31 Comments
User's avatar
Pablo Hill's avatar

I will add my two cents-as this article was well written and research, so I can't add much else. To understand how crazy of an idea this is and to further demonstrate the waste of taxpayers time, capital , and energy, California erased 10 years of emission and air quality progress, because of forest fires-which itself caused by government policy-and what's in a forest? Wood! All the money wasted.

https://news.uchicago.edu/story/wildfires-are-erasing-californias-climate-gains-research-shows

Expand full comment
Pat Robinson's avatar

The climate/insane will destroy everything if we don’t stop them.

Truly insane.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

It won’t get that far. Their idiot religion will destroy itself first.

Expand full comment
Trevor Casper's avatar

The green lobby is against LNG shipments, but this, they sanction. Good lord.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

We know, right?!?

Expand full comment
Waspi, Kevin G's avatar

"Future “environmentalists” will wonder what the hell we were thinking burning live trees to generate electricity under the pretense of “sustainability”. "

Current environmentalists would never condone the practices set forth under this climate change hysteria. The supporters of these hideous practices are the furthest thing from environmentalists, they are grifters of the highest order.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

We think there are three basic groups here:

1) grifters

2) neo-Malthusians

3) uninformed "go alongs"

There is a lesser (in #'s group) consisting of well informed scientists, academics and others who truly believe "climate change" is a crisis. We simply disagree with this last group.

Expand full comment
Waspi, Kevin G's avatar

A very likely assessment. I should not have over generalized the climate alarmists. Keep up the good work!

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Gracias. Thanks for being a regular!

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

I simply cannot take Greens seriously when they support and subsidize these practices.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

It's worse.

This is UK and EU greens subsidizing the harvesting of growing trees, not on their soil, on American and Canadian soil (not to minimize the Baltic harvest).

And doing so pretending that it doesn't count towards their CO2 emissions. Why? Purely and solely by diktat and the fact they are harvested outside EU borders.

Shameful. Will be put to a stop eventually. Cost, air quality, nuclear power, or sheer stupidity which we'll help relentlessly expose.

Expand full comment
Michael Magoon's avatar

Agreed. I am curious on the EU regulations. If they had harvested the wood from Germany or the UK, would it then count towards their CO2 emissions?

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Yes. But as we understand it, not under their emissions from combustion/electricity generation/industrial production, etc. But under the "land use" category.

Under their UN schemes, apparently it is counted against US and Canadian "land use" emissions (and likely Baltic EU states as well.).

A) tied to land use (not combustion)

B) harvest-related land-use emissions tagged with country where harvested

C) emissions tied to actual burning in converted coal-fired boilers to make electricity don't "count".

Can't make it up. (We would have...)

Expand full comment
American Psycho's avatar

I would contend that most Greens are Useful Idiots who take their talking points and marching from their agenda-driven superiors. Saving the planet is easy, fixing one’s own life is difficult.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Agreed. See category #3 in our response to commenter Kevin Waspi above.

Expand full comment
Lee's avatar

I’d like to have dinner with the lobbyists that got Europe to believe wood pellets shipped from the US on ships using high sulfur #6 and burned in old coal plants is renewable, low carbon energy. That dude mu$t be a pretty $mooth talker.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

We suspect there are more than one. Or two.

;)

Expand full comment
Paul ONeill's avatar

My guess he wears a jacket stacked with envelopes in it ready for any and all grifters.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

We don't think anyone makes a jacket that big.

Briefcase.....

Expand full comment
SmithFS's avatar

Burning biomass for energy is just plain stupid. Heat energy has low value. Coal or NG has 1/10th the cost/unit energy of carbonaceous liquid fuels, chiefly diesel fuel and gasoline. Biomass is also a rich carbon source, carbon that liquid fuels need. So the obvious thing is to convert biomass into liquid fuels not heat energy. Liquid fuels that are much easier to store, transport & utilize. And not using horrendously inefficient fermentation methods like is done for ethanol. Biomass distillation to methanol produces 8x the gals of fuel/ton of biomass that corn ethanol provides. At a much lower cost per unit fuel energy obtained.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Stupid is obviously not a serious impediment to those driven by this agenda.

Expand full comment
Andy Fately's avatar

in fact, I think it is a prerequisite

Expand full comment
r Warshawski's avatar

Not to mention burning all that bunker fuel to get the pellets to Europe.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Yup. Even if its the lower sulfur diesel fueling most of this transport, it is no less ridiculous.

Expand full comment
Al Christie's avatar

Thanks. Very interesting. I love this paragraph, it's so well put:

"We close by noting that any “green” business which loses money perennially absent government subsidies (or like Drax, makes money only due to subsidies) isn’t a business at all. It is an Organ of the administrative state, and a classic example of what we refer to as EcoStatism™. The old joke “Governments are lousy at choosing winners; losers are excellent at choosing government” applies in this case as well."

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Thanks!

Expand full comment
Barry Butterfield's avatar

Ditto all of the kudos on this. Galbraith summed it up quite nicely: You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Thanks!

State of the State.

Expand full comment
Chris Gorman's avatar

Marvelous article. I had completely ignored the carbon sink to carbon dumpster fire in assessing the intentional stupidity of making and burning pellets for electricity. That fact and the obvious ecological malfeasance of scooping up vast quantities of slash and residual organic matter from forest floors to feed a plant make this look like more of clown show than ever.

Expand full comment
environMENTAL's avatar

Thank you!

Expand full comment