Biomass sinking under its own weight

The main way in which the world employs trees to fight climate change is by cutting them down and burning them. Across much of Europe, countries and utilities are meeting their carbon reduction targets by importing wood pellets from the southeastern United State and burning them in place of coal. ¹ Climate activists, including the media, have long insisted that burning trees was good for the climate and environment because the emitted CO2 would simply be recycled back into nature--'follow the science' they insisted again and again. But they failed to understand that trees, depending on their age, acted as sinks and that some 100 years of stored carbon would be unloaded into the atmosphere in just a matter of hours if burned for heat.

CO2 neutral wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe

CO2 neutral wood burning is leading to widespread deforestation across northern Europe- a rather embarrassing development for the Europeans, who recently expressed their condemnation over Brazilian forest policy. Satellite images show deforestation has risen 49% since 2016 in Sweden, Finland and the Baltic countries. Not only are the forests taking a hit, but so is the wildlife that once inhabited in them. Swiss meteorologist Jorg Kachelmann calls it 'the dumbest energy and environmental policy ever'. Now finally, after years of being warned, Germany's mainstream media are finally showing signs of waking up to it.² Yet new European Union regulations will keep treating the cutting down of trees as carbon neutral at least through 2030, meaning that utilities can burn wood in their old plants and receive massive subsidies for theoretically reducing their emissions. One encouraging note: Realizing biomass's increasing logical fallacy, the European Commission has promised to take a 'transformative approach' by reviewing all forms of energy—including biofuels and woody biomass-as part of their new biodiversity strategy unveiled in late May 2020. ³ The Drax power plant, in the North of England, which burns more wood than any power plant in Earth, gets 2.2 million dollars a day in subsidies. Drax, has converted 4 of its 6 former coal generating units to biomass. Burning nearly a quarter of global wood pellet production, about two-thirds of it from the US, in 2019 the plant powered some 10% of the total British electricity grid. ³ The vast majority of the UK's biomass is coming from America. Last year the US exported some 6 million metric tons of biomass to the EU, primarily from forests with the rural southeast. The latest figures from April show that US producers shipped over 475,000 tons of pelletized forest material into the UK, up by 27.7% from last year. ⁴

---

The vast majority of the UK's biomass is coming from America

European subsidies treat power plants that burn wood as the equivalent of solar panels despite the fact that, under even the most generous scenarios, they emit at least ten times as much carbon, when factoring in the energy that it takes to make the panels. ¹ Biomass' designation rests upon the assumption that almost all burned wood pellets and the trees they come from will eventually be replaced one-to-one by new growth that will replenish and replace the harvested trees, thereby reabsorbing the carbon dioxide emitted from burning biomass. However, studies have shown that the length of time taken by trees to regrow their 'carbon debt feedback time', often translates into even more carbon spewing and remaining in the atmosphere than if generators had simply kept burning coal in the first place. ³ In addition, to generate nearly the same amount of power from wood as it does from coal will cost between two and three times as much, meaning that fuel costs will double or triple, so that the only thing to make this possible will be a massive subsidy, which will eventually be worth over 1 billion pounds a year. ⁵ Another factor to consider is that wood burning makes smoke and wood is 1,000 times more susceptible to spontaneous combustion than coal. There have been several disastrous fires in plants that converted to biomass burning. ⁶ Michael Buchsbaum reports, “Biomass has gotten a bit hot of late. The subject of several high profile documentary films including Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs' highly controversial Planet of the Humans as well as last year's Burned, have lawmakers within the European Union finally starting to question its classification as a carbon-neutral and renewable fuel—especially as more scientific evidence emerges to the contrary. Despite advances in wind and solar, biomass still fuels 70% of global renewable energy.” ³ As The Economist notes, “In short, the EU has created a subsidy which costs a packet, probably does not reduce carbon emissions, and does not encourage new energy technologies.” ⁷

References

1. Bill McKibben, “Don't burn trees to fight climate change—let them grow,” newyorker.com, August 15, 2019
2. P. Gosselin, “Environmental disaster: northern Europe deforestation up 49% die to effort to meet CO2 targets,” notrickszone.com, September 6, 2020
3. L. Michael Buchsbaum, “The secret burning of trees: the often overlooked role of biomass,” energytransition.org,
4. L. Michael Buchsbaum, “Woody addiction: biomass is the UK's dirty Little secret to getting clean,” energytransition.org, August 10, 2020
5. Christopher Booker, “Eco Madness,” tallbloke.wordpress.com, March 9, 2013
6. Jane Orient, “Back to Medievalism,” Civil; Defense Perspectives, Volume 29, #3, March 2013
7. “The fuel of the future,” The Economist, April 6, 2013