Apart from the title, I see little wrong with the article - I found the topic interesting.
It says dirtier, initially, but then explains that the plants can be grown back to go back to carbon neutral.
It's not that simple:
"If trees are harvested for use in bioenergy production and then regrown, the combination of the regrowth and displaced fossil fuels can eventually pay off the carbon debt, but that ‘payback period’ typically ranges from decades to hundreds of years.”
The EPA’s own science advisers also warned that assuming biomass emissions are carbon neutral “is inconsistent with the underlying science.”
There are alternative energy options that do not require decades or hundreds of years to pay back their carbon debts - the next decade is a crucial time when considering global warming.
The better air quality claim is interesting, but probably misleading. You're still burning stuff: if they could do that without screwing up air quality coal plants wouldn't affect air quality either. It's going to be dirty as hell in comparison to wind, solar, or wave power.
Using the current old growth trees will take a long time, but there might be others that regrow way faster that we haven't had the money to try.
As above we don't have the time to optimistically dream about optimizing tree growth rates over a couple of decades. Genuine commercially proven renewable energy is available now with carbon payback times of the order of a year, not 'decades or hundreds of years'.
Another weird bloomberg article that tears into something because drumpf then goes on to contradict itself. It says dirtier, initially, but then explains that the plants can be grown back to go back to carbon neutral. The current coal/oil processes are only one way carbon coming out of the ground. It also talks about how vast areas would need to be set aside for the regrowth, better air quality, and jobs for replanting. That's great news. The main downside I see is that it may take longer than originally expected, but we haven't had the money for more testing. Using the current old growth trees will take a long time, but there might be others that regrow way faster that we haven't had the money to try. This has also been supported for decades by many groups and even the former Democratic Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack.