Alex Mason (WWF European Policy Office): EU policy is leading to vast quantities of whole trees being burnt in the name of renewable energy | https://twitter.com/1alexmason/status/1569873414617288706

https://twitter.com/1alexmason/status/1569873414617288706

Before the #EPlenary vote, some reflections from 6 years working on #EUBioenergy policies. TLDR: 1. They're accelerating climate change 2. We're wasting €billions 3. Don't believe a word the biofuel industry lobby says 4. MEPs must end support for burning trees and crops

 

The EU’s bioenergy policies are a serious threat to the climate. They’re encouraging things that increase emissions compared to fossil fuels, and so they're part of the problem not the solution.

 

The bioenergy criteria in the current EU Renewable Energy Directive are extraordinarily complex - and administratively burdensome for businesses - but are largely meaningless. 

 

The GHG criteria exclude most of the important factors, and while sustainable forest management and LULUCF accounting are crucial for other reasons, they’re not a solution to the biomass problem - see our 2017 briefing paper for details. https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/eu_bioenergy_policy___wwf_briefing_paper___final_4.pdf 

 

And the Commission’s proposed changes in the #FitFor55 package will make little difference. Because what really matters in climate terms is WHAT you’re burning - i.e. the ‘feedstock’ - not HOW it was produced. 

For example when it comes to woody biomass, there’s a huge difference in climate terms between burning tree trunks or stumps, and burning sawmill residues or post consumer waste. 

 

800 scientists - including multiple IPCC lead authors and winners of the Nobel Prize and US Medal of Science made this point in a letter to MEPs in 2018, but the then Climate Commissioner@MAC_europa told MEPs not to vote for the relevant amendment. https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/update_800_signatures_scientist_letter_on_eu_forest_biomass.pdf 

 

Since then the @EU_Commission's own scientists in the@EU_ScienceHub have made clear that burning ‘coarse woody debris’ will typically increase emissions for decades compared to fossil fuels - time we don’t have to stop runaway climate change. 

 

And that even burning ‘fine woody debris’ such as small branches will be comparable to fossil fuels in carbon terms for at least a decade or two - and by implication still a very high carbon energy source over a much longer period. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC122719  

 

Unfortunately, 'fine woody debris' is the least of our problems. EU policy is leading to vast quantities of whole trees being burnt in the name of 'renewable energy' - see the photos from a majority of Member States in this @ForestDefence report. https://forestdefenders.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/FDA-Future-on-Fire-April-5-2022_final.pdf 

 

Such logs may have no commercial value, as the biomass industry claims. They may be wonky, or a bit rotten. Or even *too big* for the sawmill. But they would store carbon for decades if left in the forest to rot, and burning them makes no sense in climate terms.

 

  

EU policies on #biofuels are just as crazy. Billions are spent encouraging farmers to grow biofuel crops, when simply doing nothing and letting land revert to natural vegetation would save more carbon. Again, see our 2017 briefing paper for details: https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/eu_bioenergy_policy___wwf_briefing_paper___final_4.pdf 

 

Or, for an authoritative and detailed treatment of this issue (the opportunity cost of using land for biofuels instead of carbon sequestration or food production, especially given current food security issues), see this and other work by

@TSearchinger

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/searchinger-james-dumas_europes-land-future_full_report-2022.pdf

 

  

Either way, ignore the 'truth' and 'facts' peddled by #biofuels industry lobbyists (see below for a classic example of the genre). Their claims vis-à-vis fossil fuels are based on the GHG criteria in the Renewable Energy Directive, which ignores carbon opportunity cost.

 

  

On the plus side, there is a 7% cap on the extent to which biofuels from food and feed crops can count towards targets - one of the few meaningful provisions on bioenergy in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. But the cap should be reduced to 0% as soon as possible. 

 

  

And it must be extended to #biogas. Using agricultural or food waste to produce #biomethane can deliver climate benefits. But there's a massive loophole in the EU Renewable Energy Directive because the cap on food and feed-based biofuels doesn't cover biogas.

 

 

To sum up: EU bioenergy policies have been a disaster for the climate. In the absence of any leadership from the Commission or Member States, MEPs in Strasbourg this week must step up - and put an end to the madness of burning trees and crops in the name of climate action.

 

 

  

https://twitter.com/1alexmason/status/1569873414617288706