A new report showed biomass energy and wood-pellet production may be worse for human health and air pollution in comparison to fossil fuels across Georgia.

The study found facilities burning biomass release almost three times the number of pollutants compared with places burning fossil fuels.

Sarav Arunachalam, professor and deputy director of the Institute for the Environment at the University of North Carolina, said while this option has been touted as more carbon-neutral it could be putting nearby residents at risk.

"There are a lot of hazardous air pollutants also quantified from the study, and they may have other health space endpoints beyond just premature mortality, and these could be cancerous, noncancerous, and so on," Arunachalam explained. "It's a very broad mix of adverse health impacts, but the top one would be fine particulates matter."

Arunachalam pointed out while the demand for biomass within the U.S. remains stagnant, there is a growing market for exporting it to Europe. Renewable resources made up more than 10% of Georgia's electricity generation in 2021, with 40% of the sector derived from biomass.

Edie Juno, forestry specialist for the National Wildlife Federation and co-author of the study, said wood-pellet facilities could also be emitting more than they claim on their permits, based on data they found in permit applications and national emissions inventories. She suggested it could signal the need for more enforcement.

"We need the state regulatory agencies to be aware of these patterns and really discerning as they're reviewing the permit application," Juno contended. "We probably need support from EPA in terms of enforcement of different air quality permits as well."

According to the study, biomass contributes 3% to 17% of the emissions from the entire U.S. energy sector. Both researchers noted despite the number being seemingly low, more information is needed to uncover the true effects the facilities have before further investment into the technology.

Two new studies find that without sustained intervention, California may permanently lose big sections of old-growth giant sequoia groves.

The majestic trees only grow on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Since 2015, 20% of them have died, mostly in three megafires in 2020 and 2021.

David Soderberg, Ph.D, a biologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and a study co-author, said the blazes incinerated many of the older, seed-bearing trees.

"You're getting much larger patches of fires burning at what's called high severity. So, you have this kind of bad combination for the sequoias where many more of the mature trees are dying, and there are many fewer of the seedlings regenerating," he explained.

The studies show there are substantially fewer seedlings than in the past, and those that germinate are imperiled by drought and heat stress linked to climate change. The Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition partners have planted more than 500,000 native seedlings in severely burned areas where reproduction has been insufficient.

Paul Ringgold, chief program officer with the Save the Redwoods League, said the idea is to give forest regeneration a head start.

"When you're planting seedlings, you're planting trees that have been grown in the nursery for two years or more. They're more robust than a seedling that is sprouting from a seed, giving it a little bit of an edge against the impact of drier, hotter summers," he said.

Old-growth sequoia are the world's largest trees and depend on fire to reproduce. But Ringgold noted that past fire-suppression efforts have led to a buildup of excessive fuel loads in the forests. So, extensive projects are underway to clear out dead vegetation and make the groves more resilient to fire.

Nearly 10,000 Montanans have petitioned the U.S. Forest Service to prevent mining activity in the iconic Smith River watershed.

The Smith is known for its majestic views and numerous wildlife species but it is also a huge draw for outdoor enthusiasts seeking to "disconnect." The Smith River Public Lands Coalition has called on the Forest Service to withdraw mineral leases granted to a company planning a $4 billion copper mine on private land near Sheep Creek, which feeds the Smith more than half of its water.

Josh Seckinger, a Bozeman-based Smith River guide, estimated he has floated the 5-day, 59-mile-long Smith 100 times. He thinks the copper sulfide mine drainage would be devastating.

"It just decimates anything with gills downstream," Seckinger pointed out. "That's fish, that's amphibians, that's aquatic bug life. It's a terrible way to sterilize a river."

Mine developer Black Butte Copper said it is committed to preserving Montana's water while creating economic development opportunities in the state, and claims it can build the mine in an environmentally friendly way.

Seckinger noted beyond the environmental and wildlife damage the mine drainage could cause, it also threatens the local landscape and the recreational economy built around the Smith River. He argued it is not just a hit to the businesses but to Montanans who want to experience the trip. It requires winning a permit in a state lottery.

"It is my hope that every resident of this state puts in for a lottery permit and wins, so they get the chance to experience this place," Seckinger emphasized. "Because once you experience this place, you understand immediately why it needs to be protected."

Black Butte Copper has bought nearly 700 claims on the public lands surrounding the one near Sheep Creek, potentially allowing the company to further expand its mining operations.


get more stories like this via email

A Michigan environmental group is addressing an appeal challenging the state's decision to approve the enclosure of the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline.

Built in 1953, this pipeline transports up to 540,000 barrels of petroleum daily through the Great Lakes.

Enbridge aims to build a protective tunnel around a four mile segment at the Straits of Mackinac, which connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

Environmental groups and tribal leaders want the state to reverse Enbridge's permit, citing concerns about a potential catastrophic oil spill.

The nonprofit group Oil & Water Don't Mix is dedicated to preventing oil spills and promoting clean energy - and they support the appeal.

David Holtz, an international coordinator with the group, discussed the next steps.

"And the next big hurdle that the tunnel will have will be during the federal permitting process," said Holtz, "so we're going to be focusing on that in the coming days."

Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said in an email statement that Line 5's safety is exclusively regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Enbridge maintains that it also conducts internal inspections via an MRI-like tool known as a "pig" that travels the line, recording data on the pipe's thickness and looking for cracks, dents or signs of corrosion.

Holtz said his organization will continue its efforts to make the public and the federal government aware of what needs to be done regarding Line 5.

"The need for the Biden administration," said Holtz, "to take a stand in support of its own climate policy by rejecting the tunnel."

Holtz added that the permitting process, known as the Environmental Impact Study, will be open for public comment - and is set for early next year.