Wood – one of our nation’s as well as our county’s most plentiful renewable resources – is at the heart of a debate that unites people with disparate interests and divides others.
The possibility of using wood to produce heat and electricity brings together people who want to decrease reliance on fossil fuels for the sake of the environment, people who want to increase energy independence in light of world politics, and people who want to build the economy through new technologies.
But wood also may divide people who feel passionate about caring for the environment. Some see the wood industry as a practical way to manage forest devastation through insect infestations and fire. Others believe the only responsible way to treat a forest is to leave it completely alone.
In the midst of the debate, public policies are being created and debated.
According to Jim Bowyer in an article entitled The Future of Forestry in Minnesota’s Economy, published in 2009 in the Center for Rural Policy and Development’s Rural Minnesota Journal, “Rising use of biomass for production of heat, steam, electricity, and liquid fuels using a number of current and developing technologies is clearly part of the future. …”
Cook County Commissioner Jim Johnson heard interesting perspectives on forest management and federal land policies at a National Association of Counties (NACo) Western Interstate Region convention in Billings, Montana. In one of his commissioner newsletters, he wrote, “Pressure is building on the Forest Service from the western counties to re-think their policies. The original purpose of the Forest Service was to provide a sustainable yield of timber harvest and promote recreation and multiple use of the forest. It has since changed to one of ‘ecosystem management.’
“Because of this, we have seen an increase in wildfire and disease throughout the national forests, and we feel that a different kind of forest management is needed. The counties in NACo will continue to advocate for a better strategy.”
With a better strategy in mind, NACo passed a resolution urging Congress to “establish that renewable biomass from federal lands can be applied towards the existing renewable fuels standard and any renewable electricity standard. …This resolution promotes the removal of hazardous forest fuels which threaten valuable timber stands, wildlife habitat, and catastrophic CO2 release, while providing a means of limiting dependence on foreign oil by promoting a domestic renewable liquid fuel source.
“Forest county communities would realize increased employment and the reduction of a potentially catastrophic fire threat. Urban areas would benefit from reduced local taxation intended to support neighboring distressed rural communities. The nation would benefit from reduced greenhouse gas emissions, greater quantities of lower priced domestic motor fuel derived from a renewable source, increased employment, and an increase in the national treasury derived from the sale of material from public lands.”
Sierra Club on biomass
The Sierra Club cautiously supports biomass as a source of renewable energy. A Sierra Club document on clean energy sources states, “With the right technologies and careful attention to responsible land-management practices, the energy contained in plants can be harnessed to produce heat and electricity. …While biofuels can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must consider the full range of impacts their production entails, including land use changes and affects on food production and prices.” Localizing energy sources may be advantageous, also, according to the Sierra Club. The document continues, “While current power plants and transmission lines place our energy infrastructure at risk of attack, decentralized renewable energy sources make it more difficult to disrupt large portions of the electrical grid.”
Where to go from here
As private lands are being subdivided and developed across the country, the amount of wood imported from countries that don’t necessarily have ecologically sound practices and laws has increased. Biomass technology is being used successfully in pockets here and abroad, but obtaining biomass from federal forests has not gained universal acceptance.
Some people want to see America’s forests go back to their natural state, but that’s not necessarily possible. “We’d like to go back to the time of having 2,000-year-old redwoods,” Superior National Forest/ Gunflint District Ranger Dennis Neitzke said. “We can’t go back. We have to wait 2,000 years for them to grow back.” Neitzke believes we must decide where we want to go and move forward from where we are.
People who think they want the forest left in its natural state sometimes change their mind when their home and property is threatened with something like a wild fire. They tend to want intervention when their cabin is about to burn down.
Neitzke said that some people who once lobbied against firefighting and use of herbicides on invasive species have changed their perspectives on intervention. He supports letting the land lie in its natural state to the extent that is possible and intervening when it’s practical.
Working together
In an October 2009 speech, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell contended that federal forests could be used in multiple ways while managing them in an environmentally responsible way. “Given the threats to our forests today, Americans must move away from polarization, and we can start by accepting the basic decency in each other, the mutual desire to do the right thing. We can work toward a shared vision based on healthy, flourishing ecosystems – ecosystems that can provide all the services that Americans want and need while creating jobs and local economic opportunities, supporting communities of all kinds.”
This is the tenth and last in a series of articles on issues related to utilizing biomass from the Superior National Forest as a source of local renewable energy and its potential to benefit the economy of Cook County.
Leave a Reply