Shaye Wolf writes at CalMatters Biomass is a money pit that won’t solve California’s energy or wildfire problems  Shaye Wolf is the climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

California’s most expensive electricity source is finally poised to lose a government handout that props up its high costs and harmful pollution. In an era of clean, cheap solar and wind energy, policymakers are rightly beginning to treat biomass energy like the boondoggle it is.

Biomass energy — electricity made by burning or gasifying trees —
is an expensive, dirty relic that relies on industry misinformation and taxpayer money. 

In a vote later this month, the California Public Utilities Commission is expected to end the BioMAT subsidy program, which requires electric utilities to buy biomass power at exorbitant costs — four times the average. Californians get hit with those extra costs in our power bills, along with pollution that harms our health and climate. 

Utilities and environmental groups support ending this costly subsidy.   But the biomass industry is fighting back with misleading claims that its projects are made clean by “new” technology or that they’re needed for wildfire safety. Don’t be fooled.

Burning trees to make electricity harms the climate. In fact, biomass power is more climate-polluting at the smokestack than coal.

Biomass energy releases toxic air pollutants that endanger health, increasing the risk of premature death and illnesses like asthma. The facilities often are located in low-income communities and communities of color that have long fought to shut them down.

It is telling that the biomass industry is rebranding.  It claims it will use “clean” methods to gasify trees instead of burning them. But gasification — which also involves heating organic material — releases large amounts of climate-harming air pollution.

State regulators in May denied a costly biomass gasification project
that couldn’t show it would reduce emissions as promised.

The industry also promotes carbon capture and storage, claiming this technology will suck up carbon dioxide from biomass smokestacks and store it underground forever. But carbon capture and storage is a costly, decades-old technology with a long history of failure and serious health and safety risks.

Finally, the industry claims biomass energy projects will help pay for forest thinning, which it says will protect communities during wildfires. That means cutting trees, often large trees, which threatens wildlife and depletes forests, which naturally store carbon and fight climate change.

Thinning isn’t a good way to keep communities safe. Most of the community destruction is caused by wind-driven fires during extreme fire weather, made worse by climate change. The fastest-moving 3% of wind-driven fires is responsible for 88% of the damage to homes. [Note: no proof wildfires are worse now than in the past]

No amount of forest thinning can stop that. In fact, thinning makes cool, moist forests hotter, drier and more wind-prone, which can make fires burn faster and more intensely.

Most of California’s destructive wildfires — like the Los Angeles area fires in January — have burned in shrublands and grasslands, not forests, making thinning irrelevant in those cases.

Instead, the best investment for protecting communities during wildfires is hardening homes, so they’re less likely to catch fire, and stopping new development in fire-prone areas. Yet the state has earmarked only 1% of its wildfire funding for home hardening. Most goes to thinning.

Where thinning occurs, it’s most cost-effective to scatter the wood in the forest to create wildlife habitat, retain vital nutrients, and enhance natural carbon storage. If wood must be removed, it can be turned into mulch and shavings. The worst choice is subsidizing biomass companies to make dirty energy.

Any way you look at it, biomass energy is a polluting money pit
that won’t solve our climate or wildfire safety problems.

See also: 

Green Electrical Shocks in 2024

 

Thomas Kolbe explains the turnabout against European climatists, weakening their power over the EU agenda. His American Thinker article is Climate Policy Turning Point.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

While former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock calls for a fight against climate-driven global apocalypse at COP30, Brussels is being forced into political restraint by pressure from the U.S. and Qatar. On the horizon, the end of the EU’s grand climate machinations is becoming visible.

November 13, 2025, could mark a turning point in European Union history. We may have witnessed the beginning of the end of European climate socialism. Media coverage of the day in Parliament downplayed its significance, focusing instead on the reform of the supply chain law, while fundamental changes unfolded at a different level.

Politically, the event cannot be overstated; perhaps it should even be called a singularity in recent EU policy: The European Parliament paved the way for a dramatic dilution of corporate reporting obligations under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the so-called due diligence rules (CSDDD). The unstoppable march toward a climate dictatorship has been abruptly halted.

The End of the ESG Machine

Advocates of the ESG doctrine — under which private industry is forced by lawmakers to integrate party-circulated environmental and social standards into corporate governance — suffered their first major setback. Reporting and due diligence obligations for companies have been so weakened that previously required climate-aligned transition plans at the corporate level are now eliminated. Responsibility for violations of the remaining rules now rests with national authorities, not Brussels, freeing multinational supply chains from massive oversight.

The economy can, to some extent, escape the regulators’ grip — good news.

For companies in the fossil energy sector, new market incentives emerge: exports to Europe can be conducted more easily, as regulatory hurdles are lowered and bureaucratic reporting requirements drastically reduced. Overall, the adjustment allows companies greater flexibility in supply chains, reduces the compulsion to invest in renewable or CO2-neutral projects, and makes European markets more attractive to fossil energy exporters.

Reality Check

The EU Commission has recently faced mounting pressure from both Washington and the key LNG supplier, Qatar. U.S. trade secretary Howard Lutnick had months earlier called on U.S. companies to simply ignore Europe’s ESG framework if it significantly impeded operations — a direct affront to Ursula von der Leyen, who likes to portray herself as the morally superior, untouchable guardian of EU trade.

Together, these forces launched an offensive to bring Brussels’ climate defense to its knees, where cognitive dissonance had taken hold and the undeniable drift of geopolitical power was being ignored.

We have clearly entered the era of resource dominance. Europe imports roughly 60% of its required energy. Its irrational war on baseload energy sources such as nuclear and coal has only deepened dependence.

In Brussels and EU branch capitals, the lesson is now unavoidable: being a resource-poor trading partner in negotiations reveals how Europe’s capital base has been massively weakened by EU policy. Europe has lost its historic dominant position. President Trump, during negotiations with the EU, merely displayed what behind closed doors was already clear to everyone.

Fear Wins in the End

Ultimately, Brussels’ capitulation to Washington was a logical consequence of this dependence. The post-colonial extraction era — when France accessed uranium cheaply or Europe leveraged its Middle East dominance — is definitively over. Resource-rich regions now set the rules. Europe must comply, seek alliances, and become economically more robust if it wants a role in the future. Its path into eco-socialism was an illusion that has now burst. Germany’s crisis, its accelerated deindustrialization, is only the beginning — a snapshot of the global economic realignment.

In the end, political fear of street unrest prevailed. A Europe facing regular blackouts would simply be ungovernable, with chaos in the streets, lawlessness, and near-civil war conditions, reminiscent of recurring riots in French banlieues.

Baerbock Plays Climate Theater

While reality has long arrived in Brussels and officials are forced to make initial concessions, former German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock — now UN General Assembly President — continues to play the unshakable lead role in the disillusioned climate theater.

On Saturday in Belém, Brazil, at COP30, Baerbock performed with maximum emphasis, trying to give legs to a footsore, limp climate club. She proclaimed that “the climate crisis is the greatest threat of our time,” and that “3.6 billion people — almost half of the global population — are currently highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change.” Droughts, floods, extreme heat, and resulting supply insecurity deepen the “vicious cycle of hunger, poverty, displacement, instability, and conflict.”

A bit of Thunberg-style climate apocalypse, performed for a select audience — climate profiteers among themselves. The theater now smells of a support group, struggling to maintain mutual rhetoric reinforcement. Of the purported 3.6 billion sufferers, few are likely interested in the climate club unless they are tied to its subsidy mechanism.

No one doubts that drastic climate changes throughout history caused massive upheavals — migrations, famine, misery. Yet it is high time to end the current CO2 circus, a carousel revolving around an artificially constructed world with vanishing relevance to everyday life.

The climate business was designed as a classic insider-outsider model. Profiteers of the climate subsidy machine tolerate the occasionally bizarre, childlike savior attitude of Baerbock and other symbolic figures — or even actively side with them. In this sense, Baerbock could indeed be considered a UN ambassador — of those shaping the global climate extraction economy. They pursue policies knowingly destabilizing societies.

The Double Standard of Green Extraction Politics

Perhaps Baerbock can explain to indigenous participants at COP30, protesting deforestation, why Europe’s green lobby cuts entire forests to install uneconomic wind turbines.

She could also offer an economic seminar on how systematic taxation of productive society members — leading only to poverty and relocation of production — supposedly lowers global temperatures. Historical indulgences offer a handy argumentative analogy.

Baerbock’s moral punch has likely suffered due to Brussels’ gradual retreat
from climate orthodoxy. No coercion for Qatar, none for Washington
— but the small corner bakery is milked with climate levies until closure.

Internally, pressure; externally, bowing. That is the new EU strategy. For those still not seeing it: this fight is not about saving the world’s climate. It is about legislatively sanctioned, corporately executed extraction of wealth — and the U.S. has repeatedly shown the red card.

In Baerbock’s words: the U.S. forces the EU into a 360-degree climate volte-face.