![\"\n\nA](\"https:\/\/www.euractiv.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2022\/08\/biomass-800x450.jpg\")
Achieving the EU\u2019s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 will require a massive effort to protect and restore forests that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Currently, however, a large part of the EU\u2019s renewable energy comes from burning trees and other wood for fuel, which emits more CO2<\/a> per unit of energy than burning fossil fuels and releases forest carbon into the atmosphere \u2013 the opposite of what is needed if we are serious about addressing climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Eurostat, the EU\u2019s statistical service, burning wood provides about 40% of the EU\u2019s renewable energy. The European Commission\u2019s Joint Research Centre (JRC) says<\/a> about half of this wood is \u201cprimary woody biomass,\u201d meaning sourced directly from forests (\u201cforest\u201d biomass), and half is \u201csecondary\u201d woody biomass, meaning wood industry residues and post-consumer wood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Due to incentives for renewable energy, wood-burning has nearly tripled since 1990. The majority of wood counted toward renewable energy targets is burned for residential heating, though it is wood-burning power plants that receive the billions<\/a> in publicly funded renewable energy subsidies under the EU\u2019s Renewable Energy Directive (RED).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In September, MEPs will vote on proposed reforms to the RED\u2019s biomass provisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The environment committee has approved an amendment that takes most forest biomass out of the RED as a form of renewable energy. If adopted in the final package, this reform would not stop people from burning wood \u2013 it would simply stop counting energy from burning most forest biomass toward renewable energy targets and would liberate billions in subsidies each year for clean, zero-emissions renewable energy and energy efficiency measures that could help decrease energy poverty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The environment committee amendment still allows burning secondary biomass materials, like sawdust and bark from sawmills, to qualify as renewable energy under the RED and receive subsidies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The amendment states that the Parliament should pass an implementing act to apply the cascading principle<\/a> for biomass so it can be reused for as long as possible. At the end of a product\u2019s life, if it can\u2019t be further recycled, it can be burned for energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unsurprisingly, the biomass industry opposes the environment committee\u2019s recommendation to stop counting forest biomass combustion as renewable energy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Both the North American wood pellet industry<\/a> and the Sweden-based World Bioenergy Association (WBA), which represents over 50<\/a> national and international trade bodies for an industry worth $8.7 billion<\/a>, have been lobbying intensively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The WBA argues that using logging residues is a \u201cwise and sustainable practice, and is widely accepted by forestry and climate experts.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n They seem to want people to believe that forest biomass is nothing more than just scraps left over from logging. That\u2019s not true. But even if it were<\/em> true that forest biomass was just logging residues, burning it would harm forests and the climate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critically, the JRC\u2019s study in 2021 found<\/a> that only limited<\/em> removal of \u201cfine woody debris\u201d (low-diameter branches, leaves, needles, etc) limits risks to forests and climate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Meanwhile, harvesting and burning \u201ccoarse woody debris\u201d \u2013 that is, logs, stumps, and other large chunks of wood left over after logging \u2013 is a \u201chigh risk\u201d for biodiversity and climate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That means burning this material increases net CO2 emissions compared to fossil fuels for decades to even centuries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Stripping coarse woody debris from a logging site harms the ecosystem in other ways, destroying habitat, degrading biodiversity, depleting soil carbon, and even interfering with forest regeneration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Biomass industry claims about primarily using \u201cforestry residues\u201d are misleading, too, because the term has no fixed meaning, encompassing everything from tree trunks to twigs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, the JRC found that \u201cstemwood\u201d makes up about half of the forest biomass<\/a> burned in the EU. More recently, the use of logs as biomass was well documented<\/a> in a report surveying several biomass and wood pellet plants across the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The WBA says that because biomass is low-value, it doesn\u2019t drive harvesting decisions. But because biomass gets public subsidies, this arguably does change the calculus of whether to log and how much wood to extract. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Based on Eurostat data, logging for biomass fuel is increasing across Europe. But most importantly, \u201clow value\u201d considers only the economic value and not the climate and biodiversity value of trees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arguing about what constitutes true \u201cresidues\u201d is pointless anyway when it is impossible to verify what is burned, as wood is often simply chipped at the logging site and then trucked to a biomass power plant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The reality is that forest carbon is going up smokestacks in the name of renewable energy, and whether it\u2019s from twigs, branches, or logs, providing incentives to send more forest carbon into the atmosphere is the opposite of what we need to do to address climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The WBA makes predictable statements about logging \u201csustainably.\u201d But if the industry is so sustainable, why are some of Europe\u2019s biggest bioenergy users and producers, like Finland<\/a> and Estonia<\/a>, now losing their land carbon sinks? <\/p>\n\n\n\n