Diane Broncaccio’s Recorder article about the July 26 Franklin County Regional Council of Governments’ presentation on commercial-scale wood heat and air quality raises several important issues requiring further exploration.
Namely: the relationships between pellet burning and health, climate change, and renewable, clean energy criteria.
It is hoped that this brief review helps government agencies, legislators and the public decide whether or not they should accept the many risks associated with support of pellet heat for Massachusetts schools.
Pellet burning has both known and unknown health consequences and therefore should not be marketed to schools.
Studies have not found a “no risk” level for particulates, according to Sarita Hudson of the Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., and the Pioneer Valley Asthma Coalition.
Particles from wood combustion less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, known as PM2.5, can remain suspended in ambient air for long periods of time, can be transported over long distances and can penetrate more readily into indoor environments as compared to larger, coarser particles.
Especially within the Connecticut River Valley, where the air quality is poor most days, institutional use of pellet burners is called into question.
A June 2015 study by Yuanli Shi and others found that low levels of PM2.5 were associated with increased mortality.
Their conclusion? “We estimate significant acute and chronic effects of PM2.5 exposures (even) below current EPA standards.”
They recommend decreasing particulate emissions well below Environmental Protection Agency standards in order to achieve improved public health outcomes.
After being made aware of the parameters of the Mohawk Trail Woodlands Partnership (MTWP) proposal here, the American Lung Association examined health consequences of pellet burning and wrote a letter published in The Recorder on May 10 discouraging use of pellets to heat schools.
Why has a comprehensive health risk assessment of the Mohawk Trail plan not been done?
It would build a large pellet and wood chip manufacturing facility west of Greenfield, drawing from forests within 20 Franklin and Berkshire county communities.
Pellet burning accelerates climate change.
A life cycle analysis of pellets demonstrates that pellets release far more CO2 than any other fuel source, including coal, thus accelerating climate change with every acre cut for pellets.
An acre of mature forest sequesters 30,000 pounds. of CO2 per year. According to the Global Warming Solutions Act (2008), the state Department of Environmental Protection is required to account for CO2 sequestration by forests and “changes of land use.”
It has not done so, placing associated state agencies out of compliance with the act.
Given the urgency of the effects of climate change, preservation of intact Massachusetts forests is paramount, particularly in light of incumbent threats to their survival by storms, drought, insect infestation and disease. Indeed, forests play a vital community role in the integrated ecosystem upon which humans rely. Anyone who values a future worth living toward would endeavor to preserve and protect Massachusetts forests, not cut and burn them for profit.
Pellet burning is neither “renewable” nor “clean” energy.
False claims made by pellet promoters seem to ignore scientific evidence in favor of profit. Interwoven life systems do not have 80-plus years for the forests to be “renewed” to their pre-cut condition.
Furthermore, if one considers stack emissions, coupled with the amount and types of carbon and greenhouse gases released during the production process, in no way can pellets be considered a clean energy resource.
Will those who have profited (and would further profit) from the MTWP be allowed to continue to risk the health of schoolchildren? David Suzuki of the Heartland Institute warns, “Humanity’s fate depends upon the choices we make today. We can’t let a polluting industry block progress to a cleaner, healthier future.”
According to Boston Globe’s David Abel (July 30) “Officials from the Conservation Law Foundation, Massachusetts Sierra Club, Environmental League of Massachusetts and other groups in a letter to state energy officials recently said, “As we are well under way to runaway global warming that will have drastic consequences for the planet and all species, we should not be incentivizing any technologies that increase carbon pollution.”
It remains to be seen whether the Franklin County Regional Council of Governments will disengage itself from the risks, dangers and costs to public and climate health by promoters of pellet burning.
Franklin and Berkshire counties’ town committees, schools, legislators and parents ought to take heed of statements made by associated pellet industries and supporters of the proposed pellet facility. Their claims do not stand up to close scrutiny, to scientific inquiry or the hottest month on record.
Beth Adams of Leverett is co-founder and volunteer program developer of Mass Forest Rescue, a collaborative campaign to protect Massachusetts forests.