It's mind-blowing that all of that carbon released is not accounted for...

This is to Grace Treffinger question (I have to leave at 11:55 pm): This is an excellent questions. Yes, large scale biomass energy is expensive and can have environmental impacts. A typical example is a pulp mill operation. It is sustainable, but has environmental issues which have been addressed over time.

Ms. Belinda fully addressed my question with her experiences. It looks like these environmental and health concerns have not been addressed at all as people continue to suffer in their communities. Thanks, Ms. Belinda, for continuing to fight and sharing today.

Use the Q&A feature to enter your questions for our speakers.

How do you incorporate the co2 that comes from the production, transportation, and processing of nuclear materials in you calculations? You said that nuclear energy production should increase.

Business is political.

Pulp mills still emit massive amounts of toxic pollution and also destroy forests, degrading carbon stocks and natural flood control, compromising biodiversity etc. Pulp and paper production is also a problem in the South -the world's largest paper producing region.

Dr. Zhu may not know answers to EJ/ pollution questions since he does research on the process of biomass. Maybe that is a problem within the way we operate as an energy system

These people need to know

Agree Abigail - but the air pollution question is (or should be) part of the 'science'

Agreed !!!

Thanks Adam!

Even when wood pellets are made from "thinnings" of pine plantations and are burned for energy overseas, they still result in an increase of carbon pollution in the atmosphere for more than 40 years. Climate action needs to happen in the next decade, not 4+ decades.

Yes - thank you for that clarification, Adam.

Join us next month for Climate Financing October 26th 11:30 - 1:00 pm CT Register at tiny.url.com/AirItOutSeries