Last week, Eduardo Porter wrote a column in the New York Times in which he promoted the standard anti-forestry, reactionary talking points that many news media outlets (sadly) rely upon. In his piece, he warned that the use of biomass for electricity generation equates to “burning forests,” and argued against the carbon neutrality of biomass as a renewable feedstock. As advocates for sustainably-managed working forests, we have addressed these misleading inaccuracies on a number of occasions, most recently here.
Biomass 101 published an excellent and comprehensive critique of the column last Friday, and there are a few points worth highlighting from the response:
- “The reality is that the working forest cycle includes harvesting only a small portion of trees to maintain an abundance of trees that are in various stages of growth throughout the forest landscape.”
- "Coal is a fossil fuel. Strong demand for coal does nothing to create more coal. Biomass is a renewable fuel. And strong demand for biomass helps prevent deforestation by keeping forestland healthy and active.”
- "Does anyone seriously doubt that trees are renewable?"
Read Biomass101’s full critique here.