Over 100 concerned groups are opposing a new biomass energy project in California. The project proposes to burn trees for electricity - by converting them into wood pellets that will be shipped overseas to be incinerated in power plants. Steered forward by GSNR ("Golden State Natural Resources"), the project would harm communities and the climate with massive emissions, and would decimate forests.

Reproduced with permission from Forest Unlimited
What’s really carbon neutral in California when considering forest extraction activities, wildfires, biomass burning, and the climate?
​
 Above: Drone photo, August, 2024: commercial logging described as a “Restoration Project,” (Yosemite NP and Stanislaus NF). The chip piles in the background will be transported to a biomass energy facility. Photo credit: Juan Mejia.
 These days, trees and other natural wood are increasingly being extracted from forests to be used as sources of energy and fuels – in attempts to replace fossil fuel-based products (coal, gas, aviation fuel). The new wood-based products are defined as “clean,” “carbon neutral,” and “renewable,” although a closer look reveals that bioenergy products are unclean, as carbon-emitting as coal or natural gas – or more – and largely non-renewable[1]. Using wood from forests as source material for bioenergy results in massive emissions from smokestacks and transportation, leading to health and safety risks to communities near and far, and decimating forests[2]. The emissions, including greenhouse gases (GHGs), are not being counted and worsen the climate crisis.
Emissions from Burning Biomass
Biomass energy uses the heat from wood incineration to power steam turbines, and ironically releases more carbon emissions per megawatt of energy generated than burning the coal it is replacing. Biofuels are created when high heat drives the conversion of wood into “fractions” including oil. The processes, including pyrolysis and gasification, are far from clean[3]. Another product emerging from processing wood is biochar, which is also not free of emissions and is the subject of debate[4]. In order to deal with the emissions, industries are proposing to pump the carbon dioxide underground, a process called “carbon capture and storage” (CCS), which is potentially dangerous, has resulted in serious accidents and injuries, and comes with no guarantee that the carbon dioxide will remain underground. The efficacy of CCS has been questioned by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others[5].
Burning from Wildfires vs. Burning Biomass
California is a leader in the race to replace fossil fuels with bioenergy (to “achieve carbon neutrality by 2045”), but the state is ignoring the carbon emissions arising from logging. Dr. John Talberth recently wrote about the “Gaping Hole in California’s Climate Action Framework: Big Timber”.[6] Other recent studies, including one presented in Congress by Dr. Beverly Law, show that logging emissions are 5-10 times more than wildfire emissions[7]. One study focusing on logging across the United States showed that 85% of carbon emissions from US forests were caused by timber harvesting[8]. Yet California continues to offer millions of dollars in subsidies to industrial sectors expanding in every possible direction bioenergy offers, even hydrogen fuel derived from wood, another false solution.
A fundamental flaw has undermined efforts for significant carbon reductions and sped up the surge of new bioenergy developments. Forests grow back, so the carbon lost from tree removals and from soils[9] may be recaptured over the course of time[10]. This reality gives industries a chance to ignore the immediate emissions arising from logging, to assume that carbon recapture years later is adequate. The fact that forests take decades or even centuries to grow back (if they are allowed to grow and not cut down), is ignored in the calculations[11]. Removing trees releases carbon, and removes their ability to store and sequester (draw down) carbon in the future. Mature and old growth trees sequester far more carbon than young saplings that may be planted (generally after herbicide applications), to “replace” the older trees. In essence, the false notion of carbon neutrality achieved by treating trees and other natural forest wood as “forest waste” is a major loophole that benefits polluting industries.
Dr. Searchinger and colleagues first identified this major loophole over a decade ago. Their 2009 paper[12] pointed out that the Kyoto Protocol[13], an international agreement calling for industrialized nations to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)[i], created a “far-reaching but fixable flaw,” an opportunity to ignore carbon emissions – whether they come from fast-growing crops or from “the clearing of long-established forests.”  Searchinger and others recently expressed concerns about natural forests worldwide being converted to wood plantations for bioenergy products[14].
The Burning Question and the False Solution
California is facing a wildfire crisis, which has led to tragic losses of lives and homes. The crisis has also allowed for forest extraction projects far from homes, with few limits. Proven home hardening and defensible space measures, including vegetation removal within 100 feet of homes, saved 99% of the homes during the 2024 Bridge Fire in Southern California[15]. But the wildfire crisis has created multiple opportunities to clear forests in large-scale “management” projects (described as “vegetation management,” “fuels reduction,” “thinning,” and even as “community resilience” projects) to supposedly reduce the risk of wildfire. Meanwhile, mapping and field data show that fast, wind-driven wildfires are spreading quickly through these heavily managed forests, many of them tens of thousands of acres in size and located far from homes and communities[ii].[16] Forest clearing activities tend to focus on the largest trees to make projects commercially viable. They deplete forests, dry out soil, and create conditions for faster, more dangerous wildfires. “Trying to figure out how to best manage this land becomes secondary to feeding this monster,” says Gary Hughes of Biofuelswatch[17].
Forest management actions have been strongly defended by entities funded directly or indirectly by the timber industry. A recent meeting hosted by the California Air Resources Board featured a presentation calling for large scale forest removals to create “resistant forests,” showcasing a study that claims historic forests were dominated by widely spaced trees, and that current forests are “overcrowded” (essentially in need of even more logging). The authors based the idea on historic forest data. To discuss the “overcrowded forests,” that are supposedly in need of even more logging, they used a small subset of the archival data, which shows low forest density[18], and left out the vast majority of archival evidence showing that forests had variable and higher density[19].
Extraction Activities to Support More Burning
As part of the unsupported  push for more “carbon neutral” bioenergy, trees and natural forest wood are being converted into pellets that are shipped hundreds of miles overseas, where they are burned in energy generation facilities that previously relied on coal for power[20]. A new non-profit, the Golden State Natural Resources (GSNR), proposes to create one million tons of wood pellets a year for export through the Port of Stockton. The proposed GSNR pellet project is being touted as a “forest resiliency initiative,” although the CEO of Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), Patrick Blacklock, admitted that “commercial viability” is important[21]. The pellet plant would be largely automated, and offer few jobs, in extremely hazardous conditions. GSNR’s idea is to use California’s national forests to create about one million tons of wood pellets for export through the Port of Stockton[22].
The forest clearing projects in California and other western states have attracted the attention of international energy giants like Drax. The company has depleted forests in Southeastern US, where it has been fined for multiple violations[23], and it has been cutting down old growth forests in British Columbia for pellets[24]. In Washington State, the energy giant was fined for violations even before the proposed pellet operations began[25]. Drax is now turning to the forests of California, working in a new partnership with GSNR. Gloria Alonso Cruz describes the plan to transport wood pellets through the Port of Stockton as “an environmental justice tragedy unfolding.”[26] 
Meanwhile, human health, wildlife, homes, habitat, and the climate, continue to experience the devastating impacts of large-scale removals, most of them unchecked.
Maya Khosla
Biologist and Writer
[1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/debunking_the_biomass_myth/pdfs/Forest-Bioenergy-Briefing-Book-March-2021.pdf
[2] https://insideclimatenews.org/news/25102022/weed-california-mill-fire-mount-shasta/
[3] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749117349072?via%3Dihub 
[4] https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/biochar-briefing-2020.pdf
[5] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf
[6] https://www.sustainable-economy.org/a-gaping-hole-in-californias-climate-action-framework-big-timber
[7] https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/112540/witnesses/HHRG-117-II10-Wstate-LawB-20210429.pdf
[8] https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13021-016-0066-5
[9] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/inventory/pubs/sb901_biodiv_jmp_comments.pdf
[10] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac88
[11] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/debunking_the_biomass_myth/pdfs/Forest-Bioenergy-Briefing-Book-March-2021.pdf
[12] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1178797
[13] https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol
[14] https://www.wri.org/research/global-land-squeeze-managing-growing-competition-land
[15] https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-california-community-helped-prevent-235430037.html
[16] https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecs2.1492
[17] https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/author/garyhughes-bfwgmail-com/ 
[18] https://www.yahoo.com/news/uc-researchers-omit-key-evidence-203544768.html
[19] https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ecs2.2325
[20] https://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/JointScopingCommentsonGSNRWoodPelletProject63023.pdf
[21] https://theintercept.com/2024/09/30/drax-wood-pellet-energy-air-pollution/
[22] https://www.desmog.com/2024/03/04/wood-pellet-giant-drax-targets-california-forests/ 
[23] https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/drax-receives-another-fine-air-pollution-violations-gloster
[24] https://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/local-news/old-growth-forests-still-being-logged-for-pellets-conservation-advocates-say-8426898
[25] https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/sep/19/drax-fined-for-starting-on-longview-biomass-fuel-plant-without-proper-permits/
[26]  https://news.yahoo.com/news/environmental-tragedy-unfolding-50-miles-130000963.html


 

 

​https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2024-11-16/popular-fire-retardant-has-high-levels-of-heavy-metals-usc-study-finds
Wildfire retardant is laden with toxic metals, USC study finds
By Alex Wigglesworth Staff Writer 
Nov. 16, 2024 3 AM PT
A new study by researchers at USC has found that a popular variety of fire retardant is laden with toxic metals
Drawbacks aside, one fire chief said there’s no substitute for retardant when it comes to fighting wildfires.
It’s a scene that’s become routine with big blazes in the West. A plane dips low over a smoldering ridgetop and unleashes a ribbon of fire retardant, coating the hillside a bright pink. Onlookers cheer the display of firefighting prowess.
The U.S. Forest Service and other agencies each year drop tens of millions of gallons of fire retardant, mostly an ammonium phosphate-based slurry called Phos-Chek, around wildfires to coat vegetation and slow the spread of flames.
But a new study by researchers at USC has found that a popular variety is laden with toxic metals, and estimates retardant use has released 850,000 pounds of these chemicals into the environment since 2009. The results suggest the ecological consequences of retardant use merit further study, and that finding a cleaner product is probably worthwhile, said Daniel McCurry, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at USC and one of the study’s authors.
The findings add to long-running concerns from environmentalists about the effects of retardant drops. But fire officials say the practice saves lives, and that the benefit of protecting ecosystems by minimizing fire spread outweighs the potential harms.
The debate is expected to intensify as wildfires increase in size and severity, in part because of climate change.
“There’s a pretty clear trend that wildfire frequency and intensity seems to be increasing, and the management of these wildfires, as far as I can tell, will continue to include aerial firefighting for the foreseeable future,” McCurry said.
Orange County Fire Authority Chief Brian Fennessy acknowledged drawbacks to use of retardant, including harm to aquatic life if it spills into waterways. But he said there’s simply no substitute for retardant when it comes to fighting wildfires.
The viscous substance is more effective than water — it hangs up on the vegetation and retains its flame-slowing properties even when it dries, he said. If his crews were no longer able to use it, he said, “I think you’d see fires get bigger — that’s the basic answer.”
“I think there’s a tradeoff there and a balance, and each situation being a little bit different, those considerations need to happen and they need to be talked about,” Fennessy said.
In the USC study, published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, McCurry and his fellow researchers tested 14 fire suppressants. All were purchased on the open market because manufacturers declined to provide samples, he said.
Each contained at least eight heavy metals. One in particular — Phos-Chek LC-95W — had “potentially alarming” concentrations of several metals, including chromium, cadmium and vanadium, he said, adding that the substance could be classified as hazardous waste under federal and California regulations.
Chronic exposure to these metals has been linked to cancer, kidney and liver diseases in humans, but the potential ill effects on the environment are likely of more concern, particularly when retardant enters waterways, he said.
McCurry described the retardant his team tested as the colorless version of the bright-pink Phos-Chek that’s dumped from aircraft. The pink stuff, LC-95A, is not available for consumers to purchase.
Perimeter Solutions, which manufactures Phos-Chek, said in a statement that the products are chemically different, and that LC-95W has never been used in aerial applications. All Phos-Chek retardants used in aerial firefighting must be fully qualified by the Forest Service, which requires extensive testing to meet strict safety standards, the statement said.
The Forest Service said it has used Phos-Chek LC-95W in aerial firefighting, albeit rarely. The formulation has been approved for both aerial and ground applications after passing multiple safety tests, including a toxicity characteristic leaching protocol developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to simulate how much of a substance’s toxic contents would be released into a landfill, the agency said.
The findings offer a new clue to a phenomenon geochemists have documented for years: heavy metal concentrations in streams and rivers tend to spike after nearby wildfires. For instance, after the Station fire burned in Angeles National Forest in 2009, researchers measured cadmium concentrations up to 1,000 times greater in the Arroyo Seco.
“There are lots of hypotheses for what the source of those metals could be, and this adds another dimension,” said Josh West, professor of earth sciences and environmental studies at USC. West was not involved in McCurry’s study but provided feedback before it was published.
There’s still more work to be done to learn the extent to which retardants leach into waterways and how much they contribute to these elevated metal levels, West said. It’s possible that they are one of several sources. His research has suggested that metals in air pollution settle on vegetation and are released into soils and waterways when that vegetation is burned.
McCurry’s team is working to learn more about whether the metals in retardant percolate into groundwater or run off into streams and rivers. One technique involves sampling soil from the San Gabriel Mountains, applying Phos-Chek, conducting controlled burns in a laboratory and using a student-built rainfall simulator to model how the metals travel.
They’re also trying to drill down on the source of heavy metal concentrations in streams after wildfires by using unique isotopic fingerprints to connect the chemicals to either retardant or other sources.
And in order to test the Phos-Chek formulation that’s not commercially available, his researchers have traveled to burn sites, including those scorched by the Post fire near Gorman and last year’s Highland fire near Aguanga, to sample soils that were sprayed with retardant, with plans to test the metal content.
Andy Stahl, executive director of environmental group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said the study bolsters fears of heavy metal concentrations in Phos-Chek that had until recently been supported by circumstantial evidence. For instance, a Washington air tanker base was in 2016 cited by the state Department of Ecology for violating the cadmium, chromium and vanadium limits set by its waste discharge permit. A Forest Service report said it could not rule out potential heavy metal impurities in retardant, which was hosed down from firefighting planes.
Stahl’s group has sued the Forest Service over its retardant use multiple times dating back to 2003, resulting in the agency agreeing to map out buffer zones around vulnerable species habitat and waterways where it would refrain from dropping retardant absent a risk to public safety.
Most recently in 2022, the nonprofit filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Montana after the Forest Service reported it had dropped more than 1 million gallons of retardant into those exclusion areas from 2012 through 2019.
As part of the lawsuit, the nonprofit sought to have the agency’s aerial retardant use suspended until it obtained a Clean Water Act permit to cover discharges into waterways, a process the EPA estimated would take 2 ½ years.
The judge last year ruled that the Forest Service must obtain a permit but that retardant drops could continue in the meantime because they are necessary to protect lives and property.
During the litigation, hundreds of pages of documents, including what purported to be an EPA list of contaminated air tanker bases, were left anonymously on the front porch of FSEEE’s lawyer in Missoula, Mont., Stahl said. An accompanying letter, claimed to have been written by a long-tenured Forest Service employee, called the presence of heavy metals such as cadmium and chromium in Phos-Chek “one of the worst kept secrets of the retardant industry.”
The threat of heavy metals in retardant may pose new regulatory challenges for the EPA as it writes the Forest Service’s Clean Water Act permit, Stahl said, adding that his group is looking at whether additional legal action is warranted based on the findings.
“We’re adding a potentially significant amount of toxic heavy metals when we dump retardant, no matter where we dump it in the watershed,” he said.

Climate change is real. Some solutions are not. 
This is true when it comes to wood pellet biomass: cutting down forests, burning the trees, and then claiming forest destruction is a renewable energy source.
That is what industry and some governments are claiming. Known as biomass or bioenergy, many countries burn wood pellets for electricity, claiming it’s green.
But now Senator Cory Booker from NJ has introduced a bill to document the worst abuses of the practice. The Forest Biomass Emissions Act of 2024 (S.4153) would:

• Require the EPA to account for the full life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of electricity from forest biomass when enacting relevant rules and regulations.
  
• Task the EPA with conducting an evaluation of the impacts on communities living in the direct proximity of facilities involved in the production of electricity from forest biomass, including forest biomass harvesting areas, pellet mills, and power facilities.
  
• Mandate the EPA to collect data on air and noise pollution considering the race and socioeconomic status of impacted individuals, and to submit a report to Congress.
  

Power plants that burn biomass emit 50 percent more climate-wrecking carbon pollution than those burning dirty coal. In fact, in 2019 wood pellets sourced in the U.S. and burned for energy in the U.K. emitted a staggering 17.6 million tons of carbon dioxide.
A huge percentage of the people who live near active biomass sites, wood pellet plants, and wood-burning power plants are from communities of color or low-income communities. Many people near these sites suffer from respiratory illnesses, must wear masks or leave their windows closed to keep dust out, and struggle to sleep at night due to the industrial noise. This is a grave environmental injustice.
We must urge Congress to see forest biomass for what it really is: a threat to our climate, wildlife, forests, air quality, and the communities where polluters set up shop.
Tell your Senators to show their support for The Forest Biomass Emissions Act of 2024 by becoming a cosponsor.
TAKE ACTION
Thanks for all you do,..................
Dan Howells
Climate Campaigns Director
Green America
1612 K St NW #1000, Washington, DC 20006
(800)-58-GREEN    www.greenamerica.org

​twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1790789430690672826
Drax's pellet mills violated environmental law 189 times in Canada

Land & Climate Review: www.landclimate.org/drax-mills/

Sign Forests Forever Petition.
Click here for the petition​​

Yes we decided that it's time for a news blog on our SoCoCAN website.
Woo hoo!
Stay tuned for upcoming blog entries...