Top Stories
Banking on climate change: A list of bankers advocating for the Australian carbon taxOctober 21 2011 - Read more
Melbourne Uni removes all doubt: The climate change agenda is for socialism September 14 2011 - Read more
Julia Gillard PM “Contours of a NEW WORLD ORDER are emerging but not yet apparent”August 8 2011 - Read more
World Government: Not a conspiracy it's actually Greens policyJune 24 2011 - Read more
CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was the former Director of Rothschild's Bank in Australia June 20 2011 - Read more
The Australian carbon tax will be paid to the United Nations June 15 2011 - Read more
Carbon Cops: Police State Australia June 13 2011 - Read more
Recent Posts
Coal-fired Power Company can burn forests for “green credits”
Posted by: wakeup2thelies
Tags: climate change,coal,renewable energy,united states Posted date:
August 11, 2011 |
No comment
Yes! You read the headline correctly. A United States appeals court in North Carolina has ruled that Duke Energy can burn whole trees In order to fulfill a 2007 state mandate that they derive 12.5 percent of electricity from “renewable” sources:
Last year Duke sought permission from the North Carolina Utilities Commission to classify two of its coal-fired power plants as renewable facilities, because the company wants to burn a combination of wood chips and coal at the plants. NCUC determined the renewables statute allowed that “wood derived from whole trees in primary harvest is a ‘biomass resource’ and thus a ‘renewable energy resource,’” and therefore approved Duke’s application. Environmental Defense Fund and the NC Sustainable Energy Association – with Southern Environmental Law Center providing legal help – challenged the ruling, and the Court of Appeals sided with NCUC and Duke:
The statute at issue in the instant case is not ambiguous because all wood fuel is encompassed by the meaning of the term “biomass.” Since the statute does not specifically define “biomass,” we look to its ordinary meaning. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “biomass” as “organic matter used as fuel.”
Source: National Legal and Policy Center | 10/Aug/2011
This is yet another example of “green” policies being far worse for the environment than any perceived issue that carbon (dioxide) may bring. It has also recently been reported that the billion dollar “climate change” funds to help poorer nations adapt to climate change can not be accessed by those who it is intended for see here.
When environmental polices require companies to burn trees and “Climate Change” funds can’t be accessed by those who it is intended for something is seriously wrong.
By Adam at wakeup2thelies.com
