logo new
Login as: Member Non-Member
Emily Creely
Offline
Friday, March 04 2016, 07:34 PM
0
Hi all -
While I think it's great that SWS engaged with other scientists and societies on critical issues such as biomass, I'm not sure I was so please by adding our name to a letter related opposing the use of forest biofuels for energy. This letter ignores a lot of the variables still in play for this issue and supporting a complete opposition to forest biomass is not prudent at this stage.

There is an awful lot of misinformation out there regarding carbon and biomass, and Dr. Booth has framed it as a binary discussion where in reality there is a great deal of nuance related to this matter.

I worked in rural development/watershed & forestry issues in the northern Sierra/southern Cascade region for four years and disagree with blanket opposition to forest biomass policies. In that part of the world, wetlands are 'meadows' and there may be benefits to wetland areas from forest thinning. Or not. It's still being studied and it's a fascinating area - to me the jury is still out.

I'm glad to see SWS engage on an issue with so many moving parts and policy implications, but I'd rather see SWS as a facilitating medium for such a complex issue rather than signing on.

Emily Creely

Location [ View Larger Map ]

Responses (0)
OOPS! Only SWS members are allowed view the replies to this discussion thread. Please login to view the replies.
Your Reply

Looking for a past discussion thread?

Visit the SWS Archived Forum

Categories

Facebook

Twitter