VERMONT IS HARVESTING WOOD FAR IN EXCESS OF NET ADDED ABOVEGROUND LIVE BIOMASS

Vermont has the 4th highest percentage of forest coverage, after Maine, New Hampshire and Virginia. According to the USFS, based on 2015 satellite data, Vermont had about 4,511,000 acres of forest, of which 4,288,000 acres were classified as timberland.

 

Only about 3,050,000 acres of the timberland acres were considered “accessible, ecologically appropriate for logging” by BERC, a pro-logging industry consultant. However, that does not mean all of the 3,050,000 acres would actually be logged to obtain Vermont’s annual harvests. It is likely about 15% of that acreage would never be logged, i.e., only about 2.5 million acres would actually be logged. See table 3.

 

About 90% all of the logging takes place on private forests, i.e., only about 10% on government forests; that 10% likely will be increasing in the near future. The USFS has been building access road in its forests due to political pressures that promote electricity from wind turbines and logging for building heating, which are claimed to be renewable. See table 1, appendix and URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-produces-e...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/comparison-of-dartmouth...

 

NOTE: Dartmouth College initially planned to replace its existing central fuel oil heating plant with a tree burning (biomass) heating plant to provide hot water for building heating, but likely will decide to adopt distributed electrical heating systems, such as ground source heat pumps, as have other progressive universities. The electricity would be largely come from remote wind, solar and hydro systems under power purchase agreements, PPAs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-s-planned-bio...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/dartmouth-reconsidering...

 

Forestland Ownership

 

This 2012 report estimates forestland area at 4,595,000 acres, about 101,000 acres greater than the USFS estimated in 2017. See table 1 and URL page 13

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/Forest_...

 

Table 1/Ownership, 2012 data

Acre

Forest %

VT total land area

5920000

77.6

.

Forestland

Forestland

Private forestland

acre

%

Individuals

2857000

62.2

Corporations

681000

14.8

Non Gov. Org.

107000

2.3

Unincorporated

26000

0.6

Total

3671000

79.9

.

Government forestland

State

386000

8.4

Local

47000

1.0

Federal

491000

10.7

Total

924000

20.1

.

Total forestland

4595000

100.0

The Meaning of Sustainability

 

Whole-Tree Harvesting: Whole-tree harvesting removes stems (trunks), branches and foliage. However, the nutrient content of branches and foliage, gram of nutrient/100 gram of dry wood, is significantly greater than of the stems.

 

It would be better practice to harvest only the stems, which have about 65% of the biomass, and leave the remainder (branches and foliage) on the forest floor to provide nutrients to regrow the forest, and to promote flora and fauna quantity and diversity.

 

About 50% of Vermont harvests is used for heating and electricity, the other 50% is used for all other purposes. To increase the stored carbon in forests, we must minimize using forest biomass for heating and electricity, plus we must greatly increase forest protection from human intrusions, such as energy-intensive, environmentally destructive ski resorts, roads and power lines.

 

If we would take ambitious steps to protect our forests from logging for heating and electricity, we would avoid CO2 emissions while also absorbing large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in forests.

 

Sustainable: The word “sustainable” is bandied about by lay people who likely do not understand the implications. For decades various government and private entities have claimed, without proof, harvests about equal to gross annual growth of aboveground live biomass is “sustainable”. Pro-logging government forest departments and the logging industry are quite comfortable with that statement and repeat it as a standard mantra to inform the lay public.

 

Research of the past 15 - 20 years has proven this “sustainable” definition is inadequate, because repeated harvests causes damage to belowground biomass and soils (leaching of nutrients, due to logging on slopes, and removing of nutrients, due to harvests, and emitting CO2, due to belowground biomass decay). The main nutrients are Nitrogen, Phosphor, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium.

 

This ultimately leads to depleted forest soils, i.e., less robust growth, and weak/sickly/misshapen trees, and increased tree mortality. Taking from the forest year after year and not adequately restoring nutrients is not sustainable, ever. No farmer would treat cropland that way, if robust harvests were desired year after year.

NOTE: As a minimum for sustainability, the nutrients removed by harvesting, plus those removed by leaching subsequent to harvesting, should be replenished and spread on the harvested forest floor. In addition, any biomass left on the forest floor after harvesting should be chipped and spread on the forest floor to enhance its decay.

Clearcutting in New England: Google Maps shows clearcutting in New England, including on “protected” public recreational and watershed lands in MA, NH and MA, is revealed to be more prevalent than implied by various pro-logging publications. See an abundance of photos in this URL.

http://www.maforests.org

Excess Harvesting at Present and in the Future: In Vermont, VT-FPR estimates gross annual growth of aboveground live biomass at about 5 million ton for all forestland, about 4.5 million acres; this is a high estimate. Other estimates, based on historic annual biomass growth rates and annual CO2 absorption rates, are less. Vermont annual harvests are about 2.5 million ton. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

VT-FPR and the logging industry would be claiming harvesting is “sustainable” because gross annual growth is 5.06 (on 4.5 million acres)/2.5 = 2.02 times annual harvests. If net growth (= gross growth – mortality), the ratio would be 1.37, which also is sustainable.

 

However, annual harvests take place on about 2.5 million acres, i.e., the ratios become 2.8 (gross growth on 2.5 million acres)/2.5 = 1.12 (barely sustainable) and 1.9 (net growth on 2.5 million acres)/2.5 = 0.76 (not sustainable). See note and table 1A and 2.

NOTE: It is common practice to use net growth of aboveground live biomass = gross growth – mortality, as the basis for sustainability. Not subtracting mortality is either ignorance or just another way to mislead the lay public into believing dead wood can be removed from the forest.

 

NOTE: The goals of the VT-Comprehensive Energy Plan are to increase heat from biomass to buildings, i.e., after combustion, by about 35% by 2050, which would mean 1) a major increase of harvesting on about 2.5 million acres by 2050, and/or 2) a major increase of imports from NY, NH and Quebec, and/or 3) a major increase in combustion efficiency, and/or 4) a major increase in building energy efficiency.

 

Table 1A/ Ratio

Without mortality

With mortality

Without mortality

With mortality

Forestland

acre

4,500,000

4,500,000

2,500,000

2,500,000

Gross growth

US ton, wet

5,058,778

5,058,778

2,810,432

2,810,432

Mortality

US ton, wet

1,627,421

904,123

Net growth

US ton, wet

3,431,357

1,906,309

VT Harvest

US ton, wet

2,500,000

2,500,000

2,500,000

2,500,000

Gross growth/Harvest

2.02

1.37

1.12

0.76

Logging Damage and Harvest Depletion: The logging industry claims removals obtained from 1) light clearcutting, up to about 50%, 2) selective thinning, and 3) weak/sickly/misshapen/dead trees are required to ensure adequate profits from harvesting the forestland of an owner. They claim removals will promote new biomass growth, because more sunlight reaches forest floors. However, that growth would be less robust, as it would take place on depleted soils due to repeated harvesting. See Note.

 

Offsetting logging damage and nutrient depletion since about 1800, and ongoing logging damage and nutrient depletion would require:

- Spreading various fertilizers on forest floors, especially on areas subjected to clearcutting.

- Chipping low value live and dead trees and spreading the chips on forest floors, especially on areas subjected to clearcutting.

- Planting a variety of 10-y old saplings on areas subjected to clearcutting.

 

Loggers would be compensated for performing these extra services.

 

This would increase the cost of woodchips for burning. However, that cost had been kept artificially low due to the unsustainable practice of removing and not replenishing.

 

NOTE: Those forest soils were already damaged/depleted due to the clearcutting holocaust of the 1800s and early 1900s, and due to acid rain and air pollution starting about the 1950s. NE forests are still recovering from the clearcutting holocaust, plus dealing with acid rain and air pollution effects, plus dealing with repeated harvesting and not replacing, i.e., NE forests are overstressed.

Live Aboveground Biomass

 

The USFS, VT- FPR and VT-ANR base their estimates of live aboveground biomass on the same set of data. In case of Vermont, this data is from the USFS Annual Forest Inventory of Vermont performed by the USFS and surveys performed by VT-FPR. Vermont has about 925 forest sample plots, and 1/5 are of them are measured each year. The data is used to calculate many different variables, include carbon stored in biomass. 

 

Each year, about 25% of Vermont's annual harvest, 613,000 ton, is removed as carbon, plus many tons of other minerals essential for biomass growth are removed. Whereas the carbon is replenished by CO2 absorption, mainly from the atmosphere, that is not the case with the other nutrients. Annual removal of nutrients leads to depletion, malnutrition, and sickly, bug-infested, misshapen, short-lived trees. No wonder, about 50 to 60 percent of Vermont’s forests are “low-grade”.

 

I have seen logging in progress at a number of sites near my home during the past 30 years. The loggers usually put the better quality trees aside; a pile for splitting into firewood, and a pile for cutting into boards by lumberyards. The low-value trees, about 50 to 60 percent of the standing live trees, mostly sickly and misshapen trees are chipped, plus almost all dead trees are chipped. In many cases, a few trees are left standing. Mostly slash and debris are left behind.

 

Building access roads to ridgelines (several miles long), and installing wind turbines in various places (on ridge lines at about 3 miles for 60 MW of wind turbines), likely required several thousand acres of forest to be removed.

Near my house, about 6 acres of forest were removed on a slope to install a solar system.

That means no biomass would be grown, and no CO2 would be absorbed at about 1.0 metric ton of CO2/acre/y, due to the clearcutting, etc. See Appendix.

 

No matter how one looks at it, taking, taking, taking from the forests, year after year, and not sufficiently returning, is not a sustainable approach ever. No farmer would ever treat his cropland that way, if he would want a high yield, high quality crop year after year.

 

As a minimum, the aboveground dead biomass should remain in the forest and preferably be chipped and spread on the forest floor, especially in areas that were clearcut, plus proper fertilizers should be spread every few years on the harvested areas to ensure proper levels of nutrients.

 

NOTE: Forestland and Meadowland “Making Room” for Expensive Wind and Solar Electricity

 

- Without cost shifting and without subsidies, the electricity prices to utilities of NE wind and NE solar would be about 18.8 c/kWh and 23.5 c/kWh, respectively.

- With cost shifting and with subsidies, the prices are about 9.0 c/kWh and 11.8 c/kWh, respectively.

- That variable, intermittent electricity could not even exist on the grid without the other generators (mostly gas turbines) performing the peaking, filling-in and balancing, 24/7/365.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Ratio of Growth to Harvest Removal; three methods

 

Method 1: The gross growth of live aboveground biomass was about 5.0 million US ton on 4.5 million acres, as calculated from USFS 2015 satellite and survey data. Gross growth was about 2.08 times the 2015 harvest. See table 2 and URL

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs80.pdf

 

While aboveground live biomass growth was added, trees also died (mortality). It is standard practice to base growth to removal ratios on net growth.

 

Table 2/USFS 2015 data

Net growth

Mortality

Gross growth

1000 cf

159,598

75694

Wood average density, lb/cf

43

43

US ton

3,432,357

1,627,421

5,058,778

Method 2: Net Growth of Live Aboveground Biomass

Method 3: CO2 Absorption by Biomass Growth 

 

The net growth of live aboveground biomass can also be calculated from carbon storage (Method 2) and CO2 absorption (Method 3). Both methods have similar results. It appears the mortality of method 1 is much greater than of methods 2 and 3.

See table in URL

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

 

The three methods of calculating net growth to removal ratio are shown in table 3. The table shows, the mortality of method 1 was prorated from method 3 to bring it more in line with methods 2 and 3.

 

Table 3/Three Methods, 2015 data

Forest

Harvested

Acre

Acre

4,511,000

2,500,000

1) See table 2

US ton, wet

US ton, wet

Harvest

2,428,665

2,428,665

Gross growth to harvest removal ratio

2.08

1.15

Gross added aboveground live biomass

5,058,778

2,803,579

.

metric ton, wet

metric ton, wet

Gross new aboveground live biomass

4,589,252

2,543,367

Mortality (prorated from method 3)

664,996

368,541

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet

3,924,256

2,174,826

Net added aboveground live biomass, US ton, wet

4,325,746

2,397,332

Harvest wet, US ton

2,428,665

Net growth to removal ratio

0.99

2) CO2 absorption

Gross added aboveground live biomass

3,994,975

2,214,018

Mortality (prorated from method 3)

578,884

320,818

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet

3,416,091

1,893,201

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet, US ton

3,765,591

2,086,894

Harvest wet, US ton

2,428,665

Net growth to removal ratio

0.86

3) Biomass growth rates

Gross added aboveground live biomass

4,066,653

2,253,742

Mortality

589,270

326,574

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet

3,477,383

1,927,168

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet, US ton

3,833,154

2,124,337

Harvest wet, US ton

2,428,665

Net growth to removal ratio

0.87

 

Vermont Planning to Increase Wood Harvesting For Burning

 

Vermont’s wood harvests are about 2.5 million US ton, wet, of which 1.25 million ton is used for electricity and building heating. Almost all of Vermont’s harvest is obtained from 2.5 million acres.

 

It appears the state policy is unsustainable for the harvested part of Vermont’s forests, about 2.5 million acres. This has been known among foresters in the USFS, VT-FPR and pro-logging entities for many years, but they keep quiet about it and advocate even greater harvests, as described in the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.

 

The CEP projects space heating from wood burning, which includes wood pellets, to increase from 10.730 TBtu in 2010 to 14.533 TBtu (heat to buildings, i.e., after combustion) by 2050, about a 35% increase. It is obvious that increase should not be taken from the 2.5 million acres. See pages 126 and 127 of CEP.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-wood-harvesting...

 

Some approaches to harvest more wood would be:

 

1) To harvest the less accessible timberland, but that would be more costly, require destructive access roads, and require logging at higher elevations and steeper slopes (less biomass/acre), which would cause adverse visible impacts and erosion, etc.

 

2) Do major logging in federal and state forests, which the USFS is already implementing. The USFS already allows clearcutting for access roads for placing wind turbines on ridgelines. See Appendix.

 

3) Enact laws to legally force more private owners and private entities to open up their forestland to logging.

 

4) If ancient, less than 25%-efficient, McNeal and Ryegate wood burning power plants were closed (the energy equivalent of 3 of 4 trees is wasted), there would be adequate wood for CEP goals.

 

Forest Management

 

The Ideal Forest: The ideal forest would have a wide variety of trees of various ages and species to provide habitats for a wide variety of flora and fauna. Such a forest would exist if it were not intruded upon by people and not logged.

 

The Real World NE Forest: Remember, there was this clearcutting holocaust of the 1800s and early 1900s. NE forests in colder climates would take about 200 years to recover, plus would have had to deal with acid rain since the 1950s, which likely slowed the recovery process.

 

However, the NE forests grew back on soils that had been eroded and depleted of nutrients. What grew back, mostly trees of the same age, could not be the same as before. Acid rain did more damage to trees and soils.

 

The result is existing NE forests have at least 60% of low-grade live wood and dead wood, which pro-logging entities think is theirs for the taking. However, such taking leads to "depletion harvesting". See note.

 

After logging, the higher-grade wood is sold at higher prices, the lower-grade wood is chipped or pulped and sold at lower prices. Often the practice is “cut the best, leave the rest”.

Aerial photos of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine show many places where clearcutting took place. Little new growth is visible even after 10 to 15 years, especially at higher elevations.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

Foresters claim NE forests are “overstocked”, which reduces biomass regrowth. However, the forest may overstock itself for a reason, such as recovering from the clearcutting holocaust. Removing the overstock leaves the forest without adequate nutrients.

 

Forest Management to Achieve an Ideal Forest: Vermont’s overall CO2 emissions were about 10 million metric ton in 2015, but Vermont’s forests absorbed 4.39 million metric ton of CO2 for free. Vermont’s forests should be managed towards increased biomass growth, CO2 absorption and carbon storage, which requires the expertise of trained/experienced foresters. See Appendix.

 

Here are some measures:

 

- Forestland, a valuable resource that absorbs CO2, should not be taxed.

- Loggers should be state licensed to ensure proper logging practices.

- No logging without a plan approved by a state-licensed forester

- Any forestland converted to “development”, including housing developments, roads, etc., and wind turbines, solar systems, transmissions lines, etc., should be assessed at least $10,000 per acre to offset the lifetime loss of CO2 sequestering.

- All forestland should be managed according to management plans; at present only about 1.85 million acres of 4.5 million are managed.

 

Forest management should include:

 

- Periodic thinning, say every 10 years, throughout a forest lot to provide more sunshine to the forest floor for regrowth

- Minor clearcutting of one or two acres in a few places of a 100-acre forest lot to provide more sunshine to the forest floor

- Planting those areas with a variety of 5 to 10-y old trees.

- Chip the lowest grade live wood and any dead wood, and spread the chips on the forest floor to speed nutrient absorption.

- Periodically fertilize the logged areas to offset the removal of nutrients due to logging.

 

VT-FPR Forest Management: However, VT-FPR regulations, designed to “accommodate and guide” logging interests, allow clearcutting up to 40 acres without a permit, and with no replanting requirements and no fertilizing requirements, which is an archaic way of “managing“ VT’s forests.

 

VT-FPR requires filing an “Intent to Cut Notification” if a landowner plans to heavily harvest, i.e., clearcut, more than 40 acres in one “treatment”. The word treatment made me gag.

See URLs.

 

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/About_the_Department/Rules_...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

US Forest Service

 

USFS claims it makes no recommendations regarding harvesting biomass from forests.

 

However, the USFS reports of Vermont’s forests show the ratio of (gross added aboveground live biomass - mortality)/annual harvest removal is about 2. See URLs.

 

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs80.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs164.pdf

 

Here is an excerpt from an article regarding harvesting. See URL.

 

Net growth is defined as the net annual increase in the volume of growing stock between FIA inventories after accounting for effects of mortality, but before accounting for the effects of harvest. 

Removals are a measure of the average annual volume of growing stock trees harvested between USFS inventories. 

Timberland is assumed to be the subset of forestland on which some level of wood harvesting is potentially allowed. 

So long as growth (net of mortality) exceeds removals, the volume of trees on timberland is considered sustainable.* 

This measure, however, conveys no information about quality, biodiversity, other attributes of ecology, or management objectives, and so it should be considered in conjunction with other indicators.

https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/ForestPlanning/documents/C2_indicator06.pdf

 

* That statement assumes taking, taking from the forest and providing insufficient nutrition is "sustainable", which is hardly the case. Instead, it should be called "depletion harvesting". No farmer would ever treat his cropland that way, if he would want a high yield, high quality crop year after year.

 

NOTE: This URL, figure 13.4, shows removal is less than 50% of net added aboveground live biomass in the North, which includes the Midwest and Northeast. However, removal takes place on only about 50% of the timberland acres.

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/docs/indicators/indicator-21...

 

USFS and BERC Designation of Timberland for Harvesting

 

The USFS designates “timberland” as the part of Vermont’s forest area that could be productive, based on satellite data, and is legally accessible.

 

That does not correspond with the real world of owner wishes, environmental protection, conservation, etc., which precludes much acreage from any logging.

 

BERC is a pro-logging, wood industry consultant. It merged with the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation a few years ago. According to BERC, Vermont’s timberland was 4,414,884 acres, and the “accessible, ecologically appropriate for logging” timberland was 3,051,562 acres.

 

NOTE: Vermont’s annual harvests take place almost entirely on those acres. About 15% of those acres may never be harvested, which means about 2.5 million acres are actually harvested, likely on a 20 to 40 year cycle.

 

See table 4 and URL, page 20 and page 21.

https://www.biomasscenter.org/images/stories/VTWFSSUpdate2010_.pdf

 

Table 4/Category; BERC 2010 data

%

 acre

Accessible and ecologically appropriate for logging

69

3,051,562

Not accessible and not ecologically appropriate for logging

 31

  1,363,322 

Total timberland

100

4,414,884

.

 

 

Accessible, ecologically appropriate, and estimated as managed for logging

 41

 1,812,097

Accessible, ecologically appropriate, and estimated as not managed for logging

 28

 1,236,465

Total accessible, ecologically appropriate for logging

69

3,051,562

 

Three Methods of Calculating the Ratio of Net New Aboveground Biomass to Harvest Removal

 

Method 1 was described under Ratio of Growth to Harvest Removal

 

Method 2

Ratio of Net New Growth to Harvest Based on USFS Data and VT-FPR CO2 Absorption Data

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

 

Net CO2 absorption in 2015 was 4,390,000 metric ton, or 0.973 metric ton of CO2/forest acre

Net carbon absorption was 12/44 x 4,390,000 = 1,197,273 metric ton

Net added aboveground live biomass absorbed 100 x 3.05/4.39 = 69.5% of the total carbon absorption.

Net added aboveground live biomass was 1,197,273 x 0.695 x 1/0.4870 x 1/0.5 = 3,416,091 metric ton, wet

Net added aboveground live biomass was 1,893,201metric ton, wet, or 2,086,894 US ton, wet on 2,500,000 acres

Vermont harvest, all uses, in 2015 was 2,428,665 US ton, wet

Ratio of Net added aboveground live biomass/Harvest removal was 2086894/2428665 =0.86

The ratio should be greater than 2. See table 5.

 

Table 5/2015

Forest area

Timberland

Available

 

acre

acre

acre

 

4,511,000

4,288,000

2,500,000

 

metric ton

metric ton

metric ton

Net CO2 absorption, all biomass, see URL

4,390,000

4,172,982

2,432,942

Net C absorption, all biomass

1,197,273

1,138,086

663,530

Net CO2 absorption by aboveground live biomass, see URL

3,050,000

2,899,224

1,690,313

 

metric ton, wet

metric ton, wet

metric ton, wet

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet

3,416,091

3,247,218

1,893,201

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet, US ton, wet

3,765,591

3,579,440

2,086,894

Vermont harvest, US ton, wet

2,428,665

Net added aboveground live biomass/Harvest

0.86

.

 

1 metric ton

2204.62

lb

 

Cord, wet

2.5

US ton

 

Carbon content of dry wood

0.4870

 

Water content of live wood

0.5000

 

 

 

Method 3

Alternative method to calculate the ratio of Harvest/Net added aboveground live biomass is based on data in the 2016 USFS Vermont Forest Status report. See URL, table 3

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

 

Forests Carbon Store and Compound Annual Growth: The aboveground live biomass carbon store of Vermont’s forests was 131.8 million metric ton in 2015. See URLs

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

 

Table 6 shows the compound annual growth of the net aboveground live biomass, and of dead wood, for the 1990 - 2015 period, was about 0.757%/y and 0.979%/y, respectively.

Those values are averages. They are based on USFS satellite data and VT-FPR data.

Those values may be greater for some years, less for other years, due to real world changing conditions.

 

Table 6/VT Forest carbon

Compound

1990

2015

1990

2015

1990 - 2015

growth

Forest area, 1000 hectare

1841

1826

Forest area, 1000 acre

4550

4511

C store

C store

C store Incr.

C/acre

C/acre

C incr./acre

C incr./acre

MMt

MMt

%

Mt

Mt

%

%/y

Live aboveground biomass

110.1

131.8

19.71

24.20

29.22

20.74

0.757

Live belowground biomass

22.1

26.4

19.46

4.86

5.85

20.49

Dead wood

11.7

14.8

26.50

2.57

3.28

27.59

0.979

Litter

29.2

29.5

1.03

6.42

6.54

1.90

Live soil organic carbon

275.7

277.9

0.80

60.59

61.60

1.67

Total

448.8

480.4

7.04

98.64

106.50

7.97

2.471

.

1 metric ton

2204.62

lb

Cord, wet

2.5

US ton

Carbon content of wood

0.4870

Water content of wood

0.5000

 

The compound growth rate of aboveground live biomass for the 1990 - 2015 period was 0.757%/y.

The gross added aboveground live biomass in 2015 was 4,066,653 metric ton, wet.

The compound growth rate of mortality for the 1990 - 2015 period was 0.979%/y.

The mortality on 2,500,000 acres in 2015 was 326,574 metric ton, wet.

The net added aboveground live biomass on 2,500,000 acres in 2015 was 1,927,168 metric ton, wet, or 2,124,337 US ton, wet.

The Vermont harvest, all uses, in 2015 was 2,428,665 US ton, wet

Ratio of Net added aboveground live biomass/harvest removal was 0.87, similar to the 0.86 in table 2. See note and table 7.

 

NOTE: Gross added aboveground live biomass - mortality = Net added aboveground live biomass

 

Table 7/2015

Forest area

Timberland

Harvested

 

Acre

Acre

Acre

 

4,511,000

4,288,000

2,500,000

 

metric ton, wet

metric ton, wet

metric ton, wet

Gross added aboveground live biomass, wet

4,066,653

3,865,619

2,253,742

Mortality, wet

589,270

560,140

326,574

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet

3,477,383

3,305,479

1,927,168

Net added aboveground live biomass, wet, US ton

3,833,154

3,643,663

2,124,337

Vermont harvest, US ton, wet

2,428,665

Net added aboveground live biomass/Harvest

0.87

.

 

Aboveground biomass

%/y

million metric ton

 

C compound growth rate, 1990 - 2015

0.757

 

C store in 2014; 1/(1 + 0.757/100)

1.00000

130.810

 

C store in 2015

1.00757

131.800

 

C store increase in 2015

0.990

 

 

metric ton, wet

 

Gross added aboveground live biomass, wet, in 2015

4066653

 

.

 

Mortality

%/y

million metric ton

 

C compound growth rate, 1990 - 2015

0.979

 

C store in 2014; 1/(1 + 0.979/100)

1.00000

14.657

 

C store in 2015

1.00979

14.800

 

C store increase in 2015

0.143

 

 

metric ton,

 

Mortality, wet, in 2015

589270

 

.

 

Net added biomass = Gross added - Mortality

 

1 metric ton

2204.62

lb

 

Cord, wet

2.5

US ton

 

Carbon content of dry wood

0.4870

 

Water content of live wood

0.5000

 

 

Table 7A shows another method of calculation net growth to harvest ratio.

Gross growth is about 1.0 US ton/acre/y, which is less than 0.5 cord/acre/y.

Vermont is harvesting 13.5% more than the net growth

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

 

Table 7A/Growth to Harvest Ratio

2015

2015

Forestland

Acre

4511000

4511000

Aboveground biomass

Live

Dead

Carbon

MMt

131.800

14.8

Dry wood

MMt

270.637

30.390

Wet wood

MMt

541.273

60.780

.

Wet wood

Mt/acre, 2015

119.990

13.474

Compound growth rate

%/y

0.757

0.979

Wet wood

Mt/acre, 2016

120.898

13.606

Gross aboveground biomass growth

Mt/acre

0.908

0.132

Gross aboveground biomass growth

US ton/acre

1.001

0.145

Net aboveground biomass growth

US ton/acre

0.856

.

Harvest area, on 20 - 40 y rotation

Acre

2500000

VT Harvest, 2015

US ton

2428665

Harvest/acre

US ton

0.971

Net growth/Harvest ratio, 0.856/0.971

0.881

.

2204.62

lb

2.5

US ton

0.4870

0.5000

 

Vermont’s Wood Harvests Typically Rely on Removing Live Plus Dead Trees

 

Logging a Forest Area: There are various ways an area may be logged too numerous to describe here. Based on logged sites near my home, the most common approach appears to be a medium cut, 30% to 60% of all the biomass is cut and removed on a logged area. Sometimes, as an owner and logger agree, a particular area is designated for clearcutting. After an area is logged, it likely will not be logged again for 20 to 25 years.

 

NOTE: The data in below table are from this USFS report. See URL.

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

 

I assumed, for analysis purposes:

 

- About 5% of the 2,500,000 acres is logged each year, about 125,000 acres. That allows for a 20-y rotation.

- Up to about 45% of aboveground live biomass is removed, a medium cut; about 40% is for firewood and lumber mills, about 60%, are chipped.

- Up to about 85% of dead biomass is removed and chipped; about 15% remains as forest nutrition.

- Logging slash, debris, etc., that is not chipped, remains as forest nutrition.

The 125,000 acres, if harvested, on average, at about 14.1% of aboveground live biomass, and 19.4% of dead wood would provide about 2.43 million US ton in 2015, which equals the Vermont harvest.  

 

Aboveground live biomass would provide 16.56 US ton/acre and dead wood would provide 2.87 US ton/acre, for a total of 19.43 US ton/acre, on average. Some wood lots would provide more tonnage/acre than others. See table 8.

 

Harvest incl. live and dead biomass

Harvested

Harvested

 

Harvest

Harvest

Table 8

Acre

%

 

Vermont forest area, 2015, acre

4,511,000

5.0

 

Area harvested, acre, assumed

2,500,000

125,000

 

Aboveground live biomass removal, %

14.1

 

Aboveground dead biomass removal, %

19.4

 

 

million metric ton

metric ton/a

US ton/a

US ton

US ton/acre

Gross aboveground live biomass, C

131.80

29.22

32.21

 

Gross aboveground live biomass, dry

270.64

59.99

66.13

 

Gross aboveground live biomass, wet

541.27

119.99

132.27

 

.

 

Aboveground dead biomass, C

14.80

3.28

3.62

 

Aboveground dead biomass, dry

30.39

6.74

7.43

 

Aboveground dead biomass, wet

60.78

13.47

14.85

359240

 

.

 

Net aboveground live biomass C

117.00

25.94

28.59

 

Net aboveground live biomass, dry

240.25

53.26

58.71

 

Net aboveground live biomass, wet

480.49

106.52

117.41

2069412

 

 

 

.

 

Vermont harvest, 2015

2428666

19.43

Aboveground live biomass removal

2069412

16.56

Aboveground dead biomass removal

359240

2.87

Excess available/shortage

-14

 

.

 

Net added biomass = Gross added - Mortality

 

1 metric ton

2204.62

lb

 

Cord, wet

2.5

US ton

 

Carbon content of dry wood

0.4870

 

Water content of live wood

0.5000

 

 

 

 

 

Regrowth Period Greater Than 20 Years: It would take more than 20 years of regrowth toget back to the forest metric ton/acre existing before the harvest. Table 4A shows, after 20 years of regrowth there would still be a shortage. However, if there had been no harvesting, the biomass on the harvested area would have grown, and absorbed CO2, along with the unharvested forest.

 

Logging causes damage to the forest floor and to the belowground biomass. This will cause the logged area to have reduced absorption of CO2, or to become a source of CO2 (in case of heavy cutting), for some years. In fact, it would take about 35 years to achieve C-neutrality in northern climates, in case of clearcutting.

 

That means any combustion CO2 would not be absorbed until after the 35-y period and that absorption would take about 90 - 100 years in northern climates, such as the northern half of Vermont and New Hampshire and all of Maine. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

Pro-logging people say logging causes the forest to grow faster than it would have without the logging. That likely is true, but not for long. No matter how one looks at it, taking, taking, taking from the forests, year after year, and not sufficiently returning, is not a sustainable approach ever. No farmer would ever treat his cropland that way, if he would want a high yield, high quality crop year after year.

 

Table 9

Removal

Remain

Growth rate

After regrowth

Shortage

4,511,000

million metric t

metric t/a

%

metric t/a

%/y

20-y Factor

Live aboveground

541.27

119.99

14.1

103.07

0.757

1.163

119.87

0.12

Dead wood

60.78

13.47

19.4

10.87

0.979

1.215

13.20

0.27

 

Vermont’s Excessive Harvesting Damages the Harvested Acres and Reduces CO2 Absorption

 

Everything appears OK to the lay public, because the public has been indoctrinated to believe the logging is done in a careful, thoughtful, caring-for-the-land, sustainable manner, which creates jobs and income for the forestry industry, and helps “fight” climate change. In the meantime, the forests, which store huge quantities of carbon each year, for free, are deprived of adequate nutrition year after year.

 

The CO2 absorption/acre of VT’s forests has been decreasing since about 2006, likely due to: 1) human intrusion and fragmentation of forest areas, 2) less than required nutrition, which weakens the forest resulting in increased diseases and harmful effects of insects. See URL, figure 2.

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

 

Wood industry consultants, such as BERC, claim VT’s forests are about 50% low-grade wood (NALG), i.e., the implication is there is a plentiful supply of wood for burning by their clients.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

NOTE: NALG is Net Available Low Grade

 

Harvesting Wood Decreases CO2 Absorption: Based on the Vermont harvest of 2015, about 19.43 US ton/acre/y (about 8 cords/acre/y) would be removed as live and dead biomass from the 125,000 acres. See table 4.

 

That removal would reduce aboveground live and dead carbon stored in Vermont’s forests by about 0.366%, i.e., the compound carbon growth rate and stored carbon would have been greater than without the logging. See table 5.

 

Table 10/C not absorbed due to harvest

Live

Dead

Total

 

million metric ton

million metric ton

million metric ton

C store, before harvest

131.800

14.800

146.600

C Harvest, typical, see table 3

0.457

0.079

0.536

C Net store, after harvest

131.343

14.721

146.064

C not reduced, %

 

 

0.366

 

Harvesting Wood Damages Forest Soils and Belowground Biomass, which Increases CO2: The process of logging causes damage to the forest floor and the belowground biomass, which reduces CO2 absorption on the logged acreage for a number of years. That CO2 is rarely mentioned and quantified. See five examples in this URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

Burning Wood Produces CO2: Each year about 50% of the Vermont harvest is burned, which produced more pollutants similar to coal per million Btu of fuel, and more CO2 than coal per million Btu of fuel.

 

The combustion CO2 is instantly released to the atmosphere but does not get absorbed until after the “C neutrality period”, in case of clearcutting.

The absorption takes about 90 to 100 years in northern climates, such as the northern half of Vermont and New Hampshire and most of Maine. See URL.

Burning of biomass in heating and power plants creates CO2 other than combustion CO2. That CO2 is rarely mentioned or quantified.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-emissions-from-logg...

 

Making Wood Products Produces CO2: Each year about 50% of the Vermont harvest is used for making products, such as building materials, furniture, shipping crates, etc., which have various service lives.

About 20% to 30% is process waste, which usually is landfilled, or chipped and burned, or made into pellets and burned.

The processes of making products and burning the process waste emit CO2.

It is difficult to keep track of that CO2, especially because adequate data reporting is not required.

 

Wood Industry Infrastructures produce CO2: The A to Z infrastructures to support the logging sector and the sectors making products have embedded CO2, plus CO2 to keep them in good working order. That CO2 is rarely mentioned and quantified.

 

APPENDIX 1

The forest biomass is increasing each year because it is aging and recovering from the clearcutting holocaust of the 1800s and early 1900s. Such recoveries take several hundred years.

 

NOTE: The CO2 ppm in the atmosphere is increasing, partially due to:

 

- Natural causes, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age (increased biomass growth, ice melting, tundras thawing, etc.)

 

- The activities of 7.5 billion people (industrial agriculture, deforestation in the tropics, such as Amazon, Borneo, etc., urbanization, industrialization, air pollution soot depositing on snow and ice, environmental destruction, etc.

 

However, the increased CO2 provides the world with the potential for increased forest biomass growth (absorb and store CO2) and increased food production.

 

APPENDIX 2

The Vermont Biomass Energy Research Center

 

BERC is a pro-logging think tank, a part of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation. It invented a method of calculated CO2 from wood burning plants that has no parallel anywhere else in the academic literature, and is likely not used anywhere else, except by pro-wood-burning people in Vermont.

 

BERC Stated: “While the recommended carbon emission factor of 29.58 pounds per million Btu is far from the historic “carbon neutral” stance, when compared to the carbon emissions (165.5 pounds per million Btu) from burning heating oil, it represents an 82% reduction in CO2 emissions’. See table 1A, which uses only BERC data and see URL

https://www.biomasscenter.org/pdfs/veic-carbon-emission-and-modern-...

 

Table 11/BERC data

Wood

Heating oil

 

Lb CO2/million Btu

 

Lb CO2/million Btu

Combustion CO2

206.7

161.0

Other CO2

Logging, chipping, transport

8.1

Extraction, refining, transport

4.5

Total CO2

214.8

 

165.5

Counted

21.48

 

165.5

Total counted CO2 = 8.1 + 21.48

29.58

 

165.5

 

 

 

 

Plant operation

0

0

Embedded

0

0

Decommissioning

0

0

Total

0

0

Total counted CO2

29.58

165.5

Wood has, per BERC,

82

% less CO2 than fuel oil

 

The BERC 82% of CO2 reduction is based on:

 

“Apply a conservative assumption of the minimum percentage of total wood fuel sourced that is from forest management where the harvested stand’s carbon stores will be regenerated within a 20 - 100 year timeframe”

 

“Use the resulting carbon emission rate to address the remaining 10% not sourced from forest management where full regrowth is achieved within a 20-100 year time frame”

 

Both these statements are a pure invention by BERC that is not supported by any forestry research, such as the above British Columbia example.

 

BERC ignored the CO2 of wood plant operation is significantly greater than of fuel oil plants.

BERC ignored the embedded CO2

BERC ignored the decommissioning/landfill CO2

BERC ignored the “C neutrality period”, which occurs even with managed forests, as in British Columbia.

BERC ignored the efficiency of a fuel oil boiler plant is about 85%, versus wood plant about 75%.

BERC ignored the absorption of the combustion CO2 does not start until after the “C neutrality period”. 

 

BERC should have stated:

 

The combustion CO2 of both fuels is immediate.

The combustion CO2 of fuel oil will be absorbed, or stay in the atmosphere, just as any other CO2

The combustion CO2 of wood chips is not counted, but it would start its absorption after its 35-year C neutrality period and complete its absorption within about 90 to 100 years, in case of any clearcutting.

 

APPENDIX 3

Selective harvesting for small woodlot owners is a method that continually improves the stand by taking out inferior species and trees and giving the good trees more room to become bigger and more valuable.  It's a long-term way of looking at the forest.  

 

Selective harvesting to the industrial landowners is putting in the grid-work of roads and then cutting everything within reach of the roads. Then, they either liquidate the land or repeat the process after twenty to forty years.

  

It can also involve spraying herbicides that target hardwood and favor the regeneration of softwood. Helicopters fly over northern Maine with spray arms on either side.

 

The USFS seems to be all about using taxpayer dollars to build industrial roads into Maine’s forests so they can bid out the stumpage to big outfits.  

 

APPENDIX 4

An Email from Chris Matera:

 

I wanted to mention that also the Forest Service is planning significant increases in logging of Green Mountain National Forest.

Here is one proposal, in the Rochester District, an area that represents about 15% of Green Mountain National Forest, and if I read the plan correctly, the plan is for logging, including clearcutting, of 9360 acres within an area of 59,400 acres in a 5 to 7 year period.  That is very aggressive.

Logging is now labeled  “vegetation treatments” and is claimed to "help" nature. See page 13 here:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/103699_FSPLT3_3987566.pdf

Another project in the early stages is in the (currently) beautiful Somerset District.

That particular project is in the early stages, so it is hard to know the exact details, but they are using all the classic "management" language which likely means much logging, probably also including clearcutting.  What a sad sight it would be to look down from the top of Mt Snow and see clear-cuts, instead of that beautiful intact, un-fragmented forest we see now.

Here is the story:
http://reformer.com/stories/forest-service-to-hold-open-house-on-lo...

The proposed timber sales mentioned above would be "below cost" meaning the costs outweigh the revenue, so the public would be subsidizing cutting their own National forests.

These are the only projects I have randomly stumbled across, but the other districts are likely to be targeted with similar proposals also.

For a reminder what the logging will look like that they are proposing in GMNF, see the recent results of very similar projects in White Mountain National Forest  (25 MB):
http://www.maforests.org/WMNF.pdf

 

APPENDIX 5

Sources of Information

 

Each year the Vermont Department of Forestry, Parks and Recreation, a subdivision of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources publishes the CO2 absorbed by Vermont’s forests.

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

 

Each year the US Forest Service publishes a report of the status of Vermont forests, based on satellite data and land surveys. The annual inventory reports for 2006 through 2017 are available from this URL.

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/fia/data-tools/state-reports/VT/default.asp

 

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs80.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs119.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs164.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs16.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs54.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs55.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs85.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs105.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs141.pdf

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rn/rn_nrs177.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs30.pdf

https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/ru/ru_fs54.pdf

 

Table 12/Vermont Forest

Forest

Loss

Timberland

Loss

Acre

Acre/y

Acre

Acre/y

2006

4570700

4479700

2007

4588600

17900

4493300

13600

2008

4588400

-200

4486800

-6500

2009

4611000

22600

4506000

19200

2010

4580000

-31000

4471000

-35000

2011

4591000

11000

4477000

6000

2012

4596000

5000

4475000

-2000

2013; USFS method change?

4514000

-82000

4285000

-190000

2014

4508000

-6000

4279000

-6000

2015

4511000

3000

4288000

9000

2016

4509000

-2000

4279000

-9000

2017

4494000

-15000

4262000

-17000

Loss, 2006 - 2017

76700

217700

Loss, acre/y

4794

13606

 

APPENDIX 6

1) The Environmental Studies Senior Seminar (ES 401), Middlebury College, Winter 2010, states, “according to the Middlebury College biomass plant website, the best estimate of wood chip delivery is 20,000 tons of wood chips per year”.

 

The study states, “thus, a more realistic estimate of carbon emissions is: 20,000 * 0.50 * (44/12) * 1 = 36,667 tons of carbon”. See URL, pages 38 and 39. 

NOTE: The word “carbon” should read “CO2”

http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/255078/original/Winter_2010car...

 

The wood chips would contain 20000 x 0.500 mc = 10,000 US ton of dry wood.

The dry wood would contain 10,000 x 0.487 = 4,870 US ton of carbon.

The CO2 released due to combustion would be 44/12 x 4,870 = 17,856 US ton of CO2.

It is likely the woodchips would be about 85% of the total heat input of the biomass plant.

About 15% of the total fuel input would be from liquid fuels, to stabilize the combustion process during start-ups, etc., and for low load operation during summer, spring and fall.

 

The study estimate of biomass plant CO2 is more than 100% too high.

 

2) For reference: Vermont forestland, 4,511,000 acre, sequestered about 4,390,000 metric ton of CO2, or 0.973 metric ton of CO2/acre, or 1.07 US ton of CO2/acre.

https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/The_For...

 

The study states, Middlebury College forests, 1295 ha (3200 acre), will sequester about 9905 US ton of carbon/y, or 3.09 US ton carbon/acre, or 44/12 x 3.09 = 11.35 US ton CO2/acre. See URL, page 39, table 7.

 

It is physically impossible for Middlebury College forests to sequester at 11.35/1.07 = 10.6 times Vermont’s rate.

   

 

 

 

Views: 530

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on September 2, 2019 at 4:48pm

Frank,

A power line on 130 ft tall towers cuts a corridor about 200 ft wide and many miles long through the forest.

That would be 1000s of acres of forest land and it’s carbon storing capacity down the drain.

Placing 450 ft tall wind turbines on pristine ridgelines requires about 3 miles of access road  by 100 ft wide through forested land and about 3 miles of ridgeline by 100 ft wide for 75 MW

The destruction of modernity to serve 10 billion people by 2050 is unrelenting, and the restitutions to offset the damage are near zero.

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on September 2, 2019 at 11:42am

That's iTREE not iFORE. 

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on September 2, 2019 at 11:40am

Bowdoin College clear cut of 10+ acres of mature forest. these are saw logs not for firewood. branches were chipped. Area became the hockey coliseum and adjacent parking lots and an all-weather playing surface for lacross, soccer, etc.

As far as I know, there was no replacement forest planted, just a dz. apple trees.  

Rather than drowning us in endless statistics; pick a before and after wood lot for comparison. You can us aerial maps for before and after comparisons and with iFORE be able to calculate CO2 conversions, etc. It's the extent of the biomass and tree types which are important.

Comment by Frank J. Heller, MPA on September 2, 2019 at 11:35am

Comment by Willem Post on September 2, 2019 at 10:58am

Penny,

See Appendix 4

Comment by Willem Post on September 2, 2019 at 10:48am

Penny,

I have been asking unsettling questions since I was about 4 years old.

I used to exasperate my kindergarten teacher.

Now I am 82.

It would be great to show some photographs and videos of "the big boys at work in your neighborhood", and post them on U-tube.

Then, I would reference them in my articles.

I have some Norwegian videos on floating, deepwater wind turbines, that show the type of infrastructures and specialized ships required.

Maine would have to build all of that for several billion dollars, if it were to be a "player", as some in starry-eyed RE folks in Disgusta seem to want to be.

One quick way for Joe and Jane Maine Workers to end up in the poorhouse.

Comment by Penny Gray on September 2, 2019 at 9:56am

Selective harvesting to small woodlot owners is a method that continually improves the stand by taking out inferior species and trees and giving the good trees more room to become bigger and more valuable.  It's a long term way of looking at the forest.  Selective harvesting to the industrial landowners is putting in the gridwork of roads and then cutting everything within reach of the roads. Then either liquidating the land or moving out for another twenty to forty years before coming back and doing it all over again.  It can also involve spraying herbicides that target hardwood and favor the regeneration of softwood. Those helicopters fly right over my place here in northern Maine with the spray arms out on either side. The USFS seems to be all about using taxpayer dollars to build industrial roads into our forests so they can then bid out the stumpage to big outfits.  I can only imagine how your questions must unsettle them.

Comment by Willem Post on September 1, 2019 at 6:16pm

Penny,

Please explain "selective harvesting"

North country is in Maine?

I tried to get some help with this analysis from USFS foresters who do number analyses.

It is like pulling teeth.

They are so careful, seem to be afraid of their own shadow.

All my analysis is based on USFS numbers.

I try to be as accurate as possible.

So far, no help.

Comment by Penny Gray on September 1, 2019 at 5:45pm

There's a book I read years ago, "Strangely Like War; the Global Assault on Forests, http://www.derrickjensen.org/strangely-like-war/

which painted a graphic picture of what we're doing to our planet.  Up here in the north country, selective harvesting is practiced.  The industrial scale logging outfits select everything and cut it.  This is a global problem and there will be long term and possibly irreversable consequences.

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2019   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service