Restart of Redbank Power Station

I OBJECT to the NSW Governments plan to allow this distructive team to go ahead with this project as it will be extremely detrimental to our environment including further endangering wildlife, organisms and other living species already fighting not only to survive the now but to prevent their demise by extinction never again to come back, gone for ever. The government should be hanging their heads in shame in relation to how they have
failed to prevent huge amounts of land clearing, deforestation , poluting prescious fresh waterways , environmental suicide and murdering our wildlife to the point of distinction. Australia , NSW is a very special place on earth , please stand up and tell Verdant "Earth" Technologies "NO NO and NO" to giving "them" a green light to reopening Redbank Power Station (cash cow). To allow Verdant to go ahead with this project would be a real disappointment and a big slap in the face to all Australians , forests and bushland wildlife (flora and fauna). SAY NO PLEASE SAY NO.

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

This project would cause unacceptable land clearing and habitat loss. Get serious about stopping extinctions.

Please accept my attachment as an OBJECTION per the points below:
I cannot believe in this day and age, with climate and conservation at the front of voter's minds, the NSW Government is even considering this awful project. Forestry NSW is already under scrutiny for over clearing it's copses so why is burning timber, which carbon has locked in, being taken seriously?
Is the NSW Government not going to wait for the report by Committee 7 Inquiry commenced by Sue Higginson MLA "Inquiry into the planning system and the impacts of climate change on the environment and communities"? They are holding sessions in April, sp please wait to see the outcomes and issues from us, on the ground.
I live not that far from the NSW Hunter Valley where coal is being dug up and exported as if there will be no tomorrow.
Locally, community groups on the Central Coast are having to battle with the Administrator for budget allocation for tree planting. Local activists are lobbying Forestry to stop logging at Somersby for unnecessary habitat loss.
For instance, this project will create even more habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing. The clearing of areas around of Wollondilly Shire (Appin) for housing isn't bad enough - leave the bush alone to serve us all;
The plans state that many tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project.
The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean, and I perceive as blatant "green-washing" and must be called out. Trashing bushland destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Replacing the vegetation will take 20-50 years to regrow, so why do it when trees are proven air-cleaners?
Beware that if this project starts talking about claiming carbon credits, take a look at what Victorian farmer Mark Wootton of Jigsaw Farms has to say about the future failure of the scheme in agriculture and forestry. The data no longer stacks up.
I understand that over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
Please rethink this proposal and vote it DOWN for all our sakes!

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing.
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species.
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project.
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project.
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery.
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

I spend over two months a year involved with recreational activities based on eco tourism. I believe that the climate is changing and that intensive logging for energy production is not a solution to our energy needs nor a mitigation for the impacts of climate change. I’ve just come back from South Western Australia where over a century of logging has certainly taken its toll. Similar results are still occurring in Tasmania where old growth logging is still allowed to occur, regardless that it makes no economic sense. I have no objections to plantation logging for building materials but I strongly object to logging for incineration.

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental
Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;

This project fails our obligation to protect and improve the world and its natural environment and fails the emerging generation of Australians for a livable planet.
This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;

This project will unfortunately enable further wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native logging by requiring up to 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

I am totally opposed to the proposal by Verdant Earth Technologies (Verdant) to re-open the Redbank Power Station, near Singleton, NSW, to operate as a biomass power station, using trees cleared on farms under woefully weak land clearing laws as fuel – rather than the original coal fuel for which the plant was originally designed.

A previous proposal threat by Verdant to harvest fuel from native forests was rejected at the end of 2022; no, Verdant has refocused on weak tree clearing laws in NSW to find an alternative source of fuel from the clearances of freehold property.

There are a variety of valid objections, which should see this further proposal similarly rejected.

• This project would have the capacity to create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and thus further encourage and enable native tree clearing – at time when it is essential that we should cease forest logging and clearance.

• 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood are proposed to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species.

• The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project.

• The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project.

• Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery. (*)

• Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.
(*) Findings of recent scientific consideration of burning of forest biomass for energy in the 2022 paper:
“Burning Forest Biomass for Energy - Not a source of clean energy and harmful to forest ecosystem integrity.”

• A major shift to using forest biomass burning for energy comes with grave risks of highly perverse outcomes, including increased CO2 emissions and negative impacts on forest ecosystem integrity.

• Forest biomass is not clean energy because burning it releases CO2 emissions and so does not contribute to a decarbonization pathway.

• The emissions from burning biomass are instantaneous, but their removals from the atmosphere are not and take a long time. This means there is a significant time lag between when carbon is emitted and when it is removed and stored.

• The accounting and reporting of net emissions from LULUCF Forest Land provides a false view that the forest industry is “carbon negative” and do not make transparent the gross emissions from logging.

• There is no reason to assume a power facility using biomass as a feedstock would displace coal generation elsewhere. It is more likely that total energy generation will simply continue to rise and/or displace clean energy sources.

• From an ecological perspective, there is no such thing as “residue” biomass in a forest ecosystem. Many studies show the negative impacts of intensification of logging on biodiversity including loss of habitat resources for threatened species such as the Southern Greater Glider and Koala.

Unquestionably, the present proposal from Verdant Energy must be refused.
Lynden Macgregor
9th April 2024

Dear Whom It May Concern
I object to the reopening of such a power station. It goes against the supposed directive of NSW Government policy.
This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders.
So how can such a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws be considered?
Sincerely

The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.
• This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
• 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
• The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project – even forest debris is habitat for native fauna and flora;
• The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
• Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN.
• This project will increase, not decrease greenhouse gas emissions in NSW, and particularly in an area already heavily affected by coal mining.
• Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
• Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.

Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;

• This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
• 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
• The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
• The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
• Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
• Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

I object to the proposal to reopen the Redbank Power Station for the following reasons:
1 Burning the proposed amount of biomass to produce electricity is not sensible because it will release a staggering amount of CO2 estimated at 1.3 million tonnes per year
2 The scale of the proposal is overwhelming at 850,000 tonnes of "wood waste" to be incinerated which is more than the entire native forest logging industry in NSW produces
3 Transporting this amount of 'biomass' material will involve at least 56 trucks arriving at and leaving the power station every day for the life of the project with all the pollution caused by large trucks
4 To continue to supply this power station will require thousands of hectares of native forest being cleared with the consequent negative impact on forest ecosystems
5 This is not a clean, green activity that the proponents claim it to be, it is in fact as bad as if not worse than burning fossil fuels to produce the same amount of electricity because much of the material will be green wood which emits 50% more CO2 per megawatt hour than that produce by burning coal.
6 There should be no further loss of trees in NSW or Australia generally, especially not for such an ill-thought out project such as this.

Please reject this proposal

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission

Tony Edye
Ettalong Beach NSW

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project.
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;

Coastwatchers' Association has 86 financial members and has been lobbying for the end of native forest logging in NSW for two decades. We are a member group of the Nature Conservation Council NSW and the NSW National Parks Association. Although the proposal is for cleared wood from private property the reopening of Redbank for biomass burning will lead to increased demand for wood for fuel from our public forests. We have seen this already with the Eden woodchip mill meant to be for waste product yet it consumes up to 90% of the native forests in the Eden region. Our Eurobodalla shire has 110,000 hectares of public native forest that can be logged. This is part of over 440,000 hectares of public native forest that can be logged in southern NSW and 780,000 hectares in NSW. Coastwatchers' successfully fought off the Mogo Charcoal plant between 2001- 2002. So we have considerable experience in combatting the threat of burning wood to wildlife and as a climate change driver. The charcoal plant would have consumed 200,000 tonnes of South East NSW forest timber annually for 20 years. https://www.coastwatchers.org.au/about-the-charcoalition-and-the-proposed-mogo-charcoal-plant/

We are a key stakeholder in Verdant's EIS to burn wood in a reopened Redbank power station (previously coal fired) and oppose the burning of biomass for power and support Wilderness Australia submission points as follows.

Key points:
- This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
- 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
- The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
- The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
- Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN.
- Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
- Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;

The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including our endangered Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

Yours sincerely

Joslyn van der Moolen
Secretary Coastwatchers Association Incorporated (Batemans Bay NSW - South Coast)

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and actually encourage native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in the first four years of this project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species. And that Act is urgently in need of updating;
The Verdant EIS fails to identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS also fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should demand to know what the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing will be over the life of the project;
Biomass burning emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN.
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;
The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity. It is ludicrous to approve a project that depends on utilising, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

I do NOT support the rebirth of REDBANK Power Station to burn forestry products for power.
1) we must de-carbonise the economy immediately. Whichever way you cut it, burning carbon (plants) for electricity creates CO2. In fact, it’s worse than burning coal because it emits 50% more CO2 per MWh of energy produced than coal.
2) The claim of ‘carbon neutral’ (or ‘near zero carbon’) is a fallacy. It ignores the time it takes to replace the burned carbon, for vegetation to grow back. The time lag from CO2 emission to recapture can be decades – and we don’t have that time.
3) VET is proposing to get most of its biomass from ‘invasive native species’ (INS) clearing on private land, to create more agricultural land – so there’s no intention to replace that vegetation.
4) Trucking the word, Cypress Pines, from Cobar and west requires huge amounts of energy, and no doubt, combustion of diesel fuels... The whole exercise of creating sustainability by trucking forest "residue" half way across the state makes a mockery of the word "sustainable".
5) What happens when the so-called supply of invasive species (Cypress Pines) runs out? Where VET get their feedback at that point? We should not trust their representations without signed MOU's and guaranteed supply of GENUINE FORREST RESIDUE.
6) This project will further accelerate land clearing on private land. Habitat clearing on freehold land is now the biggest cause of environmental loss in NSW.
7) Investment in this project (whether public or private) redirects SCARE DOLLARS for investment in genuine renewables such as solar and wind.
8) Burning biomass for electricity is increasingly discredited overseas. In 2019, 800 scientists from across the world signed a petition condemning burning biomass for electricity.
9) There are serious air quality issues with burning biomass for electricity. Air pollutants include particulates, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, lead, mercury, and a host of other NOXIOUS GASES!
10) How do we know that VET won't landclear valuable forrests, ecosystems in order to create FEEDSTOCK for their power plant?
11) It’s not clean, it’s not green and it’s not renewable!

I object to this project on the following grounds;
This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing which the government has committed to significantly reducing.
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species.
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project.
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not Green.
Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery.
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.
For these basic reasons, and many more related outcomes of such a project, this project must not go ahead.
Thank you.

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;
The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;
The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;
Biomass burning is not clean. It emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Biomass burning is not GREEN. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery;
Over time, the effects of land clearing - through fragmentation and disturbance - further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation;