Russell Seaman: Pellet problems

Regarding the June 18 Point of View “The wood-pellet industry and the harm it’s causing”: Something seems dreadfully wrong with the opening statements. If the wood-pellet people are clear-cutting land for their source of wood, that can be bad for wildlife habitat, but modifications can be made to minimize the downside.

My real problem is with the contention that an independent analysis shows carbon pollution is increased 2.5 times more by using wood pellets as a fuel versus using coal. This really can’t be. I would assume the analysis figured coal as a source of energy to harvest the trees and process them to pellets and ship them overseas.

The analysis also probably figured there was a loss of carbon-capture from the atmosphere by the loss of the trees. But did the analysis then figure the carbon capture of the new growth?

The bottom line in this debate is that burning coal or any other fossil fuel releases fossilized carbon into an active state (carbon dioxide in the air or oceans or carbon in living things).

Active state carbon is something we have to live with, and there is no hope of refossilizing it in our lifetimes.

This story was originally published June 28, 2015 at 2:00 PM with the headline "Russell Seaman: Pellet problems."