skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Europe’s green energy policy is a disaster for the environment
By Michael Le Page writing at New Scientist.
"The European Union’s proposals for revising its renewable energy
policies are greenwashing and don’t solve the serious flaws, say
environmental groups.
The EU gets 65 per cent of its renewable energy from biofuels –
mainly wood – but it is failing to ensure this bioenergy comes from
sustainable sources, and results in less emissions than burning fossil
fuels. Its policies in some cases are leading to deforestation,
biodiversity loss and putting more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than
burning coal.
“Burning forest biomass on an industrial scale for power and heating
has proved disastrous,” says Linde Zuidema, bioenergy campaigner for forest protection group Fern. “The evidence that its growing use will increase emissions and destroy forests in Europe and elsewhere is overwhelming.”
On 30 November the European Commission unveiled a draft “clean energy” package for the period up to 2030. On the surface, these proposals address some of the issues with existing renewable energy policies.
But environmental groups who have been analysing the proposals say that the changes will make little difference.
“It’s almost worse than doing nothing,” says Sini Erajaa, the bioenergy policy officer for BirdLife Europe & Central Asia, who describes the changes as greenwashing.
Burning biomass
For instance, one proposed change is to apply the EU’s sustainability
criteria to biomass used in heat and power plants whose output is 20
megawatts or more. “This means, for instance, that electricity and heat
from biomass have to produce at least 80 per cent fewer greenhouse gas
emissions compared to fossil fuels by 2021 and 85 per cent less by
2026,” states a memo on the revised renewable energy directive.
You might think this will ensure that burning biomass does not result
in higher greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuel use, but far from
it. That statement is misleading because it does not make clear that the
EU’s method for calculating emissions assumes burning biomass produces
no CO2 at all. “Emissions from the fuel in use shall be taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids,” states a 2009 directive.
The assumption is that these emissions don’t have to be counted because the growth of plants soaks up as much CO2 as is emitted when they are burned. But this assumption is not true on the timescales that matter for limiting climate change. Burning wood can result in higher emissions than burning coal.
This fact is not controversial. Buried deep in the EU’s own impact assessment
is an acknowledgement that burning forest biomass is not carbon
neutral, and that using some forms of forest biomass can increase
emissions.
“Biogenic emissions remain high (higher than emissions from fossil
fuels) beyond a policy-relevant timeframe for sawn wood, stumps, coarse
dead wood,” it states on page 106.
Carbon neutral?
But because the EU doesn’t count these emissions, it is claiming
carbon reductions for activities that are sometimes increasing emissions
– what New Scientist has recently revealed as “the great carbon scam”.
For instance, the EU is not just burning small bits of wood waste for
energy, which can indeed reduce emissions. Whole trees are being felled
for energy and often in an unsustainable way, say campaigners.
A recent report by Birdlife and other groups documents several examples of how EU subsidies are driving deforestation in Europe and beyond. Supposedly protected forests are being cut down in Slovakia and Italy, for instance.
Campaigners want the EU to abandon its drive to use ever more
bioenergy, particularly forest bioenergy. “We are not saying bioenergy
has no role to play,” says Erajaa. “But it will have to be smaller.”
When asked about these criticisms, a spokesperson for the European
Commission said it is committed to making sure the biomass used for
energy throughout the EU is sustainable.
The draft proposals now go before the European parliament for review,
so there is still a chance to amend them. But countries and industries
raking in profits from bioenergy subsidies are fighting to prevent
meaningful reform."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.