Biomass solves a problem not even acknowledged in the Climate Change discussions. Because of the history of Vermont forests, a substantial share of the trees standing in Vermont are diseased, misshapen, or badly located. Biomass provides a destination for those trees, with the fuel returning just enough cash to landowners to pay for the work. Remove biomass as a commercial fuel, and Vermont will need to find some other program to remove undesirable trees. The emissions from that junk wood will still enter our atmosphere, but the junk trees will be a long-ranging damage to landowners. Can our policy thinkers keep two ideas in their minds at once?
Can our policy makers keep two ideas in their minds at once? Given their ideological blinders, it is difficult to believe that they can keep any scientifically-valid ideas in their heads at all. This current kerfluffel just reinforces what I have heard from so many smart energy analysts --for the world’s energy controversies there are no solutions there are only trade offs. We as a society seem completely unable to acknowledge that truism.
It seems like the climate council is determined to meet their goal by causing people to move out of state. (The goals are stated on an aggregate, rather than per capital basis). Fewer people in the state means the state emits less carbon. The policy prescriptions should go a long way toward making the state unattractive. Brilliant. Of course everyone no living in Vermont will still be using fossil fuels. So the planet won’t be any better off. But we can all feel better about having “done something”.
Biomass solves a problem not even acknowledged in the Climate Change discussions. Because of the history of Vermont forests, a substantial share of the trees standing in Vermont are diseased, misshapen, or badly located. Biomass provides a destination for those trees, with the fuel returning just enough cash to landowners to pay for the work. Remove biomass as a commercial fuel, and Vermont will need to find some other program to remove undesirable trees. The emissions from that junk wood will still enter our atmosphere, but the junk trees will be a long-ranging damage to landowners. Can our policy thinkers keep two ideas in their minds at once?
Can our policy makers keep two ideas in their minds at once? Given their ideological blinders, it is difficult to believe that they can keep any scientifically-valid ideas in their heads at all. This current kerfluffel just reinforces what I have heard from so many smart energy analysts --for the world’s energy controversies there are no solutions there are only trade offs. We as a society seem completely unable to acknowledge that truism.
It seems like the climate council is determined to meet their goal by causing people to move out of state. (The goals are stated on an aggregate, rather than per capital basis). Fewer people in the state means the state emits less carbon. The policy prescriptions should go a long way toward making the state unattractive. Brilliant. Of course everyone no living in Vermont will still be using fossil fuels. So the planet won’t be any better off. But we can all feel better about having “done something”.