[ad_1]
On Thursday an open letter was sent to the President of the United States, Joe Biden, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, signed by more than 500 researchers. They are urged to “stop treating wood burning as carbon neutral” and stop large-scale subsidies for biofuels from forests. They believe the support contributes to increased demand for wood pellets, which in turn drives forest deforestation and biodiversity loss in the EU, the US, Canada and East Asia.
I: yes Renewable energy directive It will be revised this year to reflect the new EU climate targets. Today, wood burning is classified as carbon neutral. In their letter, the researchers note that burning, even when trees are replanted, increases greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere for decades, in some cases centuries.
In Sweden, biofuel producers are exempt from the carbon dioxide tax. Several Swedish names are among those who signed the letter. One of them is Stefan Wirsenius, associate professor of agricultural systems resource and environmental analysis at Chalmers University of Technology. To try to meet the 1.5 degree target and not risk reaching the inflection points, irrevocable thresholds, for the climate that the UN IPCC has warned about, there is no time to use biofuels from the forest. This takes up to a century to be counted as “climate neutral,” he says.
– It is crazy to give huge subsidies to something that in a few decades will exacerbate climate problems, he tells DN.
Stefan Wirsenius, associate professor of agricultural systems resource and environmental analysis at Chalmers University of Technology.
Photo: Johan Bodell / Chalmers
The EU’s climate target says that by 2030, the Union will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent, compared to 1990 emission levels. According to the UN climate panel, IPCC, it is much more. Urgent than that: if emissions continue at the 2018 rate, the carbon dioxide budget to meet the 1.5 degree target will end in less than seven years.
How the forest should be used for the climate is debated.
European Comission recently published a report on how forest bioenergy affects climate. According to him, most types of forest bioenergy run the risk of not being sustainable. The report is welcomed by the European Academies Scientific Advisory Council, EASAC, which produces independent scientific advice on the challenges for Europe.
“Renewable” energy, which increases carbon dioxide emissions for decades, does not help to achieve the objectives, on the contrary: “It even runs the risk of increasing the risk of dangerous climate change”, according to EASAC.
Michael Norton, Head of the EASAC Environmental Program, is one of those who signed the petition to the United States and the European Union. According to him, forests are being cut down in both Europe and the United States to supply pellets to power plants.
– It would not happen if there were not such large subsidies, of several billion euros, that destroy the market.
But advocates of bioenergy point out that the forest is growing again.
– The forest you have harvested will not return immediately, it takes time to replace it. And that’s a critical point: if you don’t have to worry about the weather, you can continue to cut down trees and wait for new ones to grow. But on the climate issue, the weather aspect is crucial, we must reduce emissions now and not in 50-60 years, he tells DN.
Christina Moberg, President of EASAC.
Photo: Markus Marcetic / Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
EASAC President Christina Moberg, Emeritus Professor of Organic Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, has also signed the call for research.
– Accounting rules and public subsidies have created an industry that further reduces our chances of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, he says.
Kjell Andersson, Svebio, head of business policy at the Swedish Bioenergy Association, believes the reasoning behind the researchers’ letters is reversed.
– It is clear that when biofuel is burned, it is carbon dioxide, he says.
– But we have planted a tree from time to time to harvest it. We do not have coal debts but coal assets that we will use. And because we take care of the forest, it grows better and absorbs more carbon dioxide.
Official bioenergy policy reviews underway in Denmark and the Netherlands, where rollback has been recommended.
