A new report found woody biomass is worse for the environment than other fossil fuels.

The study showed biomass facility emissions are almost three times higher than other fossil fuel energies. It also finds biomass contributes 3% to 17% of the emissions from the entire U.S. energy sector.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin has said biomass will be part of his All of the Above Energy Plan.

Edie Juno, forestry specialist for the National Wildlife Federation and co-author of the study, said along with environmental effects, biomass poses a risk to human health.

"With particulate matter for example, you're going to see respiratory issues and illnesses, and even increased risk of premature mortality," Juno reported. "Others are going to be irritants to the nose and to mucous membranes and tissues. There are even some that are carcinogenic."

She pointed out policymakers can use the report to better consider the carbon implications of energy sources.

While Virginia is supposed to be climate neutral by 2050, amendments have been approved to keep biomass plants open. Only one state, Massachusetts, removed woody biomass from its renewable energy portfolio for the hazards it creates.

Although biomass does not make up even a quarter of U.S. energy production, the study found some facilities are not part of current inventories, which means the sector's emissions could be underestimated.

Sarav Arunachalam, professor and deputy director of the Institute for the Environment at the University of North Carolina and the study's senior author, described how it can be seen in widespread effects on communities.

"It's possible, based upon the prevailing winds, the pollution may be going away from where people live, but we don't know," Arunachalam acknowledged. "But the fact that we have over 2 million people in the U.S. living within a couple of kilometers from a facility, I think that's a big number you want to watch out for."

Biomass is only considered a renewable energy because trees grow back. But Arunachalam and Juno noted it takes several decades before trees grow to the point they can be cut down for energy use.

After a devastating recent winter, the already-struggling mule deer population in Wyoming took a big hit and the state's wildlife agency is organizing to hear people's concerns.

According to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the state had an estimated 216,000 mule deer in 2023, a historic low and a 63% decrease from a high of 578,000 in 1991. It follows a pattern of decline across the West, due to extreme weather, habitat loss, disease and other factors.

Justin Binfet, deputy wildlife chief for the department, said some Wyoming herds were reduced by 80% due to the brutal winter ending in 2023.

"Everyone across the board is concerned over declining mule deer numbers," Binfet observed. "Whether that's landowners, outfitters, hunters, photographers, wildlife enthusiasts, conservationists, you name it."

The department will host nearly 40 community conversations across almost every game warden district in the state to hear Wyomingites' concerns about the iconic species.

Binfet pointed out the conversations are opportunities to get feedback outside regular surveys and a great way for constituents to meet their local wardens, managers and biologists. He noted the meetings are not leading to any scheduled changes in mule deer management but he expects common themes to emerge, which will be considered in future decision-making.

"The truth is we actually will hear the whole gamut of suggestions," Binfet acknowledged. "It'll just be one more piece of the puzzle to inform future management decisions."

Tomorrow ends the regular hunting season in many Wyoming hunt areas although most windows for mule deer closed earlier in the season.


get more stories like this via email

Monarch butterflies could be on the federal Endangered Species list by year's end.

Eastern monarchs found in New York and other northeastern states saw an 80% population decline between the 1980s and 2020. Their Western counterparts have seen a 90% population drop. Environmental groups petitioned for them to be listed as "threatened" back in 2014 and the monarch became a candidate species in 2020.

Rebeca Quiñonez-Piñón, monarch recovery strategist and climate resilient habitat director for the National Wildlife Federation, said monarch butterflies face many threats.

"The main threats that we have identified for the monarch butterfly are habitat loss and fragmentation of the remaining habitats," Quiñonez-Piñón outlined. "Climate change is at the top of the list, definitely, and the excessive use of pesticides."

She called monarch butterflies a "canary in the coal mine" for pollinators and the ecosystem, a warning more needs to be done to help the environment. A dozen species of bumblebees are also candidates under the Endangered Species Act. They also fall victim to the same threats of monarch butterflies.

Home gardeners can play a role in helping monarch butterfly populations, by planting milkweed and goldenrod, which are helpful to the species. Milkweed is the only plant on which monarch butterfly caterpillars can eat and survive.

Mary Phillips, head of native plant habitat strategy for the federation, said there are some mistakes people make in trying to help monarchs thrive.

"Don't worry if, you know, you see the various predators," Phillips advised. "There's also a milkweed bug that sometimes goes on these plants. People get nervous about that. It's OK, it's natural, it'll go away. It will not harm the milkweed overall."

She added another common mistake is spraying garden or systemic pesticides which can harm monarchs. Some states are taking action to end the use of certain pesticides harmful to bees, butterflies and other pollinators. New York passed a law banning some uses of neonicotinoids because of their harmful effects on pollinators and other species.

A federal court in Montana has held a hearing more than two years after a coalition of environmental advocates sued the U.S. Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service over expanding cattle grazing in the Paradise Valley, part of the Custer Gallatin National Forest.

The coalition, which includes Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Western Watersheds Project, sued the agencies for extending the cattle grazing season by a month on nearly 1,400 acres of forest land.

Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, said the plan will mean more interactions between young, unattended cattle and grizzly bears, which would not end well for either one.

"Putting calves out a month early when they're very small just provides a 'fast food snack' for a grizzly bear," Garrity pointed out. "A small calf makes an easy target for a grizzly bear. They can't defend themselves. They're not very big."

Garrity noted ranchers then complain about bear activity to the Fish and Wildlife Service, which traps and kills the grizzlies. The Forest Service said the new policy does not increase grazing because it is counted by plots of land rather than acreage.

Garrity pointed out groups are working to restore the grizzly bear, which is currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. He added the Forest Service is not doing its part to help achieve balance.

"There's about a thousand grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem," Garrity reported. "There's hundreds of thousand of cattle. We don't have a shortage of cattle in this country but grizzly bears are threatened with extinction."

The federal judge could overturn the new grazing rules or order a complete environmental review.