There's a Booming Business in American Forests, Some Aren't Happy About It

[yuna628 9,646]

I actually started noticing articles on this a few years back, but as a person that's regularly out there hiking in the woods, and starting to see huge swaths being taken for these kinds of operations, it makes me a little sad. There seems little incentive to replant on this land, which is often left shockingly barren. Couple that with the fact I don't think it's sustainable for the long term and will cause more harm than good.

 

So what am I talking about? I'm talking about the US subsidizing wood pellet exports, in mass quantities to Europe, so that those countries can claim how less polluting they are being, all the while increasing such burdens on us (and destroying forests in the process). 

 

From 2021, a NYT's article describes the process which is contributing to mass deforestation and increasing pollution under the guise of reducing it. You can find many articles on the subject going way back though.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/climate/wood-pellet-industry-climate.html

 

Quote

GARYSBURG, N.C. — In 2013, Kathy Claiborne got a noisy new neighbor. That’s when a huge factory that dries and presses wood into roughly cigarette-filter-sized pellets roared to life near her tidy home in one of the state’s poorest counties. On a recent afternoon in her front yard, near the end of a cul-de-sac, the mill rumbled like an uncomfortably close jet engine.

“I can’t even recall the last time I had a good night’s sleep,” said Ms. Claiborne, who in 2009 moved to the neighborhood, which is majority African-American. She wears a mask outdoors, she said, because dust from the plant can make it hard to breathe.

The slumberless factory’s output is trucked to a port in Chesapeake, Va., and loaded on ships bound for Europe, where it will be burned to produce electricity and heat for millions of people. It’s part of a fast-growing industry that, depending on whom you ask, is an unwelcome source of pollution or a much-needed creator of rural jobs; a forest protector, or a destroyer.

In barely a decade, the Southeast’s wood pellet industry has grown from almost nothing to 23 mills with capacity to produce more than 10 million metric tons annually for export. It employs more than 1,000 people directly, and has boosted local logging and trucking businesses.

 

It is courting new markets in Asia — Japan, which retreated from nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima disaster, has become a major buyer of pellets — and is lobbying for greater prominence in the United States. And it has backers at the Agriculture Department, which recently asked for suggestions on increasing wood bioenergy use.{..}

The story of industrial wood pellets in places like Northampton County begins in climate policy made an ocean away. In 2009, European officials decided to declare biomass energy — basically, the burning of wood or other plants, rather than fossil fuels — to be carbon neutral. The idea is that regrowing plants, over time, would ultimately reabsorb the carbon dioxide released by the burning.

Britain and other countries began subsidizing electrical utilities to build biomass plants or retrofit coal plants to burn wood. The largest power plant in Britain, Drax, which is based in Selby, in the north of England, now produces 2.6 gigawatts of electricity from biomass, versus just 1.3 gigawatts from coal. (One gigawatt is enough to power a medium-sized city.)

Drax buys pellets from Enviva — a company based in Bethesda, Md., that bills itself as the world’s largest pellet producer — and others. It also operates its own pellet mills in Gulf Coast states.

Bioenergy has in recent years accounted for some 14 percent of Britain’s total electricity generation. Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands have also invested heavily.

Many scientists have long been skeptical of biomass’s climate benefits. Wood releases more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal or gas, and a newly planted tree can take decades to reabsorb the carbon dioxide emitted by burning. “Wood is a sucky fuel,” said Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton.

In 2009, a group he led wrote in the journal Science protesting what they called a “critical climate accounting error.” They argued that certain major international climate policies and legislation designed to reduce countries’ greenhouse gas emissions allow nations to burn biomass and discount their smokestack emissions but fail to account for the carbon losses caused by cutting down trees to burn them.{..}

Pellet mills, which can emit volatile organic compounds and other hazardous air pollutants, are 50 percent more likely to be located near “environmental justice-designated” communities, defined as counties with above-average poverty levels and a population that’s at least 25 percent nonwhite, according to an analysis by the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental nonprofit based in Asheville.

That's right... this wood isn't going to build houses, nor is it going to heat our homes either. It's going abroad to Europe and Asia. The amount of energy to cut the wood, press the pellets, haul on trucks, and then haul on ships is amusing in of itself when you think of claims that it is more healthy for the environment, especially when it also contributes to deforestation and is not a long term sustainable practice. It's also amusing that once the pellets are burned to heat homes, it's emissions do not count against a country's carbon records. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/11/10/eu-cop26-biomass-wood-emissions/

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/07/world/europe/eu-logging-wood-pellets.html A recent article I read suggested that many countries have burned through their forests long ago, so now they are relying on ours... Under the previous administration in the UK, they promised to plant an obscene amount of trees (hasn't happened), which critics were certainly skeptical about the logistics required and concerned about the long term damage it is causing in the US - in particular to southern hardwood forests an the air we breath. https://reports.climatecentral.org/pulp-fiction/2/  https://www.nola.com/news/environment/article_c451e610-4352-11ed-8a54-43df54e33cd5.html

[Dashinka 24,109]

So they go from burning coal, gas or oil, or using nuclear to burning wood.  Hmm, doesn't make a lot of sense.  It seems like it is all about government definitions, kind of like how governments define EVs as zero emission vehicles when they really are not.

[TBoneTX 44,671]

41 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

they go from burning coal, gas or oil, or using nuclear to burning wood

Q:  How did socialists light their homes before using candles?

A:  Electricity.

[yuna628 9,646]

The reason I started reading about this was a discussion of British history in the late 1500s thru 1600s. Wood burning was very popular back then, so popular that the country completely deforested itself which naturally caused an energy crisis (also probably led to extinction of some species). That caused a discovery of new ways to find energy (coal) and also new exploration (to find new countries to deforest) or for people to escape to. One old book I read, described how they were well aware of coal's uses long ago, but looked upon mining as akin to pillaging some mystical item of great power, so they just continued to chop chop chop. 

 

Simply put, even with all of our forest fires, America pretty much still has ancient forests and a lot of the forests in the UK are newer growth. But with our current exporting program, we run the risk of repeating history. This article describes how the UK wanted companies to prove they weren't obtaining products via illegal logging https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53907739 but makes no mention of all that I've said previously - deforestation via legal/subsidized export logging. There are areas of our local woods now that are just in a shocking state...

[TBoneTX 44,671]

It's interesting, si Y ma'am.

People are predicting a far higher usage of wood for heat, worldwide, this winter.

[Mike E 11,732]

Are these forests on privately owned land or publicly owned land?

[yuna628 9,646]

17 hours ago, Mike E said:

Are these forests on privately owned land or publicly owned land?

Don't have an answer for you there specifically, but in the NYT article mentions that the vast acreage in one case was private land that backs up to the housing development. Owners get paid high dollar for the trees to subsidize taxes as the business is booming and lucrative. This supposedly gives them an incentive to replant trees, though critics noted in many cases the area remains barren and any tree replanted are loblollys and nothing diverse. For me, my development is surrounded by woodlands, state parks, and farmland. Some of the woodland property which I assume is not state owned has sat for years well beyond my time even, but it is certainly gorgeous. A few lots have been sold for housing developments, but big swaths of late have been moved in on by these often loud logging operations. What is left behind is certainly unpleasant. Several towns in the area are also dealing with water, well, and soil contamination of late.

 

This article from 2015 notes: 

 

Quote

A recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, in cooperation with the Asheville-based Dogwood Alliance, highlights the fact that Southeastern forestlands are being cut and industrial manufacturing plants are being built in the United States to create wood pellets primarily shipped to Europe.

“It’s an exploding market. Wood pellet exports, with potential to open a facility in the Upstate and WNC, to be shipped out of Wilmington, North Carolina, we’re going to see this ever-growing hunger for trees,” said Scot Quaranda with the Dogwood Alliance, an environmental conservation nonprofit that focuses on Southern forests.

 

“It’s not the kind of high-quality wood product that WNC is known for. They’ll take everything they can get their hands on, meaning an impact on endangered species and forests, landowners converting to plantations so their land can be harvested more quickly, and increasing in toxins and water quality. It seems like the sky is barely the limit for this industry.” {..}

In the South, more than 80 percent of forest land is privately owned, so harvesting is allowed if property owners choose to allow it, Quaranda said. https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/2015/11/28/wood-pellet-industry-creating-confusion/76241058/

Since it is private land it does not seem that there is ever any prior notice or discussion about how these operations will effect the developments that are nestled among it or even the protected lands right next door. There is supposedly, no oversight.

 

This bill allowed for 30 million acres of federal public lands be allowed to be logged for the next 15 years. https://www.wired.com/story/how-green-are-wood-pellets-as-a-fuel-source/ It also exempted these companies from undertaking study to see if they were following the law or harming anything.

Edited October 19, 2022 by yuna628

[Mike E 11,732]

It’s private land. It sucks trees are being cut down, but short of suing the land owners after their neighbors get flooded (because deforestation causes floods) not seeing the outrage or recourse. 
 

The hypocrisy of Paris Accord signers knows no bounds though.  Climate change “science” is so fluid and fascinating. 
 

 

[Ban Hammer 13,110]

it's amusing to watch what is considered "green" to turn out to be even worse that what it replaced.
i wonder how much fuel it takes to ship all of that.
maybe they should just go back to making wooden ships and sailing them from the usa to europe, where they can be 

sold and broken apart.....

[Dashinka 24,109]

On 10/18/2022 at 2:44 PM, yuna628 said:

The reason I started reading about this was a discussion of British history in the late 1500s thru 1600s. Wood burning was very popular back then, so popular that the country completely deforested itself which naturally caused an energy crisis (also probably led to extinction of some species). That caused a discovery of new ways to find energy (coal) and also new exploration (to find new countries to deforest) or for people to escape to. One old book I read, described how they were well aware of coal's uses long ago, but looked upon mining as akin to pillaging some mystical item of great power, so they just continued to chop chop chop. 

 

Simply put, even with all of our forest fires, America pretty much still has ancient forests and a lot of the forests in the UK are newer growth. But with our current exporting program, we run the risk of repeating history. This article describes how the UK wanted companies to prove they weren't obtaining products via illegal logging https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53907739 but makes no mention of all that I've said previously - deforestation via legal/subsidized export logging. There are areas of our local woods now that are just in a shocking state...

Very much like the DPRK today.  This was from 2019, and I expect it got worse as the country closed down due to Covid19.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/with-widespread-deforestation-north-korea-faces-an-environmental-crisis/

[Dashinka 24,109]

6 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

it's amusing to watch what is considered "green" to turn out to be even worse that what it replaced.
i wonder how much fuel it takes to ship all of that.
maybe they should just go back to making wooden ships and sailing them from the usa to europe, where they can be 

sold and broken apart.....

Sort of like the entire ethanol scam.  What is so backwards in the case of wood burning is the way they are killing CO2 sinks all in the name of being "green".  I guess Al Gore needs to plant some more trees.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Dashinka

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

11 hours ago, Mike E said:

It’s private land. It sucks trees are being cut down, but short of suing the land owners after their neighbors get flooded (because deforestation causes floods) not seeing the outrage or recourse. 
 

The hypocrisy of Paris Accord signers knows no bounds though.  Climate change “science” is so fluid and fascinating. 
 

 

COUGH (BS) COUGH!!

[LIBrty4all 3,749]

3 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Very much like the DPRK today.  This was from 2019, and I expect it got worse as the country closed down due to Covid19.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/with-widespread-deforestation-north-korea-faces-an-environmental-crisis/

Been there.  Seen it wif my own two eyes.  

Also, S. Korea was heavily deforested by Japan back in the day.  It is nothing short of AMAZING how the S. Korean people have re-planted and made their country so amazing, both from a landscape point of view as well as technological.  "Climate change" had nothing to do with the amazing transformation.






And here's N. Korea today:

 

 

And THIS is what happens when a government lies to its citizens, and they succumb and believe the lies.  Beware, America of 2023...

Edited October 20, 2022 by LIBrty4all

[Mike E 11,732]

1 hour ago, LIBrty4all said:

COUGH (BS) COUGH!!

I don’t care. I’m out. 

[yuna628 9,646]

Mass replanting trees is not always the best method either. Not saying that planting trees is wrong of course, it's a good thing... however replanting schemes often choose cheap fast growing evergreens, like loblollys instead of the diverse wide-ranging species that were removed in the first place. Tree plantations with these types of evergreens can even cause water shortages and are put in simply to be re-harvested again quickly.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/14/climate/tree-planting-reforestation-climate.html