To the Editor:

Have you ever heard the expression “waiting for the other shoe to drop”? I thought of it as I was reading all the recent news and opinions about the U.S. Forest Service studies on wood harvesting in Western North Carolian. I felt there was something not being said. Well, the answer came in a Jan. 29 article by Politico reporter Michael Grunwald.

Grunwald writes about a Nov. 19 memo from the EPA stating the Obama administration is looking to declare forestry products “carbon neutral.” In keeping with Obama’s on-again-off-again position on climate change and his “all-the-above” energy policies, declaring wood products carbon neutral opens the door to massive new exploitation of our forests. Thus the rush to re-evaluate forestry practices across the country. 

But burning trees for energy is not carbon neutral. It is true that a tree soaks up carbon and seals it in the wood, but burning it in a matter of minutes is a sudden rush of carbon. And even if you buy the premise that the gain is neutral, we have already gone over 400 parts per million of CO2 in the air, and we surely don’t need to go any higher.

According to Tim Searchinger, a researcher at Princeton University, burning wood (and other “biomass” sources of energy) is appealing to policy makers but is totally unrealistic. The oft-cited goal of 20 percent energy from biomass by 2050 would require burning every tree in our forests and all our food stocks as well. Searchinger also calculates that just the current policy proposal alone would require a 70 percent increase in American forestry production. 

And do you get the scent of money in all that smoke? Politicians on both sides of the aisle are lining up to support the increased denuding of our woods, and to take big campaign gifts from the people who will profit from it. Chipper mill owners are already increasing production in order to ship our forests to eager energy consumers in Europe, nations willing to make similar declarations of carbon neutrality.

Boyd Holliday

Lake Junaluska