5 Reasons to Halt Biomass Imports for Bioenergy

Co-authored by Rita Frost, this post delves into the environmental impacts of biomass. Whether using wood or fossil fuels for energy, both contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbate climate change.

The practice of importing biomass or fossil fuels for energy production has significant consequences for climate change mitigation. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscores the urgency of reducing carbon emissions to secure a livable future.

While renewable, biomass energy is not a suitable alternative due to its higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal. As the world strives for a cleaner energy future, relying on greener sources is crucial, and the use of biomass for electricity generation falls short of this goal.

Reason 1: Greenhouse Gas Impact of Wood Pellet Bioenergy

The IPCC does not endorse biomass burning as a viable energy source. Despite claims from producers like Enviva or Drax, burning biomass is an unfavorable choice. It generates more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, contrary to being considered renewable.

The IPCC’s AR6 report highlights that large-scale bioenergy deployment, including Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), can harm ecosystems directly or through land competition. Burning biomass affects ecosystems by causing direct harm from logging and influencing land use.

Burning woody biomass is labeled “carbon neutral” in carbon accounting systems, creating a significant climate policy loophole. This classification has led the UN and many nations to accept biomass energy, yet scientific evidence shows that biomass burning is more detrimental than coal for emissions. This ultimately escalates carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

Reason 2: Economic Incentives in Bioenergy Production

Misclassifying biomass as “carbon neutral” has cascading economic effects. The forestry industry, particularly in the US, receives substantial subsidies for wood pellet production, despite their emissions contributing to global warming. Bioenergy expansion competes with food crop cultivation, creating resource conflicts.

Dependency on International Subsidies in Biomass Industry

Subsidies drive the rapid growth of the biomass sector globally. Countries like the US, Canada, Eastern Europe, Russia, Vietnam, and Malaysia are sacrificing forests for energy. The EU and UK lead in the biomass energy market, with further expansion in Japan and South Korea. To mitigate disastrous climate impacts, biomass subsidies must cease. Without government support, biomass power plants cannot afford feedstock, rendering the industry unsustainable.

Biomass Generates More Greenhouse Gas than Coal

Over a decade of research highlights that wood pellets contribute more carbon pollution than coal. In a letter to President Joe Biden and world leaders, over 500 scientists emphasized that substituting burning trees for fossil fuels exacerbates warming for decades to centuries.

Reason 3: Wildlife Threat from Biomass Logging

In the US Southeast, the epicenter of wood production, biomass poses a grave threat. Logging rates here rank among the world’s highest, causing significant carbon emissions from US forests. Consequently, the region’s natural forests suffer a decline in size and health.

Diverse species depend on these forests for habitat, encompassing mixed pine forests and bottomland hardwoods. Logging wreaks havoc on forests and their inhabitants, driving local and global extinctions, even within the US.

Biomass Manufacturers Neglecting Wildlife Concerns

Enviva, the largest global wood pellet manufacturer, aims to double production in five years, effectively doubling carbon emissions. Should countries cease Russian biomass imports, it’s foreseeable that Enviva might exploit market gaps.

Halting Russian biomass use is crucial, but the effort must extend beyond. It’s time to address the biomass carbon accounting gap and end forest burning for electricity.

Reason 4: Safeguarding Public Health from Biomass Burning

Biomass production yields substantial air pollution, posing risks to human health. Byproducts from wood pellet production should not be inhaled, rendering biomass one of the dirtiest energy sources.

Communities near biomass sites complain about dust and noise pollution. Residents even resort to frequent car cleaning due to dust accumulation. If visible, it’s inhalable, accentuating the tangible health risks associated with biomass-generated air pollution.

Environmental Inequity in Renewable Energy

The push for “alternative energy sources” disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, particularly those of color. Many impoverished and rural areas lack influence over their approach to renewable energy production.

Such renewable energy sources release chemicals that pose health risks during operation, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter.

Reason 5: Redirecting Subsidies Away from Bioenergy

Billions of dollars in subsidies support biomass burners annually, particularly in countries like the UK, Netherlands, and Japan. To genuinely address climate and nature concerns, leaders must recognize the ecological impact of biomass wood harvest and shift focus to proven renewables like solar and wind. These alternatives offer effective emissions reduction at a fraction of the cost of biomass energy.

Deceptive Practices of Bioenergy Companies

Biomass misconceptions are being dismantled, with institutions like Citi Group downrating Drax due to sustainability concerns. Drax’s court cases over health hazards and substantial fines for clean air violations underscore its unsustainable practices. Drax’s billion-pound subsidies are set to end in 2027.

To make progress, subsidies must be strategically redirected. Instead of being squandered on biomass, investments should target climate and biodiversity protection by supporting communities adjacent to forests.

In the US South, industrial logging disproportionately affects low-income communities of color, highlighting the inequities. If biomass were genuinely economically beneficial, the region would thrive. However, it has become a sacrifice zone for an industry disguising itself as clean energy. Forest solutions must prioritize communities over corporate interests.

Read the original article on dogwoodalliance.

Read more: Public Support Hydrogen and Biofuels to Decarbonize Global Shipping.