Rural communities in eastern North Carolina are responding to the emergence of bioenergy development as an extension of environmental injustices, rather than sustainable solutions to climate change as presented by state and industry actors. We examine how biomass and biogas development entrench logics of extraction, rather than transition, as they are built as extensions of pre-existing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in a landscape prone to climatic fluctuations. Using a polyvocal approach to knowledge co-production that builds from multi-year collaborative ethnography, the co-authored text demonstrates a commitment to the value of environmental justice (EJ) leaders’ knowledge—to advance environmental analytics.
Bioenergy Development in North Carolina
The state of North Carolina has pursued an ambitious renewable energy portfolio standard (REPS) that aims to generate 12.5% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2021. Policymakers and industry actors have increasingly turned to bioenergy—the use of organic matter like agricultural waste, forestry residues, or dedicated energy crops to produce heat, electricity, or transportation fuels—as a key component of this clean energy transition.
In eastern North Carolina, this has manifested in the rapid expansion of wood pellet manufacturing facilities, as well as the development of biogas-to-energy projects that capture methane emissions from the region’s sprawling network of CAFOs. Industry representatives and state officials have championed these bioenergy initiatives as a “win-win” solution, touting their potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, provide economic opportunities for struggling rural communities, and support the growth of a domestic renewable energy sector.
Environmental Concerns in North Carolina
However, EJ leaders and community organizers in these same rural areas have responded with deep skepticism, framing bioenergy as an extension of long-standing environmental injustices rather than a sustainable pathway forward. They point to the disproportionate siting of hazardous infrastructure like CAFOs, landfills, and industrial facilities in communities of color and low-income neighborhoods—a pattern of environmental racism that dates back decades.
The rapid expansion of wood pellet manufacturing, for instance, has been linked to the clearcutting of ecologically valuable bottomland hardwood forests in the state’s coastal plain region, which is home to numerous Indigenous and historically marginalized communities. Similarly, the proliferation of biogas projects has further entrenched the dominance of industrialized animal agriculture, concentrating air and water pollution in already overburdened areas.
Impact on Environmental Justice Communities
These bioenergy initiatives, from the perspective of affected communities, do not represent a rupture from the state’s long history of extractive development, but rather a continuation of the same logics that have sacrificed their wellbeing in the name of economic growth and environmental protection. As one community member, Elsie Herring, remarks: “We’re being double-teamed. We’ve got the hog industry on one side, and now we’ve got this bioenergy industry on the other.”
The cumulative impacts of these interlocking systems of environmental harm—from the toxic air and water contamination caused by CAFOs to the disruption of critical ecosystems by the wood pellet industry—have taken a devastating toll on the physical and mental health of residents. Studies have linked proximity to these facilities to elevated rates of respiratory illness, neurological disorders, and even premature death.
Socioeconomic Considerations
Beyond the environmental consequences, EJ advocates also highlight the socioeconomic implications of bioenergy development. They argue that the promised economic benefits, such as job creation and tax revenue, have largely failed to materialize, while the costs of dealing with the resulting environmental degradation have fallen disproportionately on local communities.
Moreover, the lack of meaningful community engagement and decision-making in the planning and implementation of these projects has created a sense of disempowerment and mistrust. As Donna Chavis of the 4 Daughters Land Trust remarks, “We’ve been excluded from the conversation, and now we’re expected to just accept these things that are going to impact our lives in profound ways.”
Ecological Impacts
From an ecological perspective, the purported climate benefits of bioenergy have also been called into question. While the combustion of biomass may be considered “carbon neutral” from an accounting standpoint, the actual greenhouse gas emissions associated with the full life cycle of production and transportation can be comparable to or even exceed those of fossil fuels. Additionally, the conversion of diverse forest ecosystems into monoculture plantations for wood pellet feedstock can have devastating impacts on biodiversity and habitat integrity.
The region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, further complicates the picture. Flooding and other natural disasters can disrupt supply chains, damage infrastructure, and release stored pollution, with disproportionate consequences for marginalized communities.
Sustainable Alternatives
In response to these multifaceted concerns, EJ advocates and community partners have begun exploring alternative energy pathways that center community needs and ecological stewardship. This includes advocating for increased investment in solar and wind power development, as well as energy efficiency measures that can deliver tangible benefits to overburdened households.
Some communities have also experimented with community-based renewable energy projects, leveraging their collective resources and decision-making power to chart a more sustainable and equitable course. As Donna Chavis explains, “We know what’s best for our land and our people. If we’re given the opportunity to lead, we can create the kind of energy future that works for us.”
Ultimately, the struggle over bioenergy in North Carolina reflects a broader reckoning with the legacy of environmental injustice and the imperative to envision a just and regenerative energy transition. As the European Future Energy Forum convenes to discuss the continent’s own clean energy initiatives, the lessons from North Carolina’s experience offer important insights into the complexities of realizing a truly sustainable energy future.