“Wood pellets are no silver bullet for providing electricity and heat without causing climate change. Even if the EU and many national policies incentivise their use at large scale,” says Prof. Lars Walloe, EASAC’s Environment Programme Chair.
Burning forest biomass for electricity and heat is touted as a smart way for Europe to reach its climate targets. But especially wood pellets release more carbon than coal per unit of electricity generated, a series of reports by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC) shows.
‘Listen to science’ is the famous battle cry of the Fridays For Future movement. And as COP25 in Madrid has entered its second week, it becomes clearer with every day:
Both the stocktaking of climate change and the search for technological solutions to prevent a further increase of the global temperature are becoming more desperate.
Now, the European National Academies of Science warn of the serious mismatches between science and policy on forest bioenergy.
EASAC’s Prof. Michael Norton, EASAC Environment Programme Director says:
We have repeatedly pointed out that in many cases the large-scale substitution of coal by forest biomass will accelerate climate warming, and will increase the risks of overshooting Paris targets.
The reason is simple – when the forest is harvested and used for bioenergy, all the carbon in the biomass enters the atmosphere very quickly, but it will not be reabsorbed by new trees for decades. This is not compatible with the need to tackle the climate crisis urgently”
says EASAC’s Prof. Michael Norton, EASAC Environment Programme Director.
Despite scientific warning: Biomass rules in EU’s Renewable Directive cause more climate damage than relief
Despite much scientific warning, UN carbon accounting rules turn a blind eye toward the climate impact of cutting trees to burn them. In line with UN rules, the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive revised in 2018 and the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) rate carbon emissions from all biomass use as zero.
“This gives a misleading impression to energy consumers and policy makers, and these loopholes must quickly be closed,” adds Michael Norton.“
The concept of the carbon neutrality of forest biomass may have had some validity in 2009 when the urgency of tackling global warming was less widely recognized and the idea was simply that growing biomass removes as much CO2 from the atmosphere as is emitted from its combustion.
But the focus today is on limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2C. This requires urgent actions, not waiting for new trees to grow while pumping additional carbon into the atmosphere by burning trees for energy”
says Michael Norton.
The large renewable energy subsidies made available in some EU member states have led to a huge increase in forest biomass use – including the replacement of coal in large power stations with imports, for example from the US, Canada and other European countries.
The process of harvesting forests to produce wood pellets has been industrialised to a scale of many millions of tons per year and transported over thousands of kilometres.
COP25 – “Like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire”
A critical factor when it comes to using bioenergy is the so-called carbon payback period, which is the time it takes for new trees to reabsorb the carbon that is released during combustion.
Far from being carbon neutral, the burning of forest biomass actually adds CO2 to the atmosphere during the carbon payback period, which for the most relevant trees lies between 50 and 100 years.
This is important when it comes to assessing how the climate goal of limiting warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees can be reached.
A maximum allowable carbon payback period compatible with the Paris Agreement should be introduced in the sustainability criteria, says EASAC.
As the Madrid conference is proceeding, we see national governments wanting to showcase their success.
Misleading carbon accounting rules make it possible to reduce national emissions on paper simply by switching from coal (where emissions have to be reported) to imported biomass (reported as zero emissions).
“Forest biomass for energy is being hailed as the proverbial ‘silver bullet’ that delivers a win-win-win for policy makers, foresters and energy companies, because current rules permit it to be indiscriminately subsidized as a renewable energy.
But for the climate, it is like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire”
says Dr William Gillett, EASAC’s Energy Programme Director.
“Look before you Leap”: European Science Academies Caution against Subsidies for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS)
13.04.2022
As the European Union is discussing new legislation to certify carbon removal technologies, European Science Academies sound the alarm that billions of taxpayers’ money will go to technologies that risk not to deliver on their promises.
Prof. Michael Norton, EASAC’s Environment Programme Director explains:
“There is an assumption that Bioenergy with Carbon Capture & Storage (BECCS) can remove gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere. But policymakers should look before they leap.
The actual potential of BECCS highly contrasts with the prominent role it takes in many scenarios”
Prof. Michael Norton, EASAC’s Environment Programme Director.
A new Commentary on “BECCS and its role in integrated assessment models”, looks at the latest evidence on the ability of BECCS to deliver substantial net removals of CO2 from the atmosphere.
It showsthat the models which point to BECCS as a preferred negative emissions technology to deliver on climate targets may contain weaknesses that are well-hidden.
“Many models ignore the fact that different feedstocks have different carbon payback periods, mistakenly considering that all bioenergy is carbon-neutral.
But as much as there are differences in carbon content between different fossil fuels, there are significant differences in the climate impact of bioenergy depending on its origin”
explains Norton.
The Commentary also finds that BECCS may be over-emphasized in models for several reasons.
One is because climate modelling tools assume high discount rates that favor deferring investments into the future (rather than spending now on more emission reductions).
In addition, cost minimization models may have difficulty in anticipating the rapid reductions in other renewable energy costs.
“Banking on future technologies such as BECCS to compensate later for inadequate emission reductions today places significant risks on future generations.
Policymakers tend to assume that BECCS will not only be able to massively remove carbon from the atmosphere but will also be technically and economically feasible.
However, on current evidence, BECCS projects should be of limited scale, all feedstocks provided locally and feedstock carbon payback times should be very short”
says Norton.
In addition, many scenarios for BECCS assume that unrealistic quantities of biomass will be available.
“If we look at the science, there is a significant gap between the assumed biomass use and the quantities available that are sustainable and do not conflict with higher value uses such as food production, ecosystem retention, environmental and social constraints as well as increased demands for other uses. This gap is sometimes as high as 60 percent”
says Prof. Lars Walloe, Chair of EASAC’s Environment Steering Panel.
William Gillett, EASAC’s Energy Programme Director, adds:
“We do not argue that BECCS can never become an option.
But until the underlying assumptions regarding the availabilities and carbon payback periods of different biomass feedstocks used in integrated assessment models have been refined, and the benefits and feasibility of BECCS are proven, the EU and national governments should not be offering subsidies.”
Norton concludes:
“Assuming carbon neutrality for BECCS and over-estimating the short-term impacts means that we are deluding ourselves.
But by increasing the risk that temperatures will overshoot critical tipping points, we might soon discover that no good deed goes unpunished.
If for example Europe’s biggest power stations, that rely on imported wood pellets, were adapted to BECCS, this is most unlikely to deliver any negative emissions after all the carbon leakages to the atmosphere have been considered.
Instead, it would just cement in place an unsustainable energy system.”
The danger remains that BECCS will be offered to policymakers as a climate solution to avoid the more politically challenging mitigation options.
To avoid this, EASAC strongly argues for national and international targets to formally separate any Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) targets and emissions reduction targets in their climate strategies, so that any CDR is treated as additional to emissions reduction.
To resolve the perverse incentives that the EASAC analyses have identified, the Commission should build on its cascade guidance for the use of our limited supply of sustainable forests to prioritise high value uses, and not to subsidize lowest priority uses for energy or BECCS that do little to help mitigate climate change.
About the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC)
EASAC is formed by the national science academies of the EU Member States, Norway, Switzerland and United Kingdom, to collaborate in giving advice to European policymakers. EASAC provides a means for the collective voice of European science to be heard. Through EASAC, the academies work together to provide independent, expert, evidence-based advice about the scientific aspects of European policies to those who make or influence policy within the European institutions. www.easac.eu
Relevant EASAC reports and publications:
Norton, M, Baldi, A, Buda, V, et al. (2019) Serious mismatches continue between science and policy in forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy; 11: 1256– 1263. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12643
EASAC (2019) Forest bioenergy, carbon capture and storage, and carbon dioxide removal: an update. https://easac.eu/publications/details/forest-bioenergy-carbon-capture-and-storage-and-carbon-dioxide-removal-an-update/
EASAC (2018) Commentary on Forest Bioenergy and Carbon Neutrality. https://easac.eu/publications/details/commentary-on-forest-bioenergy-and-carbon-neutrality/
EASAC (2018) Multi-functionality and Sustainability in the European Union’s Forests. https://easac.eu/publications/details/multi-functionality-and-sustainability-in-the-european-unions-forests/
