More Guest Blogs
At COP27, countries including the European Union and the U.K. launched the Forests and Climate Leaders’ Partnership to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030.
However, a report released by Trinomics for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reveals that at the same time, these countries are giving more money than ever to bioenergy, which chops down our planet’s precious forests and burns them for electricity.
Indeed, while some countries in Europe, including the U.K., have classified bioenergy as “renewable” based on the idea that trees grow back—and are increasingly relying upon it to meet net zero goals—it’s actually one of the dirtiest energy forms around. It destroys wildlife-rich forests around the world (including the U.S., Canada, Romania, and Estonia); releases the carbon the trees have absorbed over their lifetime; and prevents the trees from sequestering carbon during the timeframe relevant to combat climate disaster, worsening climate change. In Europe, biomass harvesting has been identified as a key driver in the loss of the forest carbon sink. Bioenergy also harms vulnerable communities of color in the U.S. Southeast.
Here are three takeaways from the report:
1. Countries are doubling down on bioenergy, despite increasing evidence of its risks.
This report shows that many governments are doubling down on bioenergy and making it central to their plans to tackle climate change, despite its many risks to people and the planet. The 10 European countries analyzed spent over €6.3 billion on subsidies for bioenergy in 2021–more than any previous year and an almost 33% increase from 2015. The report found that the U.K. remains Europe’s top subsidizer of bioenergy, spending €2.1 billion in 2020, mainly on Drax Power Station–the U.K.’s No. 1 polluter. Germany followed close behind, spending €1.7 billion in 2020. And the Netherlands took the third spot, with €856 million in bioenergy subsidies–almost tripling its subsidies since 2015.
| Country | 2015 bioenergy subsidy (millions of euros) | 2021 bioenergy subsidy (millions of euros) |
| United Kingdom | 1,269 | 2,159 |
| Germany | 1,672 | 1,724 |
| Netherlands | 288 | 856 |
| France | 375 | 725 |
| Spain | 401 | 496 |
| Poland | 251 | 166 |
| Denmark | 55 | 108 |
| Austria | 270 | 104 |
| Finland | 69 | 15 |
| Sweden | 10 | 3 |
2. The public is footing an increasingly BIG bill for a fake renewable that’s harming our planet.
As European countries increase bioenergy subsidies—often in significant ways—billpayers will be footing increasingly large bills. That’s because these subsidies are paid for either by government money (i.e. from taxes) or by a surcharge on peoples’ energy bills. Either way, the public is footing the bill for an industry that claims to be green while it hacks down the world’s forests and then sets them on fire. And there’s no end to these costs in sight. Because bioenergy’s single biggest cost is the fuel it buys (i.e., wood pellets), subsidies won’t help make bioenergy financially independent in the long-term. Indeed, there’s little chance bioenergy will ever be cheap enough to survive without the lifeline of subsidies. This is much different than wind and solar, which are now so cheap in countries like the U.K. they are almost subsidy-free.
3. These subsidies could be spent on technologies that would reduce people’s energy bills and curb emissions.
This money would be far better spent on technologies that are consistently decreasing in price, help people cut their energy bills and actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the U.K. agrees to fund the installation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) at Drax Power Station, the subsidies to pay for it could add £3.8 billion to homeowners’ energy bills over 15 years. If this money was instead spent on home insulation, it could insulate more than 2.5 million homes in the U.K., ultimately making them more efficient and actually saving them money by reducing their energy bills. It would also cut the U.K.’s greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 million tons per year. And homeowners would begin to earn back their investment after four years at most given that houses with more insulation have lower energy bills.
Similarly, in the Netherlands, redirecting €856.5 million of existing biomass subsidies could insulate around 3.2 million houses, a quarter of all the country’s households (assuming a 30% subsidy, as currently in place via the ISDE). The energy saved through insulation could save households €132 per year and would cut the Netherlands’ total emissions by around 1 million tons.
The bottom line is that the commitments the EU, U.K. and other countries are making regarding increased forest protection at COP27 mean nothing if they continue relying upon bioenergy to meet net zero goals.
Forests are our best defense against climate change, absorbing one-third of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions every year. To continue to cut them down in a misguided attempt to reduce emissions, is insanity at its best. It is made worse by the fact that hardworking families are paying for it. And the realization that this money could instead be spent on technologies that would actually reduce energy bills and curb emissions makes the whole thing seem like a cruel joke.
As the world’s leading scientists have stated, it’s time for “transformative change”—not business as usual. European countries must stop giving in to industry, and instead spend their citizens’ money on efforts that will actually decrease climate change. The good news is we have technologies that will do just that at our fingertips. It’s time to use them.
Debbie Hammel is deputy director, Lands Division, in the Nature Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Elly Pepper is deputy director for Global Biodiversity Conservation in the NRDC’s Nature Program. This article originally appeared at the NRDC’s Expert Blog.
Weekly Newsletter
Get building science and energy efficiency advice, plus special offers, in your inbox.
45 Comments
Carbon is a problem, so let’s cut down our carbon-absorbing forests to fight the problem. SMRT. Anyone here watched Planet of the Humans? Follow the money…
I would be remiss if at mention of Planet of The Humans I didn't link to this page outlining its many factual inaccuracies. Not to say it doesn't make many valid points, but it begs for a critical viewing.
https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/films-for-actions-statement-on-planet-of-the-humans/#.XqS8nYXbsD4.twitter
No problem with critical viewing, but I don’t have to read most of those reviews to know what they’re about… greenwashed people terrified of a film that goes against the narrative.
Look. This war on carbon is a pointless exercise if looking after our planet is the goal, and the biomass scam is a perfect example. Not that there are not small examples of where biomass generation can be beneficial, but the vast majority of it including the massive subsidies are nothing more than a scheme for people to pocket tax dollars… all while burning our carbon-absorbing forests.
We need critical review of these ideas and the motives behind them, but sadly such information is censored as it is considered dangerous misinformation.
Who's censoring what?
Certainly much pushback is what you claim: people afraid to question the mainstream narrative. But many are not and are quite nuanced.
The film has numerous factual inaccuracies. Perhaps you agree with the message and that's great. I think many points it makes are good ones, but I also think it is intentionally flippant with the intent of getting noticed.
As far as biomass, I'm not exactly a supporter and tended to agree most with the film on that matter. Though like most things, there is nuance.
It seems you enter from the corner where climate change is a hoax perpetuated for those with money/power to gain more. I enter from the corner where by and large those with money and power ignore climate change and yes want to keep their money and power. IOW, we agree about the greed but differ on what is fake I suppose. I think it's simplistic thinking to think climate change was made up as some elaborate hoax to make money. Much more logical that those who don't give a crap and just want money and power are looking for ways to exploit it. A fundamental difference.
Im genuinely interested in what factual inaccuracies are stated in the film, but don’t have time to read through a dozen reviews and fact-checking them. Can you offer a few off the top of your head, or direct me to a non-biased summary? Science should be about the search for the truth, and I’m constantly looking for the TRUTH in anything I see.
What I did see in POTH was convincing evidence that personal gain was more important than the responsible management of biomass and its subsidies.
Richard Heinburg is one perspective worth checking out that doesn't entirely ignore nuance.
The questions of whether renewables are 'good' or 'can work' is not a simple one. To suggest as much (on either side) is harmful.
My biggest problem with that film is that it offers zero solutions or paths forward. At least besides the 'break it' solution where we decide its best to force society into collapse. (Not my first choice personally)
And it's fodder for anti environmentalists fighting against every single non fossil based source of energy, which again is harmful. Everything is a hoax these days though right. Cus reality is too complicated to process.
I believe reality lies somewhere between the radical conspiracy theories and what we’re being told. I don’t deny the earth is warming, but when the language changes on a yearly basis from global warming to climate change to climate EMERGENCY, come in now… let’s not fall for this nonsense.
When I was in school everyone was being terrified with stories about acid rain. That went nowhere, so they had to evolve the story to keep people in fear. It’s still happening, but what’s different now is the realization that populations can be easily controlled, manipulated, and kept in the dark. World leaders all over are afraid of Twitter releasing factual information. Why? If it’s the truth then what’s the problem?
This climate emergency is no different and is being driven forward by those who don’t want to loose their grants and funding by saying anything contrary to the story.
All I’m saying is we should all make decisions based on valid arguments from both sides of the discussion. Dig into the other side of the climate emergency while the information is still accessible. WHO and WEF have already publicly admitted they are working with Google to stop misinformation. That alone should terrify any rational minded person.
I’m in Canada where our government is trying to pass legislation to allow them to censor our internet, under the guise of “protecting Canadian content”. They’re not interested in protecting anything other than their own interests. The world is not any different.
Hello Debbie, thank you for your informative article. Your point about redirecting money to help homeowners better insulate and reduce their heating/cooling load is a great idea. From your research, what is the average cost to beef up the insulation of a typical home in the UK? Also the Netherlands?
Hi Mike, insulation it not a cost, it is an investment. Generally pays about 5% ROI anywhere. Each house is different, of course. There are maybe 5 basic kinds of houses. The important point with insulation is not to take the low hanging fruit and "improve" it, but to go all the way and upgrade the house to Passiv Haus standards.
Once you "go all the way", everything changes. You don't need a $6,000 conventional furnace, or $10,000 worth of ducting, etc etc. You can generate all the energy you need on your own roof.
Generally, for retrofits, it is easier to take the exterior cladding off, spray polyurethane foam in to the cavities, add 1" or 2" of styrene on top of the studs, a vapour barrier, and put the cladding back on.
I did a demonstration home, where $13,000 of foam produced $80,000 savings over 50 years. We were demonstrating "how is the best way to do a gut reno", not suggesting everyone gut reno their place.
Thicker insulation has diminishing returns, as in, the 1st inch of insulation is far more effective at reducing energy use than the 10th inch. Taking an assembly from R5 to R10 saves more energy than going from R10 to R20. By the time you start looking at R40+ you’re looking for retirees looking to build a forever home who have time to reap the benefits. Hardly anyone stays in a house for 50 years.
That’s not to say an efficient structure isn’t the way to go, it certainly is, just saying PH isn’t for everyone.
It would be great to see a counter article to this getting into the positive aspects of biomass. I'm not familiar with the condition of the forests in Europe but I do know in a good portion of the western US there is an over forestation problem. Biomass can be used effectively to help thin out overgrown forests and remove dead trees. We also have a major juniper invasion into the sagebrush steppe. Having ways to use that juniper as biomass is a way to help fund projects that need to be done. The bio diversity of these areas would seemingly benefit from more harvesting of trees. From a global warming standpoint, lessoning the impact of wildfires would also seam to be a win.
I think it's probably wishful thinking to try find a positive aspect to burning biomass. There is a problem with overgrown forests and dead trees, but the useful removal of that biomass shouldn't be linked to a process that contributes to global warming. When you burn biomass it directly contributes to Anthropogenic Global Warming. A much better question to pose is how can we remove that flammable material and then use industrial processes to make products that are useful and also sequesters those trees from contributing to CO2 emissions?
Understood, but that seems like you're letting the hope for a perfect solution get in the way of utilizing a practical solution that is available now.
I'm not so sure. Trying to use forest management as a reason for continuing a destructive practice seems penny wise and pound foolish. Here is a quote from TimberHP on the sustainable principles behind their wood scrap products used in their insulation products:
"This project qualifies under the Green Bond Principles (and tax exempt municipal solid waste and recycling bond) through introducing a product adapted to the circular economy manufactured from solid waste derived from FSC-certified residuals of the lumber industry. This waste stream that might otherwise rot in the forests or go into a landfill is recycled into insulation products. These insulation products have an indefinite lifespan if they remain in the walls, roofs and floors of a structure, therefore storing carbon (the product arrives on the jobsite carbon-negative) that would otherwise be released into the environment."
Is it farfetched to think that a product like theirs might go well with sustainable forest management? I don't think so. People need to stop their siloed and stove-piped way of thinking. Yes, it might be somewhat more expensive to have a processing plant nearer the western forests but it's doable. Government could play a role here also just like it recently did with its passage of the IRA. This might allow any cost differential to be eliminated and would eliminate the global warming aspect of what you are suggesting.
Why do people continue destructive actions when they are no longer required or desirable? Two reasons:
1.The sunk cost fallacy
2.Habit
3. Money
It's not simply money. I would change that to:
1. The sunk cost fallacy
2. Habit
3. Improperly evaluating the short-term cost vs the long-term savings.
1 and 3 are related.
Reply to #8
There are lots of people using the greenwashing of nearly everything to put your money in their pockets. Don’t get me wrong, we humans do need to clean up our act, but distracting us with such a focus on carbon emissions is taking precious attention away from bigger issues like physical waste (in my semi-educated opinion).
There are very big, very bad things taking place in the background right now from which we’re being distracted. And the people orchestrating are making out handsomely.
If you want a good look at biomass, check out Planet of the Humans. It’s an informative watch. The biomass stuff takes off in the back half of the film.
It boils down to sustainability. If we had a system in place to grow more forests than we burn, it would lead to a reduction in CO2. The burning of biomass is using stored sunlight, somewhat like fossil energy. Fossil energy is one and done where biomass can be managed in the near term.
Timber HP seems like a great idea and would be a valuable tool to use in the long term. I have no faith that this would come on board fast enough to address the current problem by itself. Our government doesn't work that way and there is too much power in the existing industries. The fiberglass industry, for one, isn't going to sit back and watch HP take over enough market share to make this work quickly.
To your point:
"Why do people continue destructive actions when they are no longer required or desirable?"
To me the destructive action is the lack of action we've taken in managing our forests and other ecosystems. Climate change is not the only problem, but from a carbon perspective we would be well served to limit the impact of our massive wild fires even if it means burning some biomass to generate electricity.
It's not about sunk costs or money it's about facing the reality of the situation and using practical solutions to solve it.
Does burning biomass have a bad side? Sure, but so does just about everything else we do including the good things.
Hi Scott, please don't call it "biofuel" "biomass". They are different scientifically. I live in Canada, and neither of our countries has an excess of biomass. Clearcutting has removed 70% of the biomass permanently from 93% of the productive Old Growth in BC. That's billions of tonnes of biomass not sequestering carbon or regulating moisture. The fires and floods clearcutting has caused can be seen here: https://rabble.ca/environment/is-canadian-forestry-sustainable/
You are correct, that there is no harm in removing biomass from a forest as long as you remove less than what grows annually, measured in watersheds, as the Menominee do, and Merv Wilkinson did at Wildwood.
Still, burning wood for electricity is bad, whatever the source.
If you have too much juniper, you need to consult ecosystems experts, but generally, you would plant and encourage the natural species to out compete the juniper. If you do remove the juniper, do anything but burn it. Chip it and use it as mulch or soil building.
The big problem with using anything but trees specifically grown for pellet production is that you need a very expensive pellet production plant nearby and a guaranteed flow of fairly uniform raw material. You probably can't get that by thinning overgrown forests.
Maine produces pellets from wood waste, but on a much smaller scale than what is needed to keep Drax supplied.
Making insulation from wood waste is a whole lot better than burning it or even letting it rot.
There was a move a while back to promote the making of fuel pellets from warm season grass residue. The native grasses burn very hot and as I understand it some greenhouses used the grass fuel pellets for supplemental heat. The machine to make the pellets was quite expensive and then you have the matter of gathering the residue and transporting it to the production facility. I believe some of the pioneers burned bundles of prairie cordgrass for heat in the winter. Would be a long day tending to the fire.
Reply to #10
The Dutch are force-closing 3000 farms (to start) in an effort to meet emissions targets set by the EU (WEF really). Anyone who thinks “green is good” without peeking behind the curtain is just blindly following a destructive narrative.
Here’s the news release:
https://youtu.be/Tq34MyenrmE
The fact you won’t see this covered in North American media should tell you all you need to know about the motive.
@user-723121,
Totally agree. I think perhaps an easier way to understand it is to express it slightly differently. Instead of saying burning biomass is using stored sunlight, which it is, keep one's eye on the CO2. (It sounds like you understand it, this is for other people's understanding.) Sunlight produces stored carbon in plants. Plants store carbon whether they are living or have died. They only give up that carbon in the form of CO2 when they are either burned (carbon combining with oxygen) or decay naturally in an oxygen rich atmosphere. Fossil fuels have been naturally sequestered by stopping the carbon in those organisms from combining with oxygen and becoming a gas: CO2. This was accomplished by natural geological processes happening ions ago.
Burning fossil fuels "unsequesters" that CO2. The same applies to forests. Burning forests unsequesters that CO2. Just like you said, burning woody products can be a carbon neutral process if forests are replaced at the rate they are being burned. But they aren't. Forests take time to grow. The European Union is engaging in magical thinking to assume that the forests they are burning are growing back at the rate they are being destroyed. They aren't and that increases the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, just like burning fossil fuels.
We live in a world of money, propaganda and green washing, when I search the following the first listing is an ad from the largest fossil fuel company. This is a detailed explanation of "terrestrial carbon sequestration".
https://netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/BPM_Terrestrial.pdf
If we are to even begin addressing the burning planet we have to look at all possible remedies. This would include energy conservation and certainly terrestrial carbon sequestration. Restoring forests and native plant communities will also help with soil erosion. I have read at the current pace of erosion we have 60 harvests left before our productive topsoil is lost.
Time to start acting on a personal level, what are your green credentials? I raise enough warm season grass seed each year to restore about 1,000 acres. This will ultimately store a lot of carbon (in thousands of tons) deep underground in the roots of the native grasses. This can turn a carbon negative site (in terms of carbon storage) into a carbon positive one in less than a year.
"Time to start acting on a personal level, what are your green credentials?"
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I wasn't challenging you, merely rephrasing it for others to better understand what you were saying. Are you really going to demand my credentials over that? People here know I take stewardship of the planet seriously and reflect that in my lifestyle. If people on the same side, which we are, can't even venture an opinion without having their credentials questioned then things are hopeless. That's exactly what I was talking about when I said siloing and stove-piped thinking are real problems, especially on social media. I was merely offering what I think is a good alternative to controlled burning of areas of forest that pose a fire hazard. Yes, producing fuel from that part of the forest is better than nothing. But producing sequestered CO2 in the form of insulation from that biomass is even better.
I guess that idea requires some form of credential. I wasn't questioning your credentials. Why do you question mine? Sorry if I'm getting defensive but the pettiness here can get to me after a while.
User...121,
"What are your green credentials?"
There are lots of sites dealing with all aspects of "green" lifestyles. GBA is about healthy and energy efficient building techniques, not somewhere that contributors need to justify their opinions based on lifestyle choices. Suggesting that advice here should be judged on the basis of who is purest is adds nothing to that discussion.
For the masses, I will rephrase it, are you a conservationist or do you just play one on GBA? Walk the walk.
User...121,
Until your post I wasn't aware it was a necessary prerequisite for contributing to discussions here to claim credentials as a conservationist. That comes as a surprise to me. I've been operating under the misapprehension that the site offered advice on construction.
@Malcolm, I know you're saying this out of simple fairness, but I still very much appreciate your response.
@ 72...
What makes you think I don't walk the walk? I really shouldn't have to answer this but yes, I do walk the walk. I installed 5kw of solar panels myself on my roof using Enphase microinverters. I did it using available resources on the internet and from information from Enphase itself. No help from anyone and I did all the physical labor. I know electrical and electronics from my former career installing and repairing Avionics for the airlines. (Remember PSA)
I also replaced a propane fireplace with a Mr. Cool 1.5 ton mini-split. Again, no help from anyone and I even installed the electrical service for it.
Finally, I installed 240 volt service for EV charging and also for an RV. The EV charging uses an Emporia level 2 charging unit. Again the entire installed was done with no outside help. I expect all my electric needs to be covered by my solar installation. I have an advantage in that I'm a low mileage driver since I'm retired and the used Chevy Bolt I purchased doesn't seem to be eating into the solar production too much. If I drive more in the coming years it probably will.
Many of the long-time readers know all about many of these projects I just mentioned. Maybe not the EV charger. That wasn't discussed by me. Would you deign it appropriate to explain your high-and-mighty-ness position that you could look so far down on me in spite of those accomplishments?
@ 72..
Here's what I said: "Would you deign it appropriate to explain your high-and-mighty-ness position that you could look so far down on me in spite of those accomplishments?"
What do you say? You literally forced me to explain myself. What's your explanation for you charging me with "being all talk" when there's a public record of my interactions here. Is it going to be crickets from you now? This isn't what GBA is about, and we should all have a reasonable expectation to not have our character smeared here.
Backtracking isn't easy. I've had to do that sometimes. User 72, I expect you to do that also.
Malcolm, agreed regarding building advice, which is why I’m curious as to why an article about green politics has been posted on GBA?
Lately I see a dramatic increase in sponsored “building advice” articles, and now this piece. Something sure feels different… affiliation with Fine Homebuilding or similar has altered the course perhaps?
lance_p,
I'm not keen on broadening the conversation on GBA beyond its core mandate of providing good advice on high performance building, because of the open-ended direction it can take, which dilutes the quality of the site.
I get enormously valuable information from the knowledgeable building scientists, designers and builders Kiley has gathered around GBA. That's why I come here, and and what I am grateful for.
Amen!
Hi Malcolm, I've trained with John Straube, and other fabulous green building science people. I also have a deep forestry background, and won awards for building the greenest house in Ontario in 2010, etc.
I'd encourage you to broaden your vision on what "green building" is. Green building requires using green ingredients. Wood is great, as it stores carbon and is renewable, but only if it is harvested properly.
Clearcut wood is a worse carbon bomb than concrete or steel. Follow the science here: https://rabble.ca/environment/is-canadian-forestry-sustainable/
Unfortunately, the lumber industry is destroying (degrading more than 70%) forests to get our lumber. Unfortunately, they mix the wood harvested, partially to lumber, pulp, MDF, and burning as biofuel. The same hectare might contribute to all four. The big resource extraction corporations try to greenwash their product by glossing over the damage clearcutting does.
This article is very on point for green builders, even if at first bio-fuels doesn't appear to be a problem to you. It is all related. Thanks for listening.
Ben,
I agree with you, and would certainly include information on sourcing appropriate materials in what I called "good advice on high performance building".
I'm also not disagreeing with the content of the blog. What I'm not sure is helpful here is broadening out the conversation to what are very useful topics, but peripheral to building. There are hundreds of sites dealing with green lifestyle or green policy decisions, dealing with issues that are complementary to the advice offered here. That's not what I come to GBA to read about, or I think what GBA does best.
That's just my preference. If others find the discussion useful, that's all to the good.
Yes I commented on this months ago, its become the norm now. The new norm, I called BS on it months ago, the cats out the bag, it's all about marketing now. Glad to see people are still having technical problems after several months.. User 134246567?
GBA has always shared policy-related topics that relate to green building. It's easy to skip over them if you don't like them. I think it's important to understand what's happening at that level; it's much too easy to keep our heads down, worrying above vapor drive, while the world burns.
I feel your comment, but think it would be more productive to source our political news elsewhere. It dilutes the content in my opinion.
Driving more debate/conversation is good for clicks though… more traffic more ad revenue.
“[Deleted]”
Eric,
I did not care for your wording, (It sounds like you understand it, this is for other people's understanding.) I took this as you questioning my understanding, if that is not the case then I misunderstood. Great on you for lowering your carbon footprint, thanks for posting the information. We all need to do our part and for those of us who are able we should help out those unable to carry out the task. Would a neighbor appreciate some quality advice or help on living more sustainably.
Don't apologize to Eric H, he usually gets hot and bothered and then preaches his solar prowess to the flock. He's quick to insult and can be nasty. Whether he walks the walk , talks the talk, is moot, whatever.. Green doesn't mean you get to be a Weiner. Maybe y'all should make out in your Prius while it charges on the tax payer dime.
@ user 72,
Thanks for resolving this. I definitely did not mean it the way you took it. No sarcasm or back handed compliments were intended. I'm really glad we could clear this up. I think I may back away from commenting on GBA. Science is my thing and I'm always interested in advancing it and the technology that supports it. That can rub people the wrong way apparently if it conflicts with their belief systems. I can do without the hate (referring to Capecodhaus here).
Eric
Capecodhaus only comments when he has something hateful to say, sad as that is.
Yeah, I guess his mother weaned him with a dill pickle.
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Sign up Log in