Over 20,200 Urge Forest Service to Reject Industrial Carbon Waste Dumping in National Forests

Over 20,200 people are urging the U.S. Forest Service to halt plans to allow carbon waste from industrial sources like fossil fuel power plants to be dumped in national forests. Opposition to the proposal has more than doubled since early August when groups from around the country submitted 9,000 petition signatures to the agency. 

When the Forest Service quietly announced its proposal to allow “exclusive or perpetual right of use or occupancy” for the injection of industrial carbon waste into national forest lands, environmental advocates were alarmed. Carbon dioxide waste injection would require building massive amounts of infrastructure, including pipelines, injection wells and well pads. Road building, construction and logging would cause additional harm to forest ecosystems and recreation.

“This proposal is nothing short of ludicrous,” said Laura Haight, U.S. policy director for the Partnership for Policy Integrity. “Our national forests are already home to the most viable carbon capture and storage technology on Earth — they’re called trees.”

Dirty industries like fossil fuels and biomass are banking on carbon capture and storage as a means to greenwash their operations and continue producing and burning their polluting products. This, despite the urgent scientific imperative to transition rapidly from fossil fuels to clean renewable energy. As desperately as some may want carbon capture and storage (known as CCS, or CCUS) to be a climate “fix,” it simply cannot deliver on its core promise to effectively capture greenhouse gas emissions and permanently store carbon pollution underground. CCS is also shown to increase both energy demand and air pollution.

“Carbon capture and storage is a snake oil climate solution with no upsides for anyone but the industry that created the climate crisis,” said Karen Feridun, co-founder of Better Path Coalition in Pennsylvania, home of the Allegheny National Forest. “The Forest Service must refuse to become its accomplice by scrapping the proposed rule.”

For companies, the appeal of using federal lands, such as national forests, for carbon waste dumping could come in response to land-use opposition they’re facing around the country. But allowing private companies to have a “permanent” right to dump waste on federal lands harms environmental and cultural resources, as well as recreation. 

“The Indigenous Environmental Network opposes carbon capture and storage because it undermines the urgent need to reduce emissions at source and stop fossil fuel extraction,” said Tom BK Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network. “National forests are stolen Indigenous lands and home to sacred sites and are of cultural and historical significance to Indigenous peoples that must not be disturbed. We must keep fossil fuels in the ground, not expand the polluting industry by fast-tracking carbon capture and storage.”

Creating carbon waste involves compressing large amounts of highly pressurized carbon dioxide, turning it into a deadly asphyxiant. First responders may not be able to get to victims of a pipeline rupture, well blowout or leak because vehicles can’t safely operate in a dense carbon dioxide plume. In addition, emergency response could be difficult since many national forests are in remote areas.

“This proposal would perpetually endanger rural and Indigenous communities’ health and rights,” said Hudson Kingston, legal director at CURE, a Midwest organization pursuing rural environmental justice. “People who live near national forests, including those with treaty rights to hunt and gather, rely on their waters and wildlife to survive. We expect more from the Forest Service in meeting its obligations under statute and treaty.”

National forests provide habitat for a diverse range of plants and wildlife and offer low-cost, healthy recreation for millions of people. They’re also essential for watershed health and play a key role in fighting climate change by absorbing and storing tons of carbon. Paradoxically, the proposed plan would bulldoze naturally carbon-sequestering forests to then “store” waste carbon in those same areas — all with unproven, risky technologies. 

“Public lands should not be deforested just to extend the life of polluting fossil fuels,” said Richard Birdsey, a senior scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center and former U.S. Forest Service employee. “Our forests can store carbon and support wildlife, health and recreation, but industrial waste dumping is not compatible with these uses.”

“Turning our national forests into industrial dumping grounds is outrageous and dangerous to people and wildlife,” said Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “The administration should scrap this rule and enact one that protects mature and old-growth forests and trees.”

As of the date of this post, the Forest Service has not yet released its proposed rule, which was originally slated for August. There’s still time to oppose this plan by signing the petition and contacting your members of Congress.