The Biomass Dilemma

by Mike Crouse, Publisher

Good renewable energy alternatives policy is clouded by ideological and economic conflicts rather than a clear direction. Reducing our need for foreign oil through the use of domestic renewable alternative energy has been a very hot topic in the past few years, and one we all should be in agreement on for our national security, prosperity, and long term economic viability.

In fact this theme played very well during the past presidential election, especially for Pres. Obama and his emphasis on the "new" green economy, and renewable energy... a good picture, emphasizing our own independence, with a theme virtually everyone should be in agreement on.

While American's should be in agreement, both in reality, and by action, to date we are not due to several competing factions for whom energy independence is secondary to ideological and economic beliefs that ignore the reality of the world we live in, driven by economic interests and powered by energy parameters that are:

• readily available
• easily transportable
• available on demand
• reliable
• and affordable

Although oil and natural gas mirror those parameters the shifting tide of political/economic realities over the past forty years put reliability of supply in question, while increasing costs dramatically. There should be no doubt (regardless of the long term supply viability of oil) that the future must include alternatives.

The president's emphasis on "new" energy and "green" industry played directly on the allure of wind and solar energy captured with wind mills and solar panel arrays whose imagery conveyed a powerful message of readily available energy there for the taking with no downside ecological consequence. Never mind that the details do not, have not, and likely will not match the above parameters. Worth exploring, yes. Contributing to the solution, again yes, but to a very minor (perhaps 3%) extent versus the demand. Still, this is politics, where one should never let a good image or crisis go to waste. After all in an era where style trumps substance, politics is about winning elections rather than actually solving a problem with a sustained vision for tomorrow.

Some of the other energy alternatives send the eco-industry into fits: hydro-power and nuclear energy. Certainly there are trade-offs in these alternatives; however technological advances have improved the efficiencies and increased safety dramatically on source of power. These sources match the parameters listed above quite nicely.

China, India, and Europe in particular have no aversion to these sources and instead have invested substantially in those sources as a significant part of their energy future, while the United States, the pioneer in nuclear energy has in contrast quite nearly killed those options the past few decades, with some resurgence in nuclear energy appearing on the horizon finally in the past few years... pending permitting and the legal communities cashing in yet again as they drag the process out and increase costs. For whatever else environmental policy might mean it's a boon to the legal community.

The poor bastard step child substantially left to fend for itself has been biomass, which has a great potential not only to supply energy, but greatly aid in forest health, provide jobs with an existing, trained, and readily available work force, generate supporting jobs and industry, generate taxes, replenish and provide opportunity for economic health and growth in the outlying rural communities. Sounds a great deal like the promised "green" economy Pres. Obama campaigned on: sustainable, family-wage jobs, ecologically sound. Thus considering the parameters, and the potential for technological advances increasing proficiency, this would seem to pack a potential that everyone wins on, right? Only if there is a political will, both consistent and willing to buck the powers that be in DC, and in this case those powers are both ideological and economic, with tunnel vision of stunningly myopic proportions.

First in line is the old-line entrenched eco-industry leadership whose ideological purity is so entrenched in the past they are largely incapable of change. Thus in spite of the potential gains in forest health, reducing fire risks, erosion, and better habitat for wildlife, the overlying interest boils down to what will help cripple industry, and clear the land of human habitation. The larger ideological interest trumps the long term national interests of energy independence.

Second is the chronic paralysis from the ongoing failure of Congress to unify and modernize the five laws that govern public land management. For the decades of never ending planning and revamping of forest plans the end result is a system crippled for lack of any direction due to lack of congressional will to conduct the people's business. It is a political desertion of courage for fear of retribution by the eco-industry that has a strangle grip on public lands policy. In political speak, this is a hot potato no one but the most courageous (kudos to Oregon's Rep. Greg Walden, and a few of his colleagues) wish to pursue. The current political bunch talks about energy policy and protecting the public forests, but where the tire meets the pavement, (particularly in the west where so much of the land is federal land) there is no direction management policy whatsoever because the USFS hands are tied by a congress with no interest in managing those lands.

Biomass holds the promise of bringing these forests back to health, and lending a substantial new green supply of sustainable energy with the added benefit of providing real jobs in private industry, etc. Instead as it stands presently policy misdirection leaves our forests as a firewood sink: not as wood for homes, but food for bugs and fuel for forest fires. Beyond a sprinkling of Forest Stewardship Contracts (a step in the right direction) there is no reliable supply from all those federal lands. Thus political apathy trumps long term energy policy again.

Third are some in the natural resource industry itself, who have chosen to use federal (and state) legislation to maintain their position in the market and control their own costs. While it's understandable that they act to maintain their position, doing so at the expense not only of a newly emerging biomass market, placing artificial legislative constraints on the market (for private landowners as well) is permanently hobbling progress as a whole, and in the case of long term sustainable, renewable energy supply effectively hindering the markets for energy production and the incentive for landowners to continue growing trees. Not exactly a formula for new green jobs and markets for energy independence.

Part of the ill-logic used in limiting bio-mass is questioning sustainability of the resource, particularly ironic in that the very nature of most pulpwood harvesting, much of which has plummeted with the loss of paper mills through the nation to foreign markets, was dependent on harvesting those same timberlands for generations. To the outside observer with an eye on history, this argument rings of self-serving long term protectionism, and utterly ignores the long term vision of sustainable domestic energy independence.

Added to these factors is the difference in costs and availability of inexpensive power in different parts of the country, and the difference in the interests of the private lands of the eastern verses the public lands of the west.

The positive in all of this comes from several states setting renewable energy standards that energy providers must accommodate in their overall power resources, which are starting to kick effectively incentivizing the market, thus the private sector is reacting with several projects fill that need. If market forces are allowed to play out unhindered everyone has the opportunity to benefit though this most certainly will come at additional cost.

The problem as we see it, is the host of players who are speaking from both sides of their mouth, emphasizing style, while ignoring the potential of exploring all possibilities of sustainable energy, in particular the multiple benefits of biomass, which most of the world embraces.

Our country has been blessed with an abundance of resources that have been the foundation on which our economy, and thus our freedoms have thrived for generations. Our future and that of future generations is tied to our ability to use those resources wisely and maintain our way of life. Biomass most assuredly is an important piece of that future, and one which we must take seriously beyond ideology and lip service. Certainly it doesn't have the stylish glitz and glitter of solar or wind power, but it does deliver substance, sustainability quantity, quality, jobs and the alternative power that can actually perform in a reliable fashion.

In spite of those hindrances placed in its way, the future of biomass is moving forward. The dilemma comes from those mentioned above standing yet again in the way of progress and energy independence on which our future depends.

A Wupped WOPR

The prevailing political wisdom agrees that maintaining power is accomplished through positive imagery, satisfying the will of the majority, rewarding supporters and most recently punishing your detractors. One of the best ways of achieving these objectives, particularly in dealing with the natural resource industries over the past few decades of eco-purity, is through moving management decisions for federal lands to the national stage and splitting control of individual rural federal lands into segments whose constituency is an insignificant voting block, thus effectively diluting any hope of meaningful local direction. Rural America is of almost no interest whatsoever to the increasingly urban populations, which has made it "easy-pickings" for eco-industry activists dedicated to ideological objectives whose eye is on a "Wildlands Project" dream of large tracts of land without people. That objective is brought closer to reality each time access is deferred or blocked entirely, creating uncertainty, upending planning, and destroying value, while maintaining the faáade of "better science" and due diligence, effectively damaging industry while raking in funds from an urban population whose knowledge base is an inch deep and 1,000 miles wide.

The most recent example comes from the July release of the Western Oregon Task Force, formed by the Obama Administration in the wake of scraping the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) in 2009, which took the BLM five years to complete using the most comprehensive forest planning effort ever undertaken, The WOPR was completed at the end of 2008 under a timeline dictated by a court order requiring the BLM to comply with the O&C Act. "It took this Administration six months to trash it. Now, after waiting more than a year since the WOPR was withdrawn, it is clear the Administration lacks the will to act to meet the needs of local communities, forest health and resiliency," said Tom Partin, President of the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC).

The crack team of experts answer was the same as we've heard time and time again from the administration: instead of offering a plan for moving forward in the absence of the WOPR, the report largely focuses on more bureaucracy and is a tacit endorsement of do-nothing forestry at its worst. The Task Force's Final Report calls for multiple reviews, committees, and processes that sidestep any attempt to resolve the issues that have hampered the management of these federal forests for the better part of two decades.

In other words, the plan is to do more planning in the same manner as has been done for at least 20 years. Good for the bureaucracy. Good for the eco-industry. Pushing solutions back off the stove entirely and tragic for the communities, and tempting disaster within the forests.

It mirrors the pattern of apathy we've seen from the broken series of federal laws that prevent management on our federal lands, while encouraging the facade of progress. For all the appearance of leadership, in the end, under cover of public apathy, and abandonment of local control and accountability, we are again left with more style over substance.

In the mean time the forests, the citizens, and ultimately the environment will suffer further, affecting real lives of real people, which the "compassionate" liberals who embrace this nonsense will eventually blame industry for when those forests operating under their non-management philosophy feed the bugs, and ultimately go up in smoke. It's the modern day equivalent of Nero fiddling as Rome burns.

PLC's Live Show

The sixth Pacific Logging Congress ‘"Live-In-The-Woods" will be up and running September 15-18 just outside Clatskanie, Oregon on the Nehalem Tree Farm of Longview Timber Co. This year's theme is "This is My Office," and plays off the educational and recruiting DVD developed by the the PLC's Pacific Forest Foundation, which is one of the best tools developed to present our industry to tomorrow's work force.

The layout of the show is on page four (4) of this month's Loggers World. As many as 3,000 elementary school children and teachers from the Portland area and southwest Washington are expected to join us "In the Woods" on September 16 and 17, 2010. "Education is our top priority," Olson said. The students and teachers will view the safest and most environmentally advanced logging methods available. Each individual is supplied with a hard hat and each group of students is guided by a professional forester. Bus transportation will be paid by Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland, Oregon and the Pacific Forest Foundation. For more information on this years show and a complete listing of nearby motels, directions, etc. please visit the PLC web site at: www.pacificloggingcongress.com.