In response to Katy Eiseman’s column, I would like to agree that wood-fired energy is harmful to human health and not sustainable in the long run. However, it is essential to recognize that not all biomass fuel consumption should be lumped together from a policy standpoint. While wood may be a niche fuel and only suitable for use as a heating fuel in sparsely populated areas, people have been using it for warmth since the dawn of civilization.
Today’s wood burning devices are the cleanest and most efficient in history. Wood burning generates more CO2 relative to burning fossil fuels, but when trees die and decompose naturally, all that carbon returns naturally to the atmosphere as CO2. The carbon embodied in unburnt fossil fuels remains safely sequestered underground, making it an attractive alternative to traditional fossil fuels. With the impacts of climate change on forest health, counting on local forests to sequester carbon over any length of time is a dubious proposition.
However, we must acknowledge that rural communities rely heavily on wood heating for their economy and self-reliance. Rural communities also have unique needs that require specific solutions. Therefore, tax dollars from rural Environmental Justice Communities should be diverted from subsidizing energy sources that don’t make sense for them towards solving other pressing needs unique to these communities. We can incentivize the use of renewable energy sources while still respecting the traditions and needs of rural communities.
