What does some climate damage have in common with hell? The road to both is paved with good intentions. Burning wood on a large scale to generate supposedly climate-neutral electricity, heat or both is an example of this. This week, the EU Parliament has the opportunity to correct a serious mistake. It decides on a reform of the Renewable Energy Directive, which deals, among other things, with the use of biomass.
This should not be dismissed as a sideshow: Almost 60 percent of the formally renewable energy used in the EU comes from biomass. Although it makes only a small contribution to electricity production and – via biofuels – to mobility, it does all the more to generate heat, be it in stoves, pellet heating systems or wood-fired power plants. Most of this biomass is simply wood. And about half of it comes pretty much straight from the forest, so it’s not just a waste product.
For a long time many scientists warnthat cutting down trees to generate energy is bad for the climate, not helping. Parliament can now follow the proposal of the EU Commission, which would like to leave it at that with minor corrections towards sustainability. Or it sticks to its environmental committee, who proposes a bolder solution: “Primary” wood biomass, i.e. those for which trees were felled, should no longer be considered renewable. This means that it would not count among the renewable energy targets and should no longer be promoted accordingly. The only exception would be wood that is taken from the forest for fire prevention or pest control.
The brave would be the better decision
Whatever the compromise that the tough EU legislative process leaves in the end, the bold would be the better decision. Because it’s true: it only emits the CO₂ that a tree collects from the air as it grows, when it burns, and the regrowing tree takes it back, this cycle has worked since there have been trees. However, it becomes problematic if, in the middle of the climate crisis, a large number of trees are burned in a short space of time.
This climate debt can only be repaid after many decades, trees grow slowly. During this time, however, the CO₂ in the atmosphere unfolds its effect, just as if coal had simply been burned. Even worse, because wood burns rather inefficiently, emitting more CO₂ for the same amount of energy. By the time the new tree has brought it back, many a climate target may have been missed. And if there’s one thing the world doesn’t have, it’s time.
In addition, the calculation “old tree out – new tree in” disregards the dynamics in the forest. Because if the tree had remained standing, the protected forest might have bound more greenhouse gases; the balance sheet can also do this in the long term turn out negative. It becomes very dreadful when Europe’s last primeval forests are plundered out of greed for wood in order to produce pellets, like it the New York Times recently documented.
The forests still store CO₂ every year. But it is questionable whether this will remain the case in the future. Climate-related damage is increasing, one should be happy about every tree that is alive in the forest. Wood remains a fantastic material for climate protection if used wisely. For example, for durable furniture or wooden houses that store CO₂ for decades. After a long cascade of use, you can also burn it. But please not immediately.