - United States
H Chae - United States
J Cajimat - United States
N Johnson - United States
I Smith - United Kingdom
J S Lar - Pakistan
F Francis - Australia
F M Austin-Smith - United Kingdom
W Tachon - France
A Koskela - Finland
K Brennan - Canada
J Taina - Finland
M Leino - Finland
G Booth - Sweden
B Mildh - Sweden
A Townsend - United States
S Dais - Fiji
J Ross - United States
P Torrence - United States
C Maniaci - United States
J Greenriver - United States
W Joong - Italy
           



** This alert requires JavaScript. Please let us know immediately if you are having difficulties sending the alert