{"id":38636,"date":"2016-11-09T07:20:26","date_gmt":"2016-11-09T06:20:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/?p=38636"},"modified":"2016-11-07T12:38:16","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T11:38:16","slug":"bioenergy-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/bioenergy-the-good-the-bad-the-ugly\/","title":{"rendered":"Bioenergy: The Good, the Bad & the Ugly"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"bioenergy_bad\"
Wood harvesting in Germany (\u00a9Andreas Beer)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Amid growing speculation that the EU will publish its much-anticipated Renewable Energy Package at the end of this month, Sini Er\u00e4j\u00e4\u00e4 dispels the myth that all bioenergy is \u2018Good\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n

European bioenergy policies have been built on the myth that bioenergy \u2013 being a \u2018renewable resource\u2019 \u2013 is all good.\u00a0 Good for the climate, good for a more sustainable future. However, we have a saying here at BirdLife: \u2018All that glitters is not gold\u2019 and, similarly, all that is renewable is not sustainable. Quite simply, bioenergy is not the clean dream we all hoped it would be: in some cases, it actually results in an increase in CO2 emissions, exceeding fossil fuel use. The policies driving the rapid growth in bioenergy use need to separate the good from the bad, and reveal the ugly truth behind the real climate impacts of bioenergy.<\/p>\n

THE GOOD\u2026<\/h3>\n

Good bioenergy exists. \u2018Waste not; want not\u2019: the best potential for biomass that could be used for energy lies in different kinds of residues and wastes, particularly agricultural residues, i.e. the parts of crops left on the field after harvesting. Manure, too, has significant potential, together with residues and wastes from existing forest industries.<\/p>\n

However, the sad fact is that there is far less scope for utilising bioenergy sustainably than was initially hoped. BirdLife Europe (along with other NGOs), has commissioned numerous studies to understand how much biomass can be burned for energy without damaging the environment or the climate. In our analyses, we took 4 fundamental points about existing uses of land and wood into consideration<\/p>\n

(i) The need to leave more land and forests aside for biodiversity.<\/p>\n

(ii) The need to maintain nature\u2019s natural carbon storage (in trees and soil) and not diminish them for bioenergy purposes.<\/p>\n

(iii) The need to ensure precious natural resources are not wasted but used in a resource efficient way.<\/p>\n

(iv) Europe\u2019s demand for biomass should not lead the EU to further expand its ecological footprint beyond its territories.<\/p>\n

New research, soon-to-be published by BirdLife and Transport & Environment, has taken all these considerations into account, and has come up with some alarming conclusions. Only a maximum 150 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe) of biomass could be used for energy in 2030 in a sustainable way. This falls short of the Commission\u2019s projections on bioenergy demand in 2030 and would make up only 30% of the amount of renewables needed to meet the EU\u2019s 2030 targets. This is an important finding, considering that bioenergy currently bioenergy makes up 60% of renewable energy sources. Not only is there less sustainable biomass available (for energy) than hoped, it is also a very different kind of biomass. Right now, we\u2019re mostly burning wood in various form \u2013 we need to move to using more a more varied mixture of residues from agriculture and industries.<\/p>\n

THE BAD\u2026.<\/h3>\n

\u2018Bad\u2019 bioenergy, however, is not simply anything over this 30% marker. Bad bioenergy is also born out of misused biomass \u2013 namely, food crops and whole trees, but also tree stumps and deadwood. Government subsidies and incentives for bioenergy are driving the rapid growth of this sector \u2013 subsidies (such as a guaranteed price for electricity from bioenergy etc.), are making the burning of good quality wood, food crops and whole trees financially attractive. We\u2019re exposing more and more horror stories of this kind of bad bioenergy use increasing.<\/p>\n

While, many may have already heard about tropical forests cleared in Indonesia for palm oil plantations<\/a> that supply biodiesel to Europe or about the devastation of forests in Southern USA to make pellets for European power plants, very few people realise that these kind of scenarios are also happening here in Europe. On 22 November, BirdLife Europe will publish The Black Book of Bioenergy \u2013 a graphic narrative of \u2018good intentions gone bad\u2019<\/em> where we examine 8 recent cases that unmask the culprits behind the great carbon con of bioenergy. Stay tuned to hear stories of Finland\u2019s iconic forest landscape being ravaged for bioenergy or new flood risks created in beautiful Emilia Romagna, Italy after the burning of its riverside forests.<\/p>\n

\u2026AND THE UGLY<\/h3>\n

The worst part of the European bioenergy story is its \u2018green-washing\u2019, i.e. the falsely perceived positive climate impacts of bioenergy use. European energy and climate policies pretend that all bioenergy is carbon neutral \u2013 an argument wholly unsupported by the international community of climate scientists or the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<\/p>\n

The \u2018carbon con\u2019 of bioenergy comes down to a misinterpretation of well-intended book-keeping rules. It was agreed that, for carbon accounting purposes, emissions released from cutting down trees (or harvesting crops\u2026or ploughing soil for bioenergy production) did not need to feature in the energy sector\u2019s cheques and balances, because they would be accounted for elsewhere in the books. Curiously though, the \u2018elsewhere\u2019 was often forgotten and meddled with, while the energy sector stormed ahead with a so-called \u2018zero carbon\u2019 bioenergy. Almost sounds like a sneaky card trick from an old Western movie, doesn\u2019t it? Well, it pretty much is. While this free pass is convenient for the energy sector, these emissions still need to be factored in \u2018somewhere\u2019. Even more importantly, policies need to be changed so that these emissions are never be produced in the first place or the planet\u2019s climate will blindly cruise into the red.<\/p>\n

WE NEED A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN<\/h3>\n

It\u2019s understandable that the misinformed public wants to hold on to the green hope once seemingly offered by bioenergy. But it\u2019s unforgiveable for those in the know to continue the charade. The \u2018jig\u2019 \u2013 as they say \u2013 \u2018is up!\u2019 In less than a month, the European Commission will publish a new policy proposal on the sustainability of bioenergy<\/a>. This is a golden opportunity for the EU to show Europe\u2019s carbon con-artists that there is a new sheriff in town. The Commission needs to lay down the law \u2013 rule out the bad and straighten-out the ugly. Only then, will the \u2018good\u2019 be the last one standing in the final scene.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

More information on the limits of sustainable bioenergy in Europe can be found on the blog EU Bioenergy<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amid growing speculation that the EU will publish its much-anticipated Renewable Energy Package at the end of this month, Sini Er\u00e4j\u00e4\u00e4 dispels the myth that all bioenergy is \u2018Good\u2019. European bioenergy policies have been built on the myth that bioenergy \u2013 being a \u2018renewable resource\u2019 \u2013 is all good.\u00a0 Good for the climate, good for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":59,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","nova_meta_subtitle":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[5572],"tags":[6406,5528],"supplier":[12791,2317,5585,3345],"class_list":["post-38636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bio-based","tag-environment","tag-sustainability","supplier-birdlife-europe-and-central-asia","supplier-european-commission","supplier-european-union","supplier-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/59"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38636"},{"taxonomy":"supplier","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/renewable-carbon.eu\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supplier?post=38636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}