The writer just doesn't know what the word "renewable" means, and is complaining solely about how dirty it is.
Holy shit, you're right! He literally thinks "renewable" and "green" energy are synonymous. That's middle school life science level knowledge. That's really embarrassing for him
This is a podcast. At 4:20 it addresses what you say.
There's a lot of comments here on efficiency and environmental impact. I'd like to point out that, like any energy source, biomass' efficiency and impact vary wildly with how you use it.
Solar/wind energy isn't a silver bullet for every scenario and combustion isn't always an outmoded relic. The impact and costs for each are actually quite complex. For an interesting read, I'd recommend these articles: https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2019/12/too-much-combustion-too-little-fire/
https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2020/09/how-to-make-biomass-energy-sustainable-again/
Nomenclature about clean vs renewable aside, there's some county towns in Australia that'r absolutely disgusting at night in winter from the woodsmoke from all the houses. Sure electricity heating is less effective, but we've paid the carbon cost for that infrastructure and electricity production IS becoming greener.
Not that long ago in New Zealand we had a lot of the same.
In Christchurch (which is a sprawling, flat, and low-lying city), the combination of smog from widespread wood fireplaces plus old sodium street lights, when driving in from the outskirts at night you'd see a grotty orange-pink cloud hanging low over the city.
https://www.canterburystories.nz/collections/archives/star/prints/1992-1995/ccl-cs-4765
It's improved a lot, partly due to policy, although a fair bit due to the city being extensively damaged by an earthquake, and fireplaces (which had their brick chimneys destroyed) being replaced by heat pumps.
A community to discuss, appreciate, and advocate for trees and forests. Please follow the SLRPNK instance rules, found here.