Wood Biomass Incineration Won't Help Protect the Climate - and It Can Hurt Humans. Instead, Keep Old Forests Around.

When Al Gore ran for president years ago, I supported him wholeheartedly because I heard he was environmental. I watched the news about the "hanging chad" nightly after work and talked politics with my roommate. I was disappointed when he lost.

Now I have found out that the movement he's backed - the efforts against global warming - may have inadvertently resulted in increased deforestation. And even where deforestation hasn't occurred, forests may have been harvested, turned into pellets, burned and replaced with plantations in the name of preventing climate change.

How could well-meaning efforts to stop climate change lead to cutting down trees and burning them? In the efforts to slow or stop climate change, many well-meaning countries have signed up for carbon emission limits. This all sounds good, right? Not so fast. What I've learned recently is that wood biomass incineration (burning of wood pellets) is currently considered to be carbon neutral in the UK and Europe. When the UK and Europe advertise progress against their climate goals, what they don't say in the big print is that over 50% of their "renewable" energy is coming from biomass incineration, which includes wood pellets and other organic sources.

Some champions of wood biomass burning say that it's "carbon neutral" if trees are cut and then replanted. However, hundreds of scientists have written to contradict this, based on a number of factors. First, newly planted young trees take decades to centuries to soak up the same amount of carbon previously in the old, large trees. Eventually, any progress towards carbon neutrality achieved over time goes away as soon as the planted trees are cut and burned again. The young trees are also more vulnerable to adversity, including death from fire. Second, much of the carbon of a mature forest is stored in the soil. When forests are harvested, heavy equipment and roads degrade the soils and release carbon. After a clearcut, the soil integrity and rich carbon stores may never fully return. Third, logging, trucking, shipping, and preparing wood for incineration uses energy (currently, not clean energy).

There has been a lot of debate about the detriments of burning wood biomass for energy. Some proponents claim that all of it comes from waste products from harvesting trees for other purposes, so it's ok. Other observers claim that whole trees are being turned into wood pellets and burned for energy. Others state that even if the intentions are good (use waste only), the unintended consequences could be devastating over the years ahead (increased forest/soil degradation and/or cumulative deforestation). Most would agree that burning wood is less efficient than burning coal, oil or natural gas, and that the land required to grow enough trees and plants to provide substantial energy long term could be enormous.

The argument over whether wood biomass incineration is "carbon neutral" or not skims over two important points. First, wood biomass incineration is highly polluting. Exposure to PM2.5 emissions can lead to breathing issues and disease. Second, old and mature forests exist for many other purposes beyond storing carbon. What about their beauty, and the transformation that happens to us when we walk in the forest? What about the rich varieties of plants that grow there? What about the wildlife they support? What about our water supply, which in many places largely depends on forests? What about the air that they clean? What about the soil that they support and stabilize? What about the overall ecosystem that has developed over millennia?

Socrates taught that wisdom begins in wonder. Cultivating this mindset invites a larger perspective. Many people across the world are working together to explore energy alternatives. Because of this collaborative effort, I'm hopeful that scientific inquiry and transparent dialogue will result in improvements to current policies and practices.

What can be done now? First, our governments and companies can acknowledge in all applicable policies that wood biomass incineration is not clean and is not carbon neutral (or at minimum, that it will not be carbon neutral for at least 40-100+ years). In concert with this, they can stop providing credits, incentives and other benefits to aid wood biomass incineration, and instead direct these financial incentives towards clean energy that is carbon neutral in the short term. Second, we can all acknowledge the extent to which wood biomass incineration creates pollution, and adapt policies and practices accordingly to protect communities. Third, countries, states, provinces and cities can protect old growth and mature forests on government-owned lands, so they can store and sequester carbon for years to come. Protecting them will also help protect biodiversity, wildlife, soil integrity, watersheds, and air quality, ultimately benefiting humans both locally and globally.

If you are interested in taking action today to protect old growth and mature forests on federally owned lands, you can sign the petition from the Climate Forests Campaign at: Take Action | Climate Forests

If you are interested in continuing to learn about wood biomass incineration, here are a few resources to start the exploration. Note there are many more, and with conflicting views.

Articles, Letters:

National Geographic article:

Europe burns a controversial ‘renewable’ energy source: trees from the U.S.

Letter from over 500 scientists:

Stop Burning Trees for Energy, Hundreds of Scientists Tell EU Leaders

Articles from NRDC:

No, Burning Wood Fuel Is Not Climate Friendly and

A Bad Biomass Bet: Why the Leading Approach to Biomass Energy with Carbon Capture and Storage Isn't Carbon Negative

Articles from Dogwood Alliance:

Bioenergy: 5 Reasons Why the World Must Stop Importing Bioenergy and Destruction in Disguise

Article from Environmental Research Letters:

Does replacing coal with wood lower CO2 emissions? Dynamic lifecycle analysis of wood bioenergy