To date, Enviva and others in the biomass energy industry have operated largely under the radar and with little to no regulation. The North Carolina port expansion would only fuel the unbridled growth of this industry. But this week's public outcry signals that the tide is turning.
A 2012 study by 50 scientists and policy experts from around the world estimates that climate disruption kills nearly 1,000 children every day. Trees are our climate saviors, and it takes decades or centuries -- time we don't have -- to recover from the mistake of cutting them down.
A group of over 60 US scientists recently sent a letter to EU decision makers urging them to take swift action to "develop and adopt sustainability criteria and carbon accounting requirements to ensure adequate protections for forests and the climate."
Cutting, burning, and clearing our forests and fields to supply massive quantities of plant materials to electric utilities and refineries appears ever more ludicrous and misguided. Think ancient Mayan civilization collapse.
What will our emboldened president offer up this time? Will it be more false solutions intended to create an impression of doing something while really just ensuring more profitable business opportunities for the 1 percent?
I am tired of being told in private that green groups are against biomass, only to find biomass plant after biomass plant subsidized in the name of green energy, and now disguised as "combined heat and power" or merely tossed into existing coal plants.
You may hear it called black carbon or even elemental carbon. Scientists getting technical will call it the "light-absorbing part of particles suspended in the atmosphere." Let's just keep it simple and call it soot.
The purpose of the Clinton Global Initiative is to help commitment makers like myself connect with potential partners and resources to make these big ideas into reality. Our goal is to create large landscapes that are healthy places for people, livestock and predators and prey.
Many proponents of nuclear power are the same "let the market work" advocates in economics and politics today. If the market were allowed to function in this case, would any new nuclear power plants be built in America -- or existing ones re-licensed -- if Price-Anderson were repealed?
Americans are behind Obama, in the sense that they support the president's concept of a national clean energy standard. But they're also behind, in the sense that the voting public is unwilling to go as far as the president wants to go because of costs.
In DC, our leaders are arguing over how much of our Alaskan wilderness we should open up for oil and gas extraction. In the meantime, some enterprising folks, with a lot less clout but a lot at stake, have decided to go their own renewable way.