Render Unto Science: Biomass Carbon Emissions Should Be Determined by Science, Not Congressional Fiat

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The Clean Air Task Force criticizes a June 2016 Senate Appropriations Committee bill that requires the US Environmental Protection Agency to treat forest biomass-based energy generation as carbon neutral. The author contends that this 'attempt to legislate science' ignores research showing that biomass combustion typically increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for decades. The document calls for a scientifically-defensible approach to carbon accounting, noting that while some specific bioenergy systems like co-generation using harvest residues may offer benefits, burning forest biomass generally emits more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than coal or natural gas.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • A June 16, 2016, spending bill passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee would require the US Environmental Protection Agency to treat the industrial-scale combustion of trees and other biomass as "carbon neutral," meaning it would "do not require regulation, control, or action."
  • Scientific consensus, supported by groups of 91 scientists in 2014 and 65 scientists in 2016, rejects the broad assumption of biomass carbon neutrality, stating that biomass combustion typically leads to a net increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide for decades, even when accounting for forest regrowth.
  • Burning forest biomass is described as emitting more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than natural gas or coal, and the practice of cutting forests for bioenergy can significantly deplete the national forest carbon sink.
  • The document notes that certain biomass-based power systems may provide climate benefits, specifically co-generation plants that use residues from traditional wood product harvest operations combined with intensive silviculture for regeneration.

Cite the original document

APA
Lewis, J. (2016). Render Unto Science: Biomass Carbon Emissions Should Be Determined by Science, Not Congressional Fiat. Clean Air Task Force. https://www.catf.us/2016/06/render-unto-science-biomass-carbon-emissions-should-be-determined-by-science-not-congressional-fiat/
Chicago
Lewis, Jonathan. Render Unto Science: Biomass Carbon Emissions Should Be Determined by Science, Not Congressional Fiat. Clean Air Task Force, 2016. https://www.catf.us/2016/06/render-unto-science-biomass-carbon-emissions-should-be-determined-by-science-not-congressional-fiat/.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |last1=Lewis |first1=Jonathan |title=Render Unto Science: Biomass Carbon Emissions Should Be Determined by Science, Not Congressional Fiat |publisher=Clean Air Task Force |date=16 June 2016 |url=https://www.catf.us/2016/06/render-unto-science-biomass-carbon-emissions-should-be-determined-by-science-not-congressional-fiat/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{lewis2016render, author = {Lewis, Jonathan}, title = {{Render Unto Science: Biomass Carbon Emissions Should Be Determined by Science, Not Congressional Fiat}}, publisher = {Clean Air Task Force}, year = {2016}, month = jun, url = {https://www.catf.us/2016/06/render-unto-science-biomass-carbon-emissions-should-be-determined-by-science-not-congressional-fiat/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated