Green Energy Projects Pause Pending New EPA Ruling
Photo by Grunge Textures
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Projects generating power and heat using renewable energy sources are on hold awaiting a final ruling on emissions standards from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA started a firestorm this spring when it classified wood used in energy generation, often called woody biomass, the same as it classified coal. According to the pending EPA rule, EPA will count biomass carbon dioxide emissions the same as fossil fuel emissions in permitting programs under the Clean Air Act.
Please visit our main news site, www.monewshorion.org, to read the complete article or listen to our audio story.
Related posts:
- Bond, Timber Industry Fight New EPA Woody Biomass Rules
- Less-Restrictive Renewable Energy Rules To See Lawsuit
- Senators Divided on EPA Authority to Police Greenhouse Gas
- In Money-Saving Bid, DNR Seeks To Reduce Testing of Some Air Pollutants
- State Utilities Face New Renewable Energy Standards
Posted by Dick Aldrich on September 2, 2010. Filed under Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Emissions are emissions. The EPA has recognized carbon dioxide from coal to be a pollutant, and they’re gearing up to regulate it. Why would they ignore CO2 emissions from woody biomass?
The point almost every article published on the regulation of CO2 misses these days: “WHY is it important to regulate Carbon Dioxide?” If the answer is, “It’s not, that’s a crazy idea,” then any and all was at looking at the regulation of Carbon Dioxide are irrational.
If the answer is, “Because mankind is causing irreparable damage to the Earth because of CO2 emissions,” then reducing our emissions should be a top priority, whether those CO2 emissions come from burning coal, burning wood, burning fuel in cars, whatever…
Ie, if the house is on fire, it makes sense to prioritize putting out that fire pretty freaking high ~ and to sacrifice other things in the name of putting out the fire. Because if the fire burns the house down, then nothing in the house has any value anyway.
But if the house is not on fire, of course any efforts to put the fire out will look ridiculous.
So – is the house on fire or is it not? Every other industrialized country on the planet agrees on two things:
1. Yes, mankind is directly creating climate change.
2. The US is responsible for upwards of 25% of this.
Shockingly, the US is the only industrialized country to say, “Um, wait, we’re not sure about the science behind this….maybe it’s a big waste of time and money to put this fire out. The house might not actually be on fire after all…or, maybe the house would have been on fire whether or not we sprayed gasoline on it and lit a match…or hey, maybe, MAYBE even if we tried to stop it, we couldn’t. So how’s about if we just keep on with the status quo? Because it’s been working pretty well for us recently, and it would be quite uncomfortable for us to change our ways. Besides, we’ll be dead by the time this supposed problem becomes really dramatic anyway, right, so why should we care?”
You believe lies.