- This week, the European Parliaments Environment Committee made strong but non-binding recommendations to stop the EU’s total commitment to burning wood biomass for energy. The decision was criticized by the forestry industry, even though environmentalists lauded it cautiously.
- One of the key recommendations is to ensure that primary woody biomass (which is made from whole trees) does not receive government subsidies under EU’s revised Renewable Energy Directive.
- Another recommendation was to stop counting primary woody biomass towards EU member states’ renewable energy targets. Currently, biomass is responsible for 60% of EU’s renewable power portfolio. This is significantly more than zero carbon wind and solar.
- The Environment Committee recommendations mark a first for any EU government to question the EU’s aggressive use biomass in order to achieve its Paris Agreement goals. As part of its revised Renewable Energy Directive, the EU is expected to make a final decision on its biomass burning policies in September.
The European Parliaments Environment Committee voted in a surprise and unprecedented vote this week to reduce EU subsidies that encourage the burning of wood pellets as a substitute for coal for heat and energy. The European Union should reduce the amount of forest biomass it considers in order to meet its renewable energy goals.
Forest advocates view the move with both hope, and skepticism.
If the recommendations are approved and made policy in September as part the EUs revised Renewable Energy Directive, (RED), they would be the first steps towards slowing the pace of the decline. The rapid increase in biomass burningThese 12 years have seen many scientists make significant advances in science. Long debateAdds to carbon emissions, damages forests and decreases biodiversity.
Mongabay was pleased to learn that the Environment Committee voted in favor of a biomass limit for energy and heat. Fenna Swart, of The Netherlands Clean Air Committee, told Mongabay. However, there are still many gaps in the law that must be closed by the European Parliament during the plenary vote in Sept. As is happening now, compliance will backfire on forests.
The four recommendations of the committee were warmly received by Swart forest biomass supporters, who have elicited widespread public opposition across Europe to the practice but have yet see any policy reform. The committee recommended that:
- In order to protect intact forests, RED should include a definition of primary woody biomass. This is biomass that is derived directly from whole trees. Forests that have been damaged by fire, pests, or disease would be exempted.
- Primary woody biomass does not count towards the member states’ renewable energy goals. Currently, biomass is responsible for 60% of the EUs total renewable energy portfolio. This is significantly more than zero carbon wind and solar.
- Subventions for primary woody biomass are no longer available under RED, but there are certain exceptions.
- Whole trees should be used to make long-lasting wood products. Wood pellets should be burned only if there are no other uses.
Representatives from the wood-pellet sector, who are used only to government support for their business, were not happy with these recommendations. In a statement, the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association (an industry group) stated that excluding primary biomass would hamper efforts to achieve European energy security, raise energy costs for consumers, and keep the EU’s climate goals far from reach.
The biggest obstacle to this weeks recommendations being put into RED is Frans Timmermans, Vice President of the European Commission and its leader in climate policy.
Although the Dutch politician was able to acknowledge and publicly lament the clearing of Baltic forests last week for wood pellets, he has since He has remained supportive of biomassas the best way for EU to phase out coal as it is legally required.
To be completely blunt, biomass will need to be part of our energy portfolio in order to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Timmermans saidNovember at the UN climate summit in Glasgow (Scotland).
Carbon neutrality loophole
Politicians and forest advocates are at odds over the issue of using biomass to produce energy and heat, primarily in wood pellets. This is due to a UN-tolerated policy that considers biomass a renewable energy source equal to wind and solar.
The carbon emissions from biomass burning are therefore classified as zero emissions. They don’t need to be counted at smokestack. This allows countries to subsidize wood-burning and claim reductions on paper to help them achieve their Paris Agreement promises. However, large quantities of carbon are already soaring high from biomass power plants stacks, which adds to the number of greenhouse gases that destabilize the climate.
UN policy created a loophole for carbon neutrality based on the belief of expanding forests and newly planted trees that would quickly offset the emission from wood being harvested and burned for fuel. The forestry industry makes regular claims. Research showsHowever, the carbon debt payback period takes 50 years or longer if it exists. Climate scientists stress that the earth doesn’t have to slow down the rate of warming. Climate disasters are rapidly increasing.
Research also shows that burning wood actually makes you more. Polluting is worse than coalBecause it has a lower energy density per kilowatt-hour. To produce the same amount of energy, power plants will need to burn more wood and coal.
Kenneth Richter, a German forest advocate and member of the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council said that Germany is becoming increasingly concerned about the increasing number of power plants considering burning wood. It doesn’t make sense to talk about restoring forest for climate and nature and to initiate climate initiatives like planting 3 billion trees in Europe and paying companies to log and burn forests as fuel.
Are you looking for waste wood or whole trees to cut?
The Multibillion-dollar wood-pellet manufacturing industryIt claims that it uses mainly waste wood to make pellets lumber waste, treetops and limbs, as well as trees killed by pests and disease. Forest advocates, however, have used theirClose monitoring of industryIt has been shown that large international biomass companies like Enviva or Drax actually use whole trees logged from native forests and tree plantings for at least half their wood-pellet production. This may be a significant underestimation.
Estonia and Latvia are the Baltic states. Southeastern United StatesBritish Columbia Where forests are cleared and wood is harvested to make millions of tons of wood pellets new research showsThe critical carbon-sequestration capacity in these forests is steadily being eroded at a time when these ecosystem services are most needed.
Timmerman’s support for biomass as a viable alternative to fossil fuels is growing. Timmermans support for biomass as an alternative to fossil fuels was intensified earlier this month when he presented a plan to European Parliament. REPowerEUAs a retribution for its brutal war against Ukraine, it will be necessary to wean Europe from oil and gas supplied by Russia.
The comprehensive plan calls to increase energy conservation and accelerate investments in wind and sun. The plan, which is called bioenergy renewable, also argues that it can be domestically produced and stable, especially solid biomass, for some Member States that are rich in forests.
REPowerEU has added a line to Timmermans’ favor. He stated that he believes biomass provides sustainable energy. As long as stronger safeguards are in place for sustainable sourcing, increased bioenergy can be used to replace Russian imported fossil fuels like natural gas. for heating. Current estimates indicate a steady but moderate increase in biomass use through 2030.
Augustyn Mikos is a Polish forest advocate. We are already seeing our old-growth forests being logged for fuel in Poland. Recent announcements by the governments to burn more wood to replace Russian fossil fuels signal an ecological disaster.
Bet on the status-quo
Enviva, a Maryland-based wood pellet manufacturer and exporter, seems to be relying on long-term business decisions based on EU wood-pellet demand remaining strong, subsidies remaining intact, and rising demand and subsidies within the United Kingdom. Japan and South Korea
John Keppler, Enviva’s CEO, announced on May 9th that Enviva signed a memorandum o understanding with a large German utility. Enviva’s wood pellets will replace coal in the utility’s power plants. Delivered volumes are expected to exceed 1 million metric tons annually.
Keppler said that the contract, once finalized, would last 10 to 15 years with pellet deliveries from the U.S. beginning next year. He also mentioned that Enviva, with six pellet plants in Virginia, North Carolina and Mississippi, has just opened its largest plant to date in Mississippi. Construction on a larger pellet plant in Alabama is expected to begin soon.
Keppler stated that Enviva plans to build more plants in the Deep South as it works toward its goal of increasing its production capacity to 13 million tonnes per year over five years. The company produced 6.2 million tonnes less last year than it did in 2013.
Swart, a forest advocate from The Netherlands, acknowledged that it is difficult for her and others in the fight to get EU biomass policy modified in a way which slows wood pellet consumption.
She stated that the science is clear that burning wood causes more greenhouse gasses and forest destruction. Although it is encouraging to see the European Parliaments Environment Committee acknowledge the problems with bioenergy there is still much to do.
Justin Catanoso is a regular contributor to this blog. He is a professor at Wake Forest University in the United States. Follow him on Twitter @jcatanoso
Banner image:To promote green forest biomass burning, the forestry industry has used photos such as this one. Photo credit ODF at Visual Hunt CC-BY.
FEEDBACK: This form is for youTo send a message directly to the author of this article. You can leave a public comment at the bottom.
