I recently read an article claiming that "biomass" energy will produce more greenhouse gasses than coal over the next 40 years.
Basically, biomass energy is the process of harvesting, then burning/incinerating wood and other plant (sometimes animal) products. In addition to wood, the biomass plant category includes corn, hemp, and sugarcane. The act of harvesting can include using construction debris, collecting waste or fallen trees, or by cutting live trees.
Massachusetts, under Governor Deval Patrick, recently invested $1M into the development of four new wood-burning plants in their State, but has decided to rethink their position based on this study, which was prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. The department has opened the study for comments, and plans to conduct hearings this July.
Click References to this study can be found in numerous articles: Here, and here
Now, I’ve listened to Charlie Bass speak a number of times. Each time, he’s touted the fact that he’s been successful in the renewable, "biomass" energy business for a while. Charlie has used his time and experience in the biomass industry, since losing to Paul Hodes in 2006, as a badge of honor. Charlie is a board member for 2 renewable energy companies.
He has claimed that biomass can help us "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" (it could make a small dent, at the expense of cutting a lot of trees), is renewable (only if cut-based harvesting is followed by replanting), and is clean. Well, according to this study, it may not be as clean as we thought, and is certainly not "carbon-neutral".
I recently asked Charlie whether he’ll resign from the boards of these companies (one makes wood-pellets, the other builds biomass plants), or recuse himself from all energy policy activity in Congress, should he be elected in November. His response was that he will "resign from the boards".
However, my big question is…
…can Charlie look at US Energy policy with unbiased, conflict-free eyes?
While in Congress, Charlie had consistently voted against oil drilling (ANWAR and offshore), supported the Kyoto Protocol treaty, and co-sponsored a "Cap and Trade" style bill in 2006 (in fact, he was called a "Cap and Trade" Republican by National review magazine). Charlie has been a "green jobs" and global warming proponent from day-1.
I find it challenging to reconcile these actions with his current business interests. I’m not accusing Charlie of doing anything wrong, but I do wonder about his ability to keep the best interests of the entire United States, as well as New Hampshire, in mind, if he were to debate and vote on Energy policy.
A Washington Post article in this Sunday’s edition (6/13/10) also raises the issue of potential conflict between members’ of Congress committee assignments, and their private business interests.
This article features Ron Paul, as a member of Congress who has influence over national monetary policies, while he maintains large investment interests in Gold and other precious metals. The fear is that these positions create a conflict between national-interest and self-interest. Paul astutely replies that the "Government is so involved in everything we do in this economy" and, "The only solution is getting the government out of things it should not be doing."
While I agree with this sentiment, the reality is that our Government will continue to manage national energy policy for quite a long while. Charlie Bass will continue to have significant interest in the biomass energy industry, board member or not.
This is certainly something to think about, and factor in, as we carefully consider candidates in September’s primary.