2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Great topic! Biomass, in theory, is a great idea. It burns cleaner than coal (which we all know is extremely dirty), is a stable source of power, would avoid having people work in coal mines, the forest is in abundance - especially here in the NW. But at what cost? Biomass is great as long as it is harvested on a sustained basis - but that won't happen. How many times have we seen the human species overextend our resources?? Everyday. Does Oregon have sustainability provisions that will protect our forests? Why not put the money and resources to develop and create a source of energy that is actually renewable, sustainable, doesn't harm the ecology, creates jobs won't introduce in an invasive species, and won't be a net energy loser. Let's also not put all our eggs in one basket when comes to biomass as well. Let's not also call something "green" when it really isn't.

posted 2 years, 3 months ago
view in context