From: Jean Khill <jmczahill@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 2:28 PM
To: RPS, DOER (ENE)
Subject: public comments on biomass burning as renewable
standard-compliant subsidized electricity generation
Dear Department of Energy Resources,
Massachusetts renewable energy standards must uphold net zero carbon emissions goals, and serve the interest of the world commons. The proposed policy of subsidizing biomass to generate electricity is among the worst and outdated responses to the challenge of societal GHG accumulation. Burning of biomass and trash is a climate change accelerator, not mitigator. Burning of biomass quick-releases recently captured atmospheric carbon dioxide, imbalancing the already diminishing stock of fixed carbon. Time scales of "renewable" plant carbon capture vs. release rates represent net-positive GHG emissions that rival or exceed coal fossil fuel as a source. Burning of mixed household trash is an energy-intensive, resource-wasteful, and ill-considered environmental policy.
As concerned citizen, I ask DOER to provide residents of the Commonwealth with comprehensive study that clearly examines energy alternatives with diligent and complete lifecycle analysis.
Common wisdom, common sense principles, and better practices, could go a lot further in reducing GHG emissions than current administration proposals. For example:
1. Here is Mass we have the curious tradition of the spring "burn" where residents pile up newly cut biomass and produce copious, incompletely-combusted pollutants to the breathing zone of humans and wildlife. What is the health and environmental impact of this practice? How much biomass gets burnt? Could such uncontrolled sources be diverted to energy capture instead of wanton releases of carbon-black "crack" and carbon dioxide GHG emissions?
2. My home uses 3 times less electric and heating fuel energy than our similarly-housed neighbors, according to utility reports. Why is the state not canvassing people who conserve to query how this 3-fold reduction in home heating and electric is currently achieved?
3. Why does energy efficiency have to be optioned for instead of routinely administered in this state?
Public ethics concerns:
1.Why is the state bypassing public cognizance, perception, participation, and learning about our current greatest challenge of this time, climate change and energy use?
2. Why are policy solutions happening in administrative backrooms with a few hastily-organized public hearings and well-disguised public comment period?
3. Why is discussion being secreted away?
4. What is the role of legislative lobbying of energy interests?
5. Where is disclosure of the executive office's energy industry dialogue and dealings?
6.. By what ethical standard can public subsidies be granted by executive privilege?
7. Are public officials actions rewarding industries that support political ambitions?
Particular questions on biomass burning alternatives:
Why burn tree pellets instead of segregate societies "renewable" paper/wood waste stream effectively, smartly, and responsibly into fuel? 40% of food is wasted - and then burned by needing to fuel the incinerator.
Why not eliminate single use plastic waste burning that mainlines fossil fuel carbon into the vein of heedless state GHG accumulation, addressing the 23% of residents per capita GHG contribution due to consumption of stuff?
Where is the low hanging fruit of energy conservation in the state's energy policy priority?
Two principles we can all wrap minds around:
1. Reduced consumption is the most attainable source of emissions reduction.
2. Keep carbon fixed, not airborne.
t's our future - everyones. Our leaders appear to deal in deception, duplicity, and delusion of the public. Instead they must engage in community dialogue that focuses attention on realistic future forecasts. Together we have the will to avoid commission of atrocious decisions that kick consequences to next generations.
COME ON!!! We can do much better, Massachusetts. We have the intellect, the capability, and creativity to innovate.
We need comprehensive and comprehensible study.
We need to engage in public discourse, to glean common wisdom and willingness to change.
These are requisites to meaningful effective climate solutions and sound public policy.
It's a per capita problem, with per capita solutions. The CO2 problem is ours to fix.
Thank you, and happy to help.
Jeanne Cahill
One Thayer, Northboro MA 01532