Still, the UN carbon-neutrality policy remains popular with governments, energy companies and investors across the European Union, in the United Kingdom and South Korea. “We disagree with the court’s finding on standing,” said Mary Booth, the director of the US-based Partnership for Policy Integrity, who spearheaded the case and an expert witness. hbspt.cta.load(5981609, '6e487f3c-9666-4c8e-b87d-3111d3ccada2', {}); {amount} donation plus {fee_amount} to help cover fees. forests have been growing faster and storing more carbon than they emit, even as we harvest timber. “Again, research shows the answer is no.”. Complicating federal conservation efforts — and prompting the letter to Congress — was a carefully written commentary in The Hill on April 26 under the headline “Wood energy as a climate change solution” by two prominent figures in environmental regulation: Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate Energy Solutions and EPA deputy administrator from 2009-2014, and Robert Bonnie, a senior advisor at Resources for the Future at Duke University, and US Department of Agriculture undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment from 2013-2017. “Do policies that promote burning more wood cause more growth and carbon storage in forests than leaving forests standing?” the authors asked. Because fossil fuels are currently used for harvesting, transporting, and processing woody biomass, there is a small net increase in atmospheric carbon. Both acknowledged that biomass is controversial, but ask: “Is it possible to have a forest biomass policy that is good for forests and helps combat climate change? “So our thinking is, we will deliver this letter to committee chairs, and we will follow up with Zoom meetings with any interested member of Congress. If you value this objective and impact-driven journalism, please consider becoming a sustaining member. Not everyone agrees with that optimistic view. There, burning wood pellets in former coal-fired power plants is a fast-growing energy source that enables countries to claim on-paper-only carbon emission reductions. DellaSala told Mongabay he understands that persuading U.S. lawmakers to side with native forests and conservation, over industries that create jobs while also promising climate solutions, is a heavy lift for politicians in both parties — especially in states with strong forestry lobbies. “Politicians have a tough time with issues where there are point-counterpoint arguments.… But we want Congress to know there is more to this story than what they are hearing from industry and certain scientists. We think so.”, Perciasepe and Bonnie write: “While it might seem counter-intuitive, timber harvesting is vital to conserving (privately owned forests) because it provides economic incentives for landowners to reforest and preserve existing forests in the face of creeping housing development.”, The pair notes that any biomass policy must account for carbon emissions from burning trees, but they argue that “U.S. Carbon is continually cycling through all living plants and animals. The scientists urged chairs of House and Senate environment-related committees to resist claims that logging and wood consumption “represent an effective carbon storage approach, or claims that biomass logging and incinerating trees for energy represents renewable, carbon-neutral energy.”, “The growing consensus of scientific findings is that to effectively mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, we must not only move beyond fossil fuel consumption, but must also substantially increase protection of our native forests in order to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and store more, not less, carbon in our forests,” says the two-page letter.”. Recent studies find that burning wood actually produces more emissions than coal. At least that’s the theory. Antarctic ice melt related to tropical weather shifts: Study, Crimefighting NGO tracks Brazil wildlife trade on WhatsApp and Facebook, The Amazon’s Yanomami utterly abandoned by Brazilian authorities: Report, Conserve freshwater or land biodiversity? Generally, biomass burning carbon neutrality stems from the notion that CO2 emissions from trees that are harvested, turned into wood pellets, and burned to produce electricity are offset, or canceled out, by the planting of new trees that will absorb those emissions from day one. The court ruled, as legal experts predicted, that only EU member states and institutions have standing to sue, not individuals or NGOs. Collection, Preprocessing & Transportation. The industry has long maintained it uses wood waste, not whole trees to make pellets. A long-standing UN policy, recognizing biomass burning as carbon neutral, has caused the U.S. forestry industry to gear up to produce wood pellets for power plants in Britain, the EU, South Korea and beyond. That suit was dismissed on May 11 by the European General Court in Luxembourg for lack of legal standing. The March 2019 lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs from six countries, including one in the United States. The European Union is already relying on burning wood as a "carbon neutral" energy source to meet Paris Accord emission goals.

is burning wood carbon neutral

Hackensack Mn Flea Market, Hummersknott Student Portal, Saying Hurtful Things To Someone You Love, 2014 Road King Problems, Double Rod Closet Ideas, Eureka Menu Concord, Ways To Improve Communication In Schools, Lisp Words To Say, Easy German Grammar Pdf, Manufactured Home On Permanent Foundation, Si Meaning Italian,