Will new US EPA head continue his opposition to burning forests for energy?
by Justin Catanoso on 4 February 2021
Under President Donald Trump the U.S. made moves toward legally enshrining the burning of forest biomass to make energy on an industrial scale as a national policy. That same policy has been embraced by the United Kingdom and European Union, helping them move toward a target of zero carbon emissions at least on paper.
However, the carbon neutrality label given to the burning of woody biomass to make energy, first proclaimed under the Kyoto Protocol, then grandfathered into the Paris Climate Agreement, has been found by science over the last decade to be more accurately characterized as a risky carbon accounting loophole.
Around 14% of bioenergy used in Europe is of unknown origin, according to an EU report, which highlights the need to improve the tracing of wood burned for electricity production.
The report by the European Commission’s in-house research centre also uncovered a 20% gap between the reported use of biomass in sectors like furniture or construction and other reported uses.
This gap “can be almost entirely attributed to energy use,” said the EU’s Joint Research Centre, based in Ispra, Italy.
The report, published on 26 January, highlights both “win-win” forest management practices but also “lose-lose” situations where bioenergy exacerbates climate change and damages forest ecosystems.
Indeed the report finds that most of the forest biomass currently being burnt for energy in the EU not only increases emissions compared to fossil fuels, but does so for decades placing in peril the EU’s net zero emissions target for 2050 and the chances of stopping runaway climate change.
According to the Commission, the burning of biomass emits more than 350 million tonnes of CO2 per year throughout the EU.
Ironically, however, EU energy policy currently incentivises burning the type of biomass the Commission’s report shows is dangerous and counter to EU climate policy, which, according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), fails to draw the conclusion that current energy policy should be changed.
Kalev Järvik stands on a bald patch of land in the heart of Estonia’s Haanja nature reserve and remembers when he could walk straight from one side of the reserve to the other under a canopy of trees.
Järvik has lived in the Haanja uplands in the southern county of Võru for more than 10 years. His closeness to the forest has shaped his life as a carpenter and the fortunes of the surrounding villages, with their handicraft traditions – a substitute for farming on the poor arable land. Upcountry, travel literature promotes the region to city dwellers, promising its ancient woodlands as a place to rest and reinvigorate the mind.
Info
27 January 2021
by WWF last modified 27 January 2021
A European Commission report concludes that most forest biomass produces more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, oil and gas.
Advertisement
And in 23 out of the 24 scenarios the Commission s Joint Research Centre (JRC) examined, biomass had a negative impact on climate, biodiversity, or both.
Indeed the report, published yesterday, finds that most of the forest biomass currently being burnt for energy in the EU not only increases emissions compared to fossil fuels, but does so for decades - which would imperil the EU s net zero target for 2050 and chances of stopping runaway climate change.