Another Green Solution Goes Up In Flames
show comments
  • Rick Johnson

    This is more proof that the Greens are not interested in the environment but are in fact anti-industrial revolution. The industrial revolution grew off the back of substituting wood for coal. Pre-industrial revolution, England was being de-nuded of trees. Coal is a cheaper means of obtaining energy and, once its use become widespread, it saved the trees of England. Now the Greens want to destroy the forests of America to take us back to the bad old days.

  • I live in Southeast Georgia: where there are more pine trees than people and several of these wood pellet factories. Replacement trees get planted rather quickly due to the property tax treatment of Tree Farms. If you have a tree farm planted, you get to defer the bulk of your property taxes until the year that you harvest. Leave your Tree Farm fallow and it gets taxed at the regular rate of farmland. Forestry was on the decline here until the pellet factories started backup. Thank you EU and UK for sending your money here.

    • LarryD

      ” Moreover, some 90 percent of the forests in the southeastern United States that source British
      biomass are privately owned, and lax regulatory oversight means there is no guarantee that felled trees are replaced in some sustainable manner.”

      World-wide experience is private owners manage forests better than government or other commons. But replacing locally-sourced coal with foreign wood pellets is still a stupid idea.

  • Sally Dungan

    oops — Matt Ridley

  • Fat_Man

    “Matt Wridley”

    No. Matt Ridley

  • Duperray

    This foolish green idea (burning their own wild trees) has been much developed in northern Germany. After few years, disaster is so big that even governmental greens are hurt, opend their eyes and for few months, in a concealed manner, are stopping this developement !
    For once Greens recognize an error !….
    Much land coverest with forest have been destroyed and this paper arguments are fully demonstrated right.
    So, when british further add up an ocean transportation to this, the joke become unbearable.
    One can rise following question: How come, with all expertize, technical knowledge, computer simulations, expert accounting, private investor analysts, banks, such ridiculous industrial solutions could be approved through many administrative steps in a very modern advanced country?
    Back two centuries ago, when steam locomotives were appearing, such a stupid behaviour would have developped locomotives with square wheels……
    One explanation attempt: The whole considered decision string is fitted with technically ignare, uncompetent persons od following style “if you don’t know, go find it on Internet”?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.