When Prescribed Fires Go Wrong
The Forest Guardians call “for more use of prescribed fire closer to home.” Two things need to be noted about that position with regard to their anti-biomass agenda.
First, such fires emit far more pollution than biomass facilities; therefore, it’s hard to believe they are sincere when they talk about pollution. Their own agenda is among the worst air-quality positions around. In contrast, to read more about biomass emissions, click here.
Second, prescribed wildfires can have harrowing ramifications, far more dangerous than anything the Estancia biomass project could ever do. Recall this BBC article about the 2000 Los Alamos wildfire:
The blaze began after officials from the National Park Service embarked on what was supposed to be a controlled burn to remove undergrowth. The superintendent of Bandelier National Monument…has taken responsibility for the blaze and been placed on leave. [He] is reported to have said that the conditions were just right for a controlled burn.
The Park Service had planned to burn 900 acres to clear brush and reduce the potential for a catastrophic fire.
Some 700 firefighters and National Guard units were battling the blaze, aided by helicopters and aircraft dumping retardant material on pockets of fire….
Aerial television footage has shown burning homes and forest. Thick clouds of smoke are rising into the sky and are being blown hundreds of kilometres. Los Alamos Fire Department spokesman Jim Danneskiold said high winds had made the fire worse.
Another forest fire broke out on 10 May, 50km south of Albuquerque, but firefighters have brought the blaze under control after it destroyed 5,700 acres.
Our point in this post is not to debate the merits or demerits of prescribed fires, but to draw attention to the inconsistency of those now attacking biomass energy.
