America’s private forest owners, manufacturers, and the products they produce are green – they are renewable, sustainable, recyclable, and help solve some of our more pressing environmental concerns.  In fact, forest management and forest products were “green” long before the term was coined, and the jobs they create should be recognized as such.

The full editorial is on The Hill’s website.

Dear Editor – your recent editorial Considerations for factoring biomass into clean energy (Monday, July 5) states fairly the objective that using renewable biomass to produce energy should have clear carbon benefits but stops short on the facts supporting the carbon benefits of using wood for energy in the United States.

Forests, unlike fossil fuels, naturally recycle carbon in the atmosphere rather than allowing it to accumulate.  In developing countries where pristine forest is irreversibly cleared for agriculture this carbon cycle is sometimes out of balance.  However, in the United States, total forest acres have remained steady for over a century, and the volume of trees in our forests has increased by 50% in the last half century.  The ongoing increase in forest carbon in the U.S. makes our forests a net carbon sink – a fact recognized by the international community of experts using conventional carbon accounting practices.

The carbon cycle is ongoing, with no defined beginning or end.  This means that so long as the cycle in U.S. forests remains in balance over time, wood used for energy in this country will not increase carbon in the atmosphere, and it may be used to displace fossil fuel with its emission of carbon stored on a one-time basis geologic ages ago.  This clearly makes wood cleaner than fossil fuels and positions our forests to make a significant contribution toward achieving our nation’s clean, renewable energy goals.

Sincerely,

David P. Tenny
President and CEO
National Alliance of Forest Owners

The Members ask Administrator Jackson to provide Congress a written, detailed explanation of EPA’s plan to reconsider, in a separate regulatory action, removing biogenic emissions of carbon dioxide under the PSD and Title V programs.

These Members recognize the sustainability, carbon benefits, and energy security advantages of renewable forest biomass energy.  NAFO applauds them for their leadership on this issue.

The full letter is available here (PDF).  Additionally, recent studies on the ecological sustainability and carbon benefits of forest biomass energy in addition to predictions on supply and demand of biomass for energy are available on NAFO’s website.  They get past hyperbole and help paint a realistic picture of the future of biomass energy in the United States.

RENEWABLE BIOMASS AND EPA

(Mr. SCHRADER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. SCHRADER. Madam Speaker, America has tremendous potential for renewable energy production. Indeed, these are the jobs of our future.

One of the most important renewable energy sources for Oregon that binds rural and urban communities is the production of energy from forestry and agricultural byproducts, otherwise known as renewable biomass.

Unfortunately, it would appear that EPA is rewriting the rules in direct contravention to the intent of this Congress. In their final tailoring rule for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the EPA ignores hundreds of studies and precedents from their own research that biomass combustion is indeed carbon neutral. This contradicts what was also included in the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed out of this very body.

Despite the tremendous benefit to engage our rural farmers and foresters to play a role in our renewable energy future, EPA has decided to legislate instead of administrate. Through this tailoring role, they are doing their best to alienate rural America and deny them the opportunity to be a part of our renewable future.

Congressional Record (5/27/2010; p. H3873)

April 28, 2010

Dear Editor:

Doyle Rice’s article, “U.S. losing trees faster than other heavily forested nations,” paints a stark picture. What most Americans don’t realize is that of all the challenges our forests face — wildfires, invasive pests, climate change — one stands apart as being within our control: economics.

Nearly 60% of America’s forests are now privately owned – by families, businesses, nonprofits and individuals. These forests are lost a parcel at a time as they compete with other land uses that often produce greater economic returns. Recognizing that we’re at an economic crossroads is the first step toward conserving our forests.

Viable markets for wood products – whether in the form of wood for our homes, paper products we use every day, or new sources of renewable energy – give private landowners the resources and means to grow and retain America’s working forests and the many benefits they provide. To preserve and grow these markets, policy makers must foster an environment that allows responsibly managed forests to realize economic benefits from their forest at the same time they are filtering our water, cleaning our air, sheltering wildlife and providing places for us to enjoy the out-of-doors.

This approach will help keep our forests intact, help employ millions of people and maintain the benefits we so often take for granted.  That’s a solution we can live with for another 100 years.

Sincerely,

Larry Selzer, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund

David Tenny, President and CEO, National Alliance of Forest Owners