Podcasts

You're talking about disposing of a waste product, though. They're talking about growing trees specifically to grind into sawdust.

I am curious: Have you considered making your own fuel pellets? I have seen a few DIY projects to compress sawdust and am wondering if it would be cost effective for you build/buy a machine for it, s'all.

If you do start a formal business, paying a highschool kid to run the machine and do simple sales tasks might be feasible. (It's not always financially viable, I get it. It would be interesting to do the math on it though....)

(I have no skin in the related discussion. I just smelled a business opportunity and was curious.)

Edit: If you happen to be in the US and near Colorado, I would be willing to try and put a machine together myself, actually. At least, do a preliminary CAD sketch up and see what the raw, underlying cost would be. Can you be a hair more accurate about the volume of sawdust you generate?

A good step would be to implement policy to encourage this and discourage growing trees specifically for burning

No objections to what you are doing here. I'm from a woodworking family and have made a good number of the pieces in my house. Wood is a wonderful building material.

You are likely not using the low quality wood from these replanted trees. People don't want to use them for things they don't see, let alone making something nice. It's mainly Douglas fir.

They are cutting down the nice trees that you and the other plants and animals do love, nice old hardwoods, many times breaking laws to using technicalities to do so, and replacing them with these firs, and nothing but those firs, so all the plants and animals are gone, and they won't have a complete ecosystem back for about 100 years...if they leave those trees standing once they're big enough to harvest. See those subsidies again.

A pickup truck is a lot of sawdust. But it is not hundreds of acres a year. And it is a byproduct of your work, which I'll assume is not legally shady or funded by taxpayers unaware of what they are paying for. You are making furniture so the wood will not be completely burned, so the carbon is still trapped in the wood, and if your furniture is of good quality, it will prevent a few generations of crap furniture being bought and trashed, so you look to be helping the carbon cycle more than the pellet industry.

Much like with single use plastics, I wouldn't blame you for the situation. I fault the industries conning us out of our money on things that are hurting us. It is an industrial level problem to address. You are doing the best thing you can reasonably be expected to do, but the forestry people are not. Anyone trying to group you in with them is misguided or being deliberately antagonistic.

PS - Before posting I looked to see if you had any posts with your furniture. It does indeed look very nice! My family dealt primarily with oak furniture, and my teacher had us make many Shaker style pieces, so I recognized it immediately! Good for you, and I hope you have success and joy selling some. Anyone should be proud to display one of your tables.

You may be Captain Aggravated, but I hope I was able to express properly my beef if purely at large industry, not at people like you without causing any further aggravation! 😅

This makes no sense.

That is because this is new information found by this new study, which is what has been the subject matter of this post's interviewee, Justin Catanoso. From the abstract of the paper:

Despite a significant increase in United States biomass energy sector activity, including domestic bioenergy deployment and wood pellet production for overseas exports, the associated criteria pollutant emissions are not well quantified in current regulatory emissions inventories. We present an updated U.S. emissions inventory, with emphasis on wood-based biomass pretreatment (e.g., drying, condensing, storage of wood pellet) and the use of biomass for energy generation. As a significant number of wood pellet production facilities are not included in current inventories, we find that this sector's emissions could be potentially underestimated by a factor of two. Emissions from biomass-based facilities are on average up to 2.8 times higher than their non-biomass counterparts per unit energy. We estimate that 2.3 million people live within 2 km of a biomass facility and who could be subject to adverse health impacts from their emissions. Overall, we find that the bioenergy sector contributes to about 3–17% of total emissions from all energy, i.e., electric and non-electric generating facilities in the U.S.

Biomass seems to be the source of about 3-4% of the US energy production, but if it making up up to 17% of the pollution, that is much dirtier than other forms of energy production. This paper seems to bring to light much information that was not accounted for in the past. That's why this info may seem surprising.

If “they” are oil and gas corporations, I’d say that too, if I were them. Any move against our bottom line, or competition to our subsidies is fair game for attack.

Easy enough to see who funded the study.

This work was supported by the National Wildlife Federation. Financial support was provided in part by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

From InfluenceWatch:

The National Wildlife Federation is one of the nation’s largest and highest-profile environmentalist organizations. In recent years, along with its associated NWF Action Fund advocacy organization, it has transitioned from being a conservation organization representing the interests of hunters and outdoor recreation enthusiasts into a left-leaning pressure group focused on global warming advocacy and promoting left-wing social causes.

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation is a foundation created by David Packard, cofounder of Hewlett-Packard, in 1964. It supports environmental causes, population control programs, and three programs created by David Packard: the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and the Packard Fellowships in Science and Engineering.

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation is a private foundation created by tobacco heiress Doris Duke. The Foundation funds causes associated with the arts, preservation of Duke family properties, healthcare in Africa, and environmentalist land-preservation efforts.

Not so thrilled with the tobacco money part, but the rest seems solid.

How is that wood’s problem exactly? How did that carbon get into the atmosphere in the first place to be turned into wood? If there had been no coal, gas, or oil, that atmospheric carbon would have been from burning wood in the first place, making it a net cycle of wood. It grows in short order regardless of what we do with it; it’s renewable.

This is a bit long of a topic to get into, but needless to say, the Earth has changed a lot, mainly for the better for mammals, since the time before trees and plants existed. We could probably not have survived that world very well either.

What I can say is not natural is how we treat trees as a society now. We don't leave forests alone to do their natural thing. I don't think anyone can argue that point in good faith, so I'm going to leave it at that.

As if the extraction, manufacturing, packaging, and shipping for fossil fuels doesn’t emit vast amounts of carbon? If wood was harvested, manufactured, packaged and shipped with renewable energy, what’s the problem? Why couldn’t it be? If fossil fuels were harvested, manufactured, packaged and shipped with renewable energy, I’d say “cut out the middle man” and just use the renewables directly for energy. Is that your beef?

The beef is not mine, and I debated for a while responding to you at all. Your account is pretty new and while not trollish, you do seem a bit fired up moreso than people I usually discuss things like this with. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you were in a rush and took my post as defending fossil fuel usage over biomass. You obviously have not looked at my post history or even my other comments in this thread if that was your takeaway from what I said originally.

Others were making comments showing they had not looked into the content this post was made to explain to us, so I made a brief summary of what the subject of the podcast interview was working on researching and writing about. I threw in my 2 cents about not thinking biomass is not as renewable as those with financial interest in biomass may imply. I spend a lot of time promoting environmental protect, donate money, and source my own energy from renewables, so I want to be aware of what my money is going towards and to make sure I'm helping where I can, and that myself and others are educated on where their money goes as well.

What do you suggest we do? All I’m seeing is rhetoric is that trees are a grift, while suspiciously overlooking the fossil fuel subsidy grift.

I suggest we spend time learning current information to the best of our abilities and make educated decisions as I feel that's more helpful than jumping down a stranger's throat when they're trying to save you some of the work.

Just because I don't specifically call out fossil fuels, nuclear waste, offshore windmill construction hurting marine life, industrial waste from renewable energy infrastructure, etc. does not automatically mean I support it. If you need me to spout off all my opinions on anything tangentially related to the topic, maybe my writing isn't for you. I try to keep it concise so people will read it and be able to take away useful information to help form their own opinions.

I do hope your initial comment was made with good intention and this has clarified things for you. If you ever want to discuss anything, I'm more than open to it, but I'm not here to be scolded by strangers that won't make thoughtful replies. I did not imply anything negative in my original comments, and that is the same I expect to be met with in return from anyone worth spending my time on.

You will see a lot of people following the letter of the law, but not the intent. Where they aren't allowed to log, all of a sudden there will be roads nearby parallel to another road that need to be built through those trees, or fires that break out and "cleanup" needs to be done. I believe the legal term is "incidental take" and I'm sure you can imagine how that can be used.

There are also plenty of countries around the world where rules are just outright ignored, by the people, the police, the government, or all of the above.

It is good to see people take on reforestation projects, especially by groups that care and plant wide varieties of native species, but there is a huge grey timber market around the world.