{"id":277380,"date":"2025-10-04T14:56:19","date_gmt":"2025-10-04T14:56:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/277380\/"},"modified":"2025-10-04T14:56:19","modified_gmt":"2025-10-04T14:56:19","slug":"with-biomass-energys-risks-wind-and-solar-should-be-prioritized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/277380\/","title":{"rendered":"With biomass energy’s risks, wind and solar should be prioritized"},"content":{"rendered":"

Oct. 4, 2025 7 AM PT <\/p>\n

To the editor<\/b>: What could be the holy messiah of clean energy and wildfire prevention? According to Noah Haggerty\u2019s article, our savior seems to be biomass energy (\u201cCalifornia needs biomass energy to meet its wildfire goals. Its projects keep going south,\u201d<\/a> Sept. 30). But this article doesn\u2019t mention the mountains of research that warn against the harms of carbon capture and storage to the atmosphere, ecosystems and the people whom such practices are meant to serve.<\/p>\n

Crucially, the mere processing of biomass material \u2014 via clearing forests, chopping trees into wood chips and transporting materials over long distances \u2014 emits alarming quantities of carbon into the atmosphere<\/a>. In combination with the high-energy combustion and gasification of the biomass, the \u201ccarbon-neutral\u201d or \u201ccarbon-negative\u201d claims lose their ground as the net atmospheric carbon emissions trump those that they propose to sequester<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Instead, public funding should prioritize research-backed renewable energy sources like solar and wind<\/a> to resolve emissions and public health crises.<\/p>\n

Advertisement<\/p>\n

Jojo Pak, Berkeley<\/p>\n

More to Read <\/p>\n