Position paper Clean Air Committee forBiomass Round Table Discussion inthe Committee Economic Affairs and Climate
Biomass combustion for energy is one of the biggest ecological drifts on an international and political level. It is based on a misrepresentation of facts. Namely, that forest biomass would be climate neutral and thus contribute to the ‘reduction targets’.
Position papers of other participants in the Biomass round table discussion on June 15, 2023:
– Dr. Timothy Searchinger, Princeton University (USA) (link);
– Siim Kuresoo, on behalf of Estonian Fund for Nature, ELF (link);
– Sanne van der Wal, Somo. Harmful wood pellets (link);
– Peter de Jong, Nature and Environment (link);
– Professor Martin Junginger, Utrecht University (link);
– Mark Bressers, Dutch Emissions Authority (link).
download press release in English
Climate crisis cannot be understood
without knowledge of ecological crisis
by Fenna Swart and Maarten Visschers
Last week, one of nature’s most sweeping laws escaped destruction in a draw. The opposition came from traditional lobbies for intensive agriculture, forestry and fisheries with the Netherlands in the lead. A similar impasse in the agricultural agreement is also dragging on in The Hague. Scientists have been saying it for two decades now: we are not facing a “climate crisis,” we are facing an ecological crisis of which climate change and ecosystem collapse are the main manifestations. You cannot solve, or even understand, one without the other.
Not only reduce but also protect
Not only measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are important (so- called climate mitigation), but also measures that protect us from the consequences of the changing climate (climate adaptation). Based on current EU policies, it is likely that temperatures will continue to rise and that droughts, floods and fires will become more frequent and widespread. Obviously, biodiverse forests are more resilient to such disturbances than tree plantations and planted monocultures.
Undermining key climate target
The drastic decline in carbon storage in European forests is largely due to the significant increase in logging over the past decade. About half of the felled wood in the EU is burned for energy. On this basis, we can conclude that Europe’s energy dependence on biomass undermines the main climate goal of reducing emissions.
Responsible committees
The two Brussels departments, Climate and Energy, are largely responsible for this decline because until recently both have promoted the cutting and burning of forests for renewable energy. They have also opposed the introduction of science-based limits on the use of wood burning for energy. The European Commission’s (EC) own impact assessment in 2016, and a variety of reports from the Joint Research Center (JRC, the EC’s science office), have made clear that burning wood, increases net CO2 emissions compared to fossil fuels over timeframes relevant to climate policy.
Underground storage techniques not sustainable
Against this background and the fact that the recommendations of its own scientists (from the JRC) have been ignored, it is likely that the proposed consultation will fail to acknowledge that EU forest and land carbon storage is collapsing. At the same time, independent research shows that subsidized programs for technological carbon removal in the form of so- called BECCS (biomass combustion with CO2 capture and underground storage) are unproven, expensive and actually energy-guzzling. BECCS is a technique that is increasingly referred to by energy companies such as RWE, among others, as a justification for converting coal-fired power plants to biomass, as evidenced once again last week by the speech of top executive Miesen of energy company RWE, during the Biomass Roundtable discussion in the Lower House (“we’re shoving emissions under the sea”).
Starting points climate target 2040
The 2040 climate target should therefore be based on realistic practical reports rather than utopian mathematical models. In addition, it is important that the assessment transparently acknowledges the net carbon impact of forest biomass. Achieving climate stability requires – in addition to a very drastic reduction in our carbon emissions – a significantly greater amount of carbon storage in forests. Within current regulations, this is impossible unless the harvesting of forest biomass is restricted.
Climate and nature; inextricably linked
Brussels is holding this month until June 24, an open public consultation on setting the new climate target for 2040 and the measures needed for this in the period 2030-2040. An important part of the European climate strategy is to protect, restore and enhance Europe’s remaining, natural and protected forests for carbon storage. Crucial here is the recognition that the future viability of Europe (and Earth) depends in large part on Europe’s ability to reverse the current decline of our remaining forests. The question is whether we can manage with forest restoration alone. Even if we manage to reduce current emissions from all sectors (industry, mobility, built environment), we are still not there according to science. Forest restoration is then a minimum requirement.
Sharp criticism of burning ‘climate neutral’ biomass: ‘Continuing is really dramatic’
by Edwin Timmer
Sustainable management of forests does not solve the climate problem of biomass combustion. Whether wood pellets carry a certificate or not: when they are burned, it takes decades to perhaps centuries before the CO2 from the burned trees is absorbed into new forest.
This is what American scientist Tim Searchinger of the prominent Princeton University stated in the House of Representatives on Thursday during a roundtable discussion on biomass. “In the fight against climate change, we cannot afford those extra CO2 emissions,” warns Searchinger. Ergo: stop all biomass combustion.
Sharp criticism
The American contribution is striking because it sharply criticizes the European Commission and D66 Minister Rob Jetten of Climate. Both Brussels and The Hague see good certification as a goat path to continue using biomass in a sustainable way. The war in Ukraine has further increased this Brussels wish.
European energy security is so important that European Commissioner Frans Timmermans has once again designated biomass as ‘climate neutral’. This happened last year in a revised renewable energy directive. Provided a system of certification of used forests is in order. Minister Jetten also states in a letter to the House of Representatives that he wants to follow up on this international certification and that it will also apply to Dutch biomass users.
But biomass is not ‘climate neutral’, Searchinger emphasises. “Regardless of whether forests are managed sustainably,” said the Princeton researcher and technical director for agriculture, forestry and ecosystems at the World Resources Institute (WRI), an international environmental think tank. Domes of European and Dutch scientists have already made such statements.
read more on Algemeen Dagblad (in Dutch)
Biomass has not been smoked out for a long time
Round table discussion about subsidies for wood pellets
by Kleis Jager
Climate Minister Jetten would not spend a penny on burning ‘woody biomass’. However, the end of this fiercely controversial practice is still far from in sight. On Thursday, specialists in the House of Representatives will discuss how to proceed.
In the debate on climate change, it seemed to be a foregone conclusion: biomass, friend and foe alike, really don’t know. Stacks of trees that have been cut down far away to be burned in Dutch power stations, how nonsensical is that?
Woody biomass became the symbol of a policy that, with its fixation on climate goals, seems to forget that it all started with the preservation of the planet’s resources.
There was increasing criticism of the principle that the CO2 released during the combustion of biomass is not included in national emissions. The argument for this is that this CO2 is absorbed by the planting of new trees and crops.
But this does not take into account that that absorption takes 30 to 50 years. Something that burns in minutes cannot be compared to what takes decades to grow.
In addition, the pellets – granules of pressed wood – originally came from the Baltic States and now mainly from the American state of North Carolina. It is shipped in so-called bulk carriers. But those emissions do not count in the statistics either.
The outrage was mainly fueled by Fenna Swart of the Clean Air Committee, one of the speakers on Thursday during a round table discussion in the House of Representatives. Partly due to the pressure she exerted, Rob Jetten decided to end subsidies last year.