Springfield-based activist Michealann Bewsee called me last week to talk about her strong opposition to the proposed proliferation of biomass plants in Western Mass.

In addition to her concerns about specific potential problems with burning wood, or, in the case of a plant proposed for East Springfield by Palmer Renewable Energy, construction and demolition debris—problems such as air pollution, over-harvesting of state forests and harm to rivers and wetlands—Bewsee sees the push for biomass plants as an issue of social justice.

Co-founder of Arise for Social Justice, Bewsee acknowledged that she has not been focused on environmental issues during her years as an activist. "I'm not some environmental crusader, but as I looked at the issue of global warming, I didn't see [biomass] as part of the solution. Biomass would only make the problem worse," Bewsee said. Rather than seeing biomass as a renewable, sustainable green alternative energy source, she sees it as another dirty and destructive way of feeding the state's overdependence on electrical power. And to locate such a plant in a beleaguered community like Springfield, Bewsee says, is an act of social injustice.

Bewsee and her group Stop Toxic Incineration in Springfield have been joined in opposition to the proposed $150 million PRE plant by environmentalist groups around the state, as well by physicians' groups such as the Hampden District Medical Society and the Massachusetts Medical Society. Locally, the opposition to wood-burning plants in Springfield, Greenfield and Russell—the latter two would burn forest products—has coalesced and been bolstered by state and national groups such as the Conservation Law Foundation and the Sierra Club.

In late November, the Boston Globe cheered a state decision in October to study the efficacy of biomass. "Biomass and biofuels have won privileged status in global warming agreements in part because the carbon dioxide they absorb from the atmosphere would return to it no matter what—either through burning or through natural decomposition over time," the Globe opined on Nov. 27. "But only recently has it begun to sink in that, far from lowering emissions, leveling a forest full of carbon-absorbing trees adds to emissions—whether the trees are burned in a power plant or simply removed to clear land for biofuel crops like corn or soybeans." The editorial noted critics worry that the operation of biomass plants proposed for Western Mass. "would require major cuts in private and public woods, reducing the forests' ability to absorb carbon dioxide."

Last week, the state formally suspended its consideration of the proposed plants for participation in the state's renewable portfolio standard (RPS) program, pending a study led by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. The state expects the study to take about a year.

Bewsee said the temporary suspension of the biomass permitting process would "reset the clock" on an issue that, in her view, has yet to receive enough attention. She said she hoped the time out would give environmentalists a chance to make the case for stricter conservation measures as a way of lowering emissions, rather than developing large-scale plants with dubious claims of being green.

Despite what appeared to be good news, activists remain worried that the state's review won't do much to halt or even slow the headlong rush into biomass. Those leading the study, critics say, are already on record in favor of biomass.

In fact, Manomet's president, John Hagan, has written about the need for environmentalists to stop trying to "save the environment" and instead focus on "sustaining human well-being." Hagan and many of the other consultants involved in the state study argue that it's important to balance "human economic well-being" in the process of protecting the environment.

For State Rep. Steve Kulik of Worthington, Gov. Deval Patrick's energy policies often are more driven by economic concerns than environmental ones. Kulik said the state "has seemed to be shortchanging the issue of conservation" and has failed to lead a fuller discussion of "the nitty-gritty details"—the energy costs of trucking in wood to biomass plants, for example—that might make some larger-scale projects unsuitable for Massachusetts.

"We need to have a comprehensive and balanced study [of biomass]," Kulik said. "But I don't know if this particular study will be balanced or whether a wide range of perspectives will be considered."

"The Patrick Administration got a wake-up call thanks to the opposition [to biomass] in Western Mass.," Kulik said. "Now, they need to start fresh, look at the details, look at the scale of some of these proposals, and decide what is truly needed and what is truly possible."