<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Biomass better than coal? War over carbon accounting erupts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://biomassdigest.net/blog/index.php/2010/06/24/biomass-better-than-coal-war-over-carbon-accounting-erupts/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/24/biomass-better-than-coal-war-over-carbon-accounting-erupts/</link>
	<description>Biomass news for power, feed and food production</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:01:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Advanced BioFuels USA &#187; Biomass Better than Coal? War over Carbon Accounting Erupts</title>
		<link>http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/24/biomass-better-than-coal-war-over-carbon-accounting-erupts/comment-page-1/#comment-1298</link>
		<dc:creator>Advanced BioFuels USA &#187; Biomass Better than Coal? War over Carbon Accounting Erupts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://biomassdigest.net/blog/2010/06/24/biomass-better-than-coal-war-over-carbon-accounting-erupts/#comment-1298</guid>
		<description>[...] View #2. Those who view biomass as a user of “forest slash” and other wood wastes consider that they are using waste resources that are not a stable carbon storage system – that wood waste would be left on forest floors or otherwise disposed, and carbon emissions would have occurred naturally in bacterial decomposition. By this accounting, you count the carbon absorption of new growth first, and the emissions second – because it is the second cycle of biomass growth that reflects the actual impact of a biomass industry. By this accounting approach, the carbon debt is far less intense.   READ MORE [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] View #2. Those who view biomass as a user of “forest slash” and other wood wastes consider that they are using waste resources that are not a stable carbon storage system – that wood waste would be left on forest floors or otherwise disposed, and carbon emissions would have occurred naturally in bacterial decomposition. By this accounting, you count the carbon absorption of new growth first, and the emissions second – because it is the second cycle of biomass growth that reflects the actual impact of a biomass industry. By this accounting approach, the carbon debt is far less intense.   READ MORE [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

