4 ms·

Banks Mining recently started a new opencast coal mine in Pont Valley in the North[0], and Druridge Bay is still at risk of being mined[1]. Also worth keeping

by hjek 7y ago

Banks Mining recently started a new opencast coal mine in Pont Valley in the North[0], and Druridge Bay is still at risk of being mined[1]. Also worth keeping in mind that a many coal power plants have just switched over to burning "biomass", which is a lovely sounding euphemism for burning wood, but is "green energy" and thus eligible for massive subsidies. Drax, the largest CO2 emitter in the UK, burns more wood than the UK produces, so a lot of it comes from forests being chopped down in the US.[2] [0]: https://www.coalaction.org.uk/2018/03/protection-camp https://www.coalaction.org.uk/2018/03/protection-camp [1]: https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/saving-druridge-bay-opencast-coal-mining https://friendsoftheearth.uk/climate-change/saving-druridge-... [2]: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/axedrax-campaign/

ArnoVW 7y ago
That is not as crazy as it sounds. The problem with CO2 is the fact that we're burning oil that was previously safely sequestered deep below the surface, thus increasing dramatically the overal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon from trees is part of the short term cycle, it was 'already in the environment'. The idea being of course that you burn biomass that is produced on purpose, or the byproduct of industrial activities, instead of massively cutting down trees in wild forrests. In this case, yes you're stil releasing carbon into the atmosphere, but the thing you're burning absorbed the carbon before so it's neutral. Good filters are of course needed to prevent soot and particulates from polluting the air. http://www.carbonneutralcommons.com/glossary/short-long-term-carbon-cycle/ http://www.carbonneutralcommons.com/glossary/short-long-term...
- tialaramex 7y ago
  It /is/ as crazy as it sounds. To make Drax seem "carbon neutral" you have to pretend that it's fine if the Carbon spends time in the form of CO2 the atmosphere, causing global warming, rather than in a bunch of mature trees because hey, it's the same carbon. But that's exactly the thing we were trying to prevent, we're not worried about running out of carbon, we're worried we're heating the planet up.
  - rory096 7y ago
    Is there reason to believe they're using old-growth trees rather than managed forests? I would guess the former are more valuable in actual wood products.
    - hjek 7y ago
      From what I can read here[0], I get the impression that turning unmanaged forests into managed forests is itself a threat to biodiversity: > These Southeastern coastal forests in the US are home to bears, endangered red wolves, salamanders and a number of bird species as well as many endemic plants. According to a 2015 report by the National Resources Defense Council, the potential pellet sourcing area for existing and proposed pellet mills includes “critical habitat for 25 species that are federally listed as endangered or imperilled”. The area has been classified as a biodiversity hotspot, meaning that it contains an unusually high level of biodiversity (2000 endemic species in all) and that it is threatened. The threats here come from forest degradation and fragmentation, caused by urbanisation and ‘forest industries’ such as biomass. [0]: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/
    - astrodust 7y ago
      Valuable to whom? What if they're old trees but not suitable for lumber products, but are perfectly fine shredded up into chips and thrown into furnaces? Without protection everything's a useful asset to someone.
  - pkulak 7y ago
    The idea is that if you cut a tree down and burn it, the tree that grows in its place will just soak the carbon right back up again. When trees die and rot, the carbon gets released too.
  - briffle 7y ago
    Apparently, you haven't been to the west coast of the US in the summer, when lightning, dryness, etc all works together to release millions of acres of CO2 per summer..
- DoctorOetker 7y ago
  there is still fossil fuel consumption for the chainsaws, transportation and so on...
  - DFHippie 7y ago
    I think it's safe to say it's several orders of magnitude less energy than provided by the trees chopped down, chipped or pelletized, and transported, though.

by hjek 7y ago

ArnoVW 7y ago

That is not as crazy as it sounds. The problem with CO2 is the fact that we're burning oil that was previously safely sequestered deep below the surface, thus increasing dramatically the overal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon from trees is part of the short term cycle, it was 'already in the environment'. The idea being of course that you burn biomass that is produced on purpose, or the byproduct of industrial activities, instead of massively cutting down trees in wild forrests. In this case, yes you're stil releasing carbon into the atmosphere, but the thing you're burning absorbed the carbon before so it's neutral. Good filters are of course needed to prevent soot and particulates from polluting the air. http://www.carbonneutralcommons.com/glossary/short-long-term-carbon-cycle/ http://www.carbonneutralcommons.com/glossary/short-long-term...

tialaramex 7y ago
It /is/ as crazy as it sounds. To make Drax seem "carbon neutral" you have to pretend that it's fine if the Carbon spends time in the form of CO2 the atmosphere, causing global warming, rather than in a bunch of mature trees because hey, it's the same carbon. But that's exactly the thing we were trying to prevent, we're not worried about running out of carbon, we're worried we're heating the planet up.
- rory096 7y ago
  Is there reason to believe they're using old-growth trees rather than managed forests? I would guess the former are more valuable in actual wood products.
  - hjek 7y ago
    From what I can read here[0], I get the impression that turning unmanaged forests into managed forests is itself a threat to biodiversity: > These Southeastern coastal forests in the US are home to bears, endangered red wolves, salamanders and a number of bird species as well as many endemic plants. According to a 2015 report by the National Resources Defense Council, the potential pellet sourcing area for existing and proposed pellet mills includes “critical habitat for 25 species that are federally listed as endangered or imperilled”. The area has been classified as a biodiversity hotspot, meaning that it contains an unusually high level of biodiversity (2000 endemic species in all) and that it is threatened. The threats here come from forest degradation and fragmentation, caused by urbanisation and ‘forest industries’ such as biomass. [0]: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/
  - astrodust 7y ago
    Valuable to whom? What if they're old trees but not suitable for lumber products, but are perfectly fine shredded up into chips and thrown into furnaces? Without protection everything's a useful asset to someone.
- pkulak 7y ago
  The idea is that if you cut a tree down and burn it, the tree that grows in its place will just soak the carbon right back up again. When trees die and rot, the carbon gets released too.
- briffle 7y ago
  Apparently, you haven't been to the west coast of the US in the summer, when lightning, dryness, etc all works together to release millions of acres of CO2 per summer..
DoctorOetker 7y ago
there is still fossil fuel consumption for the chainsaws, transportation and so on...
- DFHippie 7y ago
  I think it's safe to say it's several orders of magnitude less energy than provided by the trees chopped down, chipped or pelletized, and transported, though.