Wood fired (biomass) generation is not a clean and green technology

A new use for the bankrupt Missoula paper mill might save jobs, but beware of “greenwashing”-

“Biomass” fuel, as it is often called, is said to be environmentally friendly and carbon neutral. It may be that way sometimes, but cutting down dead forests, hauling them off and burning them to make steam for electricity is not.

Dr. Thomas Power discusses why this is so.

Guest Column (in New West). Biomass Potential for Old Montana Mill Raises Many Questions. By Thomas Power.

One additional problem Dr. Power doesn’t mention is what happens when the beetle killed forest fuel is exhausted or too much decayed and a green stand of trees is on the horizon?
– – – – – –

More recent wildlife relevant news on biofuels.
Both of these article say monocultures of biofuels are environmentally harmful projects.

Diverse Landscapes Are Better: Policymakers Urged To Think Broadly About Biofuel Crops. Science Daily
Jan.26, 2010. Biofuel Crop Diversity Adds Value, Researchers Say. Science Daily.

Idaho Statesman editorial: [State] Parks get a reprieve, at a cost

State Parks Dept. to stay. No parks will close. They will cost more-

Otter suffered a big defeat on his plan to hand the parks over to the State Lands Department. Nevertheless, things won’t be the same in the Idaho Parks Dept. or inside the Parks.

Thunderstorm over Harriman State Park. Photo copyright Ralph Maughan

Here is the editorial view of the Idaho Statesman and some details. Our View: Parks get a reprieve, at a cost.  Idaho Statesman

More on the jaguar

Panthera, devoted to conserving wildcats, not thrilled by decision to set aside “critical habitat” for jaguar-

In his NYT op-ed piece yesterday,  “Jaguars Don’t Live Here Anymore,” Alan Rabinowitz, head of Panthera, is not thrilled that USFWS has finally decided to start the ESA process of designating critical habitat for the jaguar in the United States. It is now possible there are no more jaguar here.

Rabinowitz argues that the United States has never been more than marginal jaguar habitat and the money should be spent recovering and protecting the real, and large, but declining jaguar population of Mexico, Central and South America.

It is true that money spent in the U.S. may be pretty marginal to conserving the species, but it’s not like there is one pot of money for the jaguar and designating critical habitat siphons money out of protecting the true jaguar population.

I would say that if USFWS completely ignored any protection for American jaguar, not an extra dime would be generated for south of the border efforts. On the other hand, efforts at  jaguar restoration where Americans live will likely generate interest and support for jaguar conservation in general.