 |
|
|
|
|
Biomass Burning has Large Costs and Tiny Benefits |
|
Tuesday, 09 March 2010 |
|
 Biomass burning is dirtier than coal when it comes to the emissions that matter most to public health and climate change. Smoke stack emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and soot particles (known as Particulate Matter) per unit of power generated by burning wood are higher than from burning coal.
Existing biomass power production is already having considerable negative impacts on our nation’s forests. Additional tax incentives will make this problem worse. In Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, and many other states,existing biomass power plants burn whole trees to make electricity. Congress unwisely provided federal financial assistance to cut down our forests for burning in biomass plants. Those trees would not have been cut without the public subsidies driving biomass power production; those trees would be cleaning polluted air, storing carbon, providing wildlife habitat, replenishing soil, and providing families with a place to play and explore.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Prescribed Burn Position Statement |
|
Tuesday, 20 October 2009 |
Buckeye Forest Council - Executive Summary
Adopted October 2009
The Buckeye Forest Council (BFC) is a membership-based, grassroots organization dedicated to protecting Ohio’s native forests and their inhabitants. The BFC opposes the use of prescribed burns in Ohio’s public forests.
- Fire is not a common natural occurrence here, and particularly on the large scale—covering lowlands as well as ridgetops—of recent prescribed burns.
- Fire is harmful to many species, to the forest as a whole, to Ohioans’ health, and to the global environment.
- The stated rationales for the practice are either unnecessary and inappropriate (fuel reduction, biodiversity enhancement) or supported by insufficient scientific evidence to justify the large-scale burns that are being conducted (promotion of oak regeneration).
- Conducting prescribed burns in the second half of April, after the herb layer has emerged and grouse and turkeys are nesting, is a particular concern and should be stopped immediately.
If prescribed burning projects on public land continue, they should be required to undergo environmental impact studies, and there should be an opportunity for meaningful public input.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Shawnee Wilderness Area Management Plan - Call for Comments |
|
Friday, 18 September 2009 |
 Call To Action – Comments Required by October 20, 2009!
Proposed Changes to the 2009-2019 Shawnee Wilderness Area Management Plan and Recommended Revisions
Note: The deadline for comments was extended following advocacy work done by a coalition comprised of Buckeye Forest Council, Ohio Environmental Council, Sierra Club Ohio Chapter, and Voices For The Forest. We are grateful for all the effort these groups put into assuring Ohioans have a fair opportunity to review and comment on the significant changes to the Shawnee Wilderness Area Management Plan.
See the original, current and proposed Shawnee Wilderness Area Management Plans at:
ODNR Division of Forestry State Forests & Recreation
Send your comments in an e-mail to State Forest Program Administrator Nate Kirk at:
Nate.Kirk@dnr.state.oh.us
Note: The Buckeye Forest Council has had significant help with drafting and editing of the following comments from Phil and Heather Cantino, and Chad Ferguson (Ohio Wilderness League). We thank them all and note that the views stated here do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all contributors.
The proposed Shawnee Wilderness Area Plan, developed with no public input, in contradiction to past practice as well as to the authorizing Ohio Revised Code (1503.43), should not be adopted. It significantly weakens the current (1999-2009) plan in a number of ways (detailed below).
|
|
Read more...
|
|
| << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 3 of 24 |
|
|
|
