EU Running Out of Renewables Options
500+ Scientists Demand Stop to Tree Burning as Climate Solution
Forest destruction in US Southeast for biomass
According to the scientists, burning trees is "carbon-inefficient. Overall, for each kilowatt hour of heat or electricity produced, using wood initially is likely to add two to three times as much carbon to the air as using fossil fuels."
The Letter was addressed to US President Biden, President von der Leyen of the European Commision, Prime Minister Suga of Japan and stated specifically that:
“The European Union needs to stop treating the burning of biomass as carbon neutral in its renewable energy standards and in its emissions trading system. Japan needs to stop subsidizing power plants to burn wood. And the United States needs to avoid treating biomass as carbon neutral or low carbon as the new administration crafts climate rules and creates incentives to reduce global warming.”
A full copy of The Letter can be accessed from this link.
This condemnation of biomass as a source of renewable energy is creating different problems for the state leaders addressed. The US as a primary source of biomass for export has long faced criticism for clearing forests to feed the energy needs of foreign countries.
The influential US-based environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council issued a damning report against biomass in 2019 that named Germany and the United Kingdom as European countries “wasting $7 billion a year on subsidies for the burning of wood for power or heat, a notoriously dirty source of energy that the European Union has allowed to be counted as clean energy."
Both Germany and the UK are heavily dependent on coal energy but their transition away from coal to “renewables” has been met with alarm, especially the UK where climate thinktank Ember was quoted as saying:
“the heavily subsidised plans to cut carbon emissions would result in a ‘staggering’ amount of tree cutting, potentially destroying forests faster than they can regrow. Sandbag found that Europe’s planned biomass conversion projects would require 36m tonnes of wood pellets every year, equal to the entire current global wood pellet production. This would require forests covering 2,700 sq km to be cut down annually, the equivalent of half the Black Forest in Germany.”
The criticism of biomass as bad for climate change is a huge problem for Europe where biomass accounts for some 60% of its renewable energy source.
Environmental Problems With Wind and Solar
The heated focus on Europe’s use of biomass could lead towards heavier reliance on wind and solar energies which are actually proposed by critics of biomass. However, wind and solar energy, has its own set of environmental and social problems.
Nature Communications published a comprehensive study on the threats to biodiversity in its report:
“Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity
Mining potentially influences 50 million km2 of Earth’s land surface, with 8% coinciding with Protected Areas, 7% with Key Biodiversity Areas, and 16% with Remaining Wilderness. Most mining areas (82%) target materials needed for renewable energy production, and areas that overlap with Protected Areas and Remaining Wilderness contain a greater density of mines (our indicator of threat severity) compared to the overlapping mining areas that target other materials. Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.”
Other reports on the environmental cost of wind and solar energies abound.
The ”Dark Side of Green Energy and its threat to the environment” revisited another concern about wind and solar energies beyond the environmental impact of mining which is the disposal of hazardous wastes from these “renewable sources of energy.”
A report from Canada indicated that its solar sector is expected to produce 13,000 tonnes of e-waste by 2030. A sharp increase from the 700 metric tonnes of waste from decommissioned solar panels.
A separate report from Politico provides an insight into the problems associated with handling e-wastes in Europe.
Earlier reports from China had already flagged this problem as the world’s biggest producer and user of solar energy looks at the looming problem of ageing solar panels.
Compounding the problem with wind and solar energy is the lack of a fossil fuel free option to store the energy produced to provide a feed on demand which is vital to any sustainable source of energy. Billions of dollars are being spent in search of solutions.
Amnesty International has meanwhile repeated its call to clean up green energy in its statement this month.
“The organization has published a set of principles for ensuring that lithium-ion batteries, which power electric vehicles and many electronic devices, and which are essential for tackling climate change, are not linked to human rights abuses or environmental harm.”
Until these solutions are found, bioenergy will continue to be counted as a source of renewable. Unlike wind or solar that relies on finite sources of metals and minerals whose disposure at the end of life creates more environmental problems, bioenergy whether for biomass or biofuel can be managed to minimize its impact on the environment.
EU Impact on Forests for Renewable Energy
Europe maybe losing forest due to biomass at alarming rate, threatening its ability to fight climate change as the linked report says.
How the EU deals with protecting the last remaining forests among its member states remains the purview of the European Union. Its over reach in dictating how other countries deals with their forests was questioned by Professor Gernot Klepper of the ISCC-system who asked how anyone could imagine having an influence on palm oil producing countries when the use of biofuels in the EU accounts for a mere 4% of global palm oil production.
A new statement from COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC which represent EU grains and oilseed industries echoed Professor Klepper’s position.
“Stigmatising and discriminating a specific commodity or origin has not shown so far to be effective for reducing deforestation. Complex situations cannot be tackled with oversimplification, false or inaccurate allegations.
Considering the EU ambition to show leadership, this proves at least unhelpful, if not counterproductive. We have much to gain or much to lose depending on how we design an EU-level intervention.
If the EU objective is mostly to “clean up” or rather exclude from its supply chains possible embedded deforestation, the risk is high that it will fail to reduce actual deforestation rates and we will miss an opportunity to have a real impact.”
Better Late Than Never
The statement offered seven key suggestions in a ‘smart mix” of measures which requires most importantly, partnerships with producing countries.
The timing of this statement alongside the new campaign by Solidaridad to Reclaim Sustainability offers great potential for a global supply of sustainably produced goods.
These efforts towards a global supply of sustainably produced goods will create the landing lights needed for a pathway to renewable energy where all resources available should be armed to fight climate change.
Published February 2021. CSPO Watch
The Letter was addressed to US President Biden, President von der Leyen of the European Commision, Prime Minister Suga of Japan and stated specifically that:
“The European Union needs to stop treating the burning of biomass as carbon neutral in its renewable energy standards and in its emissions trading system. Japan needs to stop subsidizing power plants to burn wood. And the United States needs to avoid treating biomass as carbon neutral or low carbon as the new administration crafts climate rules and creates incentives to reduce global warming.”
A full copy of The Letter can be accessed from this link.
This condemnation of biomass as a source of renewable energy is creating different problems for the state leaders addressed. The US as a primary source of biomass for export has long faced criticism for clearing forests to feed the energy needs of foreign countries.
The influential US-based environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council issued a damning report against biomass in 2019 that named Germany and the United Kingdom as European countries “wasting $7 billion a year on subsidies for the burning of wood for power or heat, a notoriously dirty source of energy that the European Union has allowed to be counted as clean energy."
Both Germany and the UK are heavily dependent on coal energy but their transition away from coal to “renewables” has been met with alarm, especially the UK where climate thinktank Ember was quoted as saying:
“the heavily subsidised plans to cut carbon emissions would result in a ‘staggering’ amount of tree cutting, potentially destroying forests faster than they can regrow. Sandbag found that Europe’s planned biomass conversion projects would require 36m tonnes of wood pellets every year, equal to the entire current global wood pellet production. This would require forests covering 2,700 sq km to be cut down annually, the equivalent of half the Black Forest in Germany.”
The criticism of biomass as bad for climate change is a huge problem for Europe where biomass accounts for some 60% of its renewable energy source.
Environmental Problems With Wind and Solar
The heated focus on Europe’s use of biomass could lead towards heavier reliance on wind and solar energies which are actually proposed by critics of biomass. However, wind and solar energy, has its own set of environmental and social problems.
Nature Communications published a comprehensive study on the threats to biodiversity in its report:
“Renewable energy production will exacerbate mining threats to biodiversity
Mining potentially influences 50 million km2 of Earth’s land surface, with 8% coinciding with Protected Areas, 7% with Key Biodiversity Areas, and 16% with Remaining Wilderness. Most mining areas (82%) target materials needed for renewable energy production, and areas that overlap with Protected Areas and Remaining Wilderness contain a greater density of mines (our indicator of threat severity) compared to the overlapping mining areas that target other materials. Mining threats to biodiversity will increase as more mines target materials for renewable energy production and, without strategic planning, these new threats to biodiversity may surpass those averted by climate change mitigation.”
Other reports on the environmental cost of wind and solar energies abound.
The ”Dark Side of Green Energy and its threat to the environment” revisited another concern about wind and solar energies beyond the environmental impact of mining which is the disposal of hazardous wastes from these “renewable sources of energy.”
A report from Canada indicated that its solar sector is expected to produce 13,000 tonnes of e-waste by 2030. A sharp increase from the 700 metric tonnes of waste from decommissioned solar panels.
A separate report from Politico provides an insight into the problems associated with handling e-wastes in Europe.
Earlier reports from China had already flagged this problem as the world’s biggest producer and user of solar energy looks at the looming problem of ageing solar panels.
Compounding the problem with wind and solar energy is the lack of a fossil fuel free option to store the energy produced to provide a feed on demand which is vital to any sustainable source of energy. Billions of dollars are being spent in search of solutions.
Amnesty International has meanwhile repeated its call to clean up green energy in its statement this month.
“The organization has published a set of principles for ensuring that lithium-ion batteries, which power electric vehicles and many electronic devices, and which are essential for tackling climate change, are not linked to human rights abuses or environmental harm.”
Until these solutions are found, bioenergy will continue to be counted as a source of renewable. Unlike wind or solar that relies on finite sources of metals and minerals whose disposure at the end of life creates more environmental problems, bioenergy whether for biomass or biofuel can be managed to minimize its impact on the environment.
EU Impact on Forests for Renewable Energy
Europe maybe losing forest due to biomass at alarming rate, threatening its ability to fight climate change as the linked report says.
How the EU deals with protecting the last remaining forests among its member states remains the purview of the European Union. Its over reach in dictating how other countries deals with their forests was questioned by Professor Gernot Klepper of the ISCC-system who asked how anyone could imagine having an influence on palm oil producing countries when the use of biofuels in the EU accounts for a mere 4% of global palm oil production.
A new statement from COCERAL, FEDIOL and FEFAC which represent EU grains and oilseed industries echoed Professor Klepper’s position.
“Stigmatising and discriminating a specific commodity or origin has not shown so far to be effective for reducing deforestation. Complex situations cannot be tackled with oversimplification, false or inaccurate allegations.
Considering the EU ambition to show leadership, this proves at least unhelpful, if not counterproductive. We have much to gain or much to lose depending on how we design an EU-level intervention.
If the EU objective is mostly to “clean up” or rather exclude from its supply chains possible embedded deforestation, the risk is high that it will fail to reduce actual deforestation rates and we will miss an opportunity to have a real impact.”
Better Late Than Never
The statement offered seven key suggestions in a ‘smart mix” of measures which requires most importantly, partnerships with producing countries.
The timing of this statement alongside the new campaign by Solidaridad to Reclaim Sustainability offers great potential for a global supply of sustainably produced goods.
These efforts towards a global supply of sustainably produced goods will create the landing lights needed for a pathway to renewable energy where all resources available should be armed to fight climate change.
Published February 2021. CSPO Watch